OneJerusalem.org Conference Call: Catholic League President William Donohue
Just got off the phone of the most recent OneJerusalem.org conference call, this time with Catholic League President William Donohue. The discussion, obviously, was about militant Islam's reaction to the Pope's remarks. Also in on the call were Pamela of Atlas Shrugs, Jerry Gordon of IsraPundit (who used the word kerfuffle not once but twice), and someone from St. Louis who we didn't catch and that you can be sure that Pamela did. Allen Roth, emcee, reminds us to remind you that as always audio will be up shortly. If you listen very closely you can hear us not at all understand how our new Treo headset works.
First reaction: why is this guy being hosted by OneJerusalem:
WILLIAM DONAHUE, PRESIDENT, CATHOLIC LEAGUE: I spoke to Mel a couple of weeks ago about this. And I don't think it really matters a whole lot to him. It certainly doesn't matter to me. We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the messiah. Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost. You have got secular Jews. You have got embittered ex-Catholics, including a lot of ex-Catholic priests who hate the Catholic Church, wacko Protestants in the same group, and these people are in the margins. Frankly, Michael Moore represents a cult movie. Mel Gibson represents the mainstream of America.
And we remember thinking: wow, this guy is going look really stupid if Mel Gibson ever gives definitive proof that he's an anti-Semite by doing something like driving drunk down PCH, sexually harassing a female officer, and then blaming all the world's wars on Jews (or at least we thought something along those lines - we can't remember the exact phrasing). Also we were a little confused about the Jews supporting abortions thing, because for the bread you need healthy babies. But we figured, hey, they're secular, so they probably just don't know any better.
So why is Dr. Donahue on with One Jerusalem?
We can think of a couple of reasons:
(1) Things are really bad out there right now. Like really bad. Two or three years ago it seemed like things could only get so bad - few were seriously entertaining that possibility that the jihadists might be able to make good on their threats to overrun the West. And now, five years out of 9/11, it looks like it might actually happen. Iran called on Muslims to "protest" against the Pope (and we know what "protest" means) and nobody really seems to care. Major swaths of the Western press are writing the dumbest things imaginable by man or beast. Even if the worst characterizations about this guy was true, he'd still be valuable to talk to. Civilized people are simply going to have to get used to having to run shoulders with allies that they don't totally agree with. Chris Hitchens, line 1.
(2) He doesn't seem like all that bad a guy. Maybe a little too careless in tone and passion when talking about homosexuals, but - and here's what the advocates of moral equivalence just can't get around - he still says stuff like 'abortion bombers are criminals who should be jailed' and 'homosexuals shouldn't be persecuted'. And we don't care if he means it or not (although we think he does, bracketing that we have a significantly lower threshold for what counts as 'persecution' than he does) - the point that we can't lose sight of, the point that is absolutely crucial, is that we live in a society and that he is an active member of a polity where you have to at least pretend to believe those things to get through the door of public discourse. That's what matters and what has to be fought over - that there are public spaces in a good civil society where there are unspoken norms about what you can and can't say that decent people enforce and obey. More speech is an excellent solution in theory, but in lived reality societies are governed not just by laws but by norms. Grant everything evil you've ever heard about William Donahue, and it's still the case that in his democracy you have to publically oppose bigotry. In Ahmadinejad's democracy, you get to say Jews and Christians are pigs and apes.
Donahue said repeatedly that what he's fighting for are "Western values" and "tolerance". Done and done.
Also, he seems quite smart, which means that all things being equal he gets a pass. The sense that he has for approaching other religions according to the 'wiggle room' they give to interpretation is much more sophisticated than it sounds and is a very pat way of putting a difficult concept. His immediate instinct to examine the problems of theological systems by whether they try to create a utopia on Earth shows a solid grasp of what was really at stake in the Pope's speech. He is distrustful of interreligious dialogue for the right reasons, and he frames the problem as "dialogue has to be a means to an end" rather than an end in itself. In a way this is question begging - the problem isn't that multiculturalists think it's an end, it's that their assumptions about how it is a means to peace are incoherent. But the "means / end" thing does end up conveying exactly the impression about what's wrong (it becomes a de facto end).
This call actually ended up being a reason for optimism. He puts his trust in this Pope's intelligence, awareness of history, and commitment to protecting Christianity against Islam - three things that are certainly all reasons for confidence. This is becoming a litmus test for someone serious - does he get it? He insists - insists vehemently - that this Pope does get it, that he will not apologize, and that he will not crumble in the face of jihadist threats. And that, at least, is something to take comfort in.
As always, our sincere thanks to David, Allen, and One Jerusalem for a fantastic opportunity.
First reaction: why is this guy being hosted by OneJerusalem:
WILLIAM DONAHUE, PRESIDENT, CATHOLIC LEAGUE: I spoke to Mel a couple of weeks ago about this. And I don't think it really matters a whole lot to him. It certainly doesn't matter to me. We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the messiah. Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost. You have got secular Jews. You have got embittered ex-Catholics, including a lot of ex-Catholic priests who hate the Catholic Church, wacko Protestants in the same group, and these people are in the margins. Frankly, Michael Moore represents a cult movie. Mel Gibson represents the mainstream of America.
And we remember thinking: wow, this guy is going look really stupid if Mel Gibson ever gives definitive proof that he's an anti-Semite by doing something like driving drunk down PCH, sexually harassing a female officer, and then blaming all the world's wars on Jews (or at least we thought something along those lines - we can't remember the exact phrasing). Also we were a little confused about the Jews supporting abortions thing, because for the bread you need healthy babies. But we figured, hey, they're secular, so they probably just don't know any better.
So why is Dr. Donahue on with One Jerusalem?
We can think of a couple of reasons:
(1) Things are really bad out there right now. Like really bad. Two or three years ago it seemed like things could only get so bad - few were seriously entertaining that possibility that the jihadists might be able to make good on their threats to overrun the West. And now, five years out of 9/11, it looks like it might actually happen. Iran called on Muslims to "protest" against the Pope (and we know what "protest" means) and nobody really seems to care. Major swaths of the Western press are writing the dumbest things imaginable by man or beast. Even if the worst characterizations about this guy was true, he'd still be valuable to talk to. Civilized people are simply going to have to get used to having to run shoulders with allies that they don't totally agree with. Chris Hitchens, line 1.
(2) He doesn't seem like all that bad a guy. Maybe a little too careless in tone and passion when talking about homosexuals, but - and here's what the advocates of moral equivalence just can't get around - he still says stuff like 'abortion bombers are criminals who should be jailed' and 'homosexuals shouldn't be persecuted'. And we don't care if he means it or not (although we think he does, bracketing that we have a significantly lower threshold for what counts as 'persecution' than he does) - the point that we can't lose sight of, the point that is absolutely crucial, is that we live in a society and that he is an active member of a polity where you have to at least pretend to believe those things to get through the door of public discourse. That's what matters and what has to be fought over - that there are public spaces in a good civil society where there are unspoken norms about what you can and can't say that decent people enforce and obey. More speech is an excellent solution in theory, but in lived reality societies are governed not just by laws but by norms. Grant everything evil you've ever heard about William Donahue, and it's still the case that in his democracy you have to publically oppose bigotry. In Ahmadinejad's democracy, you get to say Jews and Christians are pigs and apes.
Donahue said repeatedly that what he's fighting for are "Western values" and "tolerance". Done and done.
Also, he seems quite smart, which means that all things being equal he gets a pass. The sense that he has for approaching other religions according to the 'wiggle room' they give to interpretation is much more sophisticated than it sounds and is a very pat way of putting a difficult concept. His immediate instinct to examine the problems of theological systems by whether they try to create a utopia on Earth shows a solid grasp of what was really at stake in the Pope's speech. He is distrustful of interreligious dialogue for the right reasons, and he frames the problem as "dialogue has to be a means to an end" rather than an end in itself. In a way this is question begging - the problem isn't that multiculturalists think it's an end, it's that their assumptions about how it is a means to peace are incoherent. But the "means / end" thing does end up conveying exactly the impression about what's wrong (it becomes a de facto end).
This call actually ended up being a reason for optimism. He puts his trust in this Pope's intelligence, awareness of history, and commitment to protecting Christianity against Islam - three things that are certainly all reasons for confidence. This is becoming a litmus test for someone serious - does he get it? He insists - insists vehemently - that this Pope does get it, that he will not apologize, and that he will not crumble in the face of jihadist threats. And that, at least, is something to take comfort in.
As always, our sincere thanks to David, Allen, and One Jerusalem for a fantastic opportunity.
