Lizzie Scalia writes:

Cleverest remark I’ve yet heard about yesterday’s DNC fiasco about God and Jerusalem, followed by Clinton: “So, after they denied God three times, the cock crowed; what next?”

I’ve been blissfully unconnected from both conventions, since I dislike phony “democratic” dog and pony shows with all the unscripted spontaneity of a Nuremburg Rally. But I am amused at how the Dems had to struggle to keep the mask of Ordinary American Piety on yesterday. Also, as I foretold, the usual Progressive Dissenters were trotted out to pledge fealty to the Regime and encourage the growth of a Patriotic Church in opposition to the real Church. Listening to hyper-politicized Lefties attempting to fake God Talk (and particularly Catholic God Talk) without allowing their tongues and lips to curl into a sneer of “I just licked a nine volt battery” distaste leaves me with the same sense of awkward embarrassment as when Mitt Romney attempts to connect with the homies by singing “Who Let the Dogs Out”. You want to shout, “Just say plainly that you don’t believe this religion crap and you’d be happy if you never had to see, hear, or think about believing Christians and, especially, believing Catholics ever again. Get up there and shout, ‘I’m *glad* Obama is smashing Catholic conscience and if he gets re-elected I hope he destroys the whole medieval institution.’ You know you want to. You know you hate having to pretend for the cameras that you respect religious believers when you think they poison everything. You know you’d love to have an open mike so that all those booing delegates who live deep inside the Dem cultural bubble of irreligion can unburden themselves of their intense loathing of the piety of most of their fellow citizen. So just have your catharsis and say it. Watching you guys grin and bear it and go through this transparent fakery is just painful.

On the bright side, it was nice to see that the Indians didn’t get entirely railroaded by the Swedes and that ordinary American piety still affects the Swedes political calculations, however transparently insincere those calculations are. But none of that deters from the main point: that if re-elected, Obama means to double down on his war on the Church. No Catholic in their right mind should vote for him.

"The closest thing to Mother A on television today is Sister Vassa, the Russian Orthodox ..."

Fire Raymond Arroyo
"...all saying and recommending the same thing.Or similar things, in any case, whether the FCMP ..."

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper
"From Alexia Fernández Campbell's article:Immigrant advocacy groups have urged Congress to shift more DHS funding ..."

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper
"Can't read Kathleen Parker's article because it's behind a paywall. So I can't assess the ..."

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dean

    Seems the Catholics in their left-mind won’t have a problem with voting for him though.

  • kenneth

    Coming as I do from the opposite direction, I also found it to be a disgusting and unctuous spectacle. The Democratic party is, at its core these days, a secularist party. Love it or hate it, it presents a clear choice and the party was willing to finally make its stand upon its core beliefs. Except they blinked at the last minute and showed they had no courage of conviction. There is nothing more pathetic than false forced piety. It’s like atheists who go to church each week or get their kids baptized to keep grandma happy or for fear of what the neighbors might think. This is a key reason I have little respect for the Democrats. They don’t have enough stones between them to build a 7-year old boy.

    • Eeeevery once in a while I agree 100% with kenneth.

  • Diane Slater

    Your dripping sarcasm has me laughing! The truth is, Mark, we are by and large a pagan society….church goers and non-believers alike. The true Christians are so busy feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, visiting the prisoner, etc. that they do not even pay lip service to the dog and pony show going on in politics today. Lies and pandering and deceit abound. God help us…..for only He can, at this point, or any point in the history of human civilization.

    • sean

      I do not think there is a war on the church at all.
      I think the war is the Christian psychotics trying to hijack everything.
      Obama doesnt want a war on the church.
      He wants people to have free will, free choices, free minds, just like God gave us.
      What business is it of anyones what happens between a patient and her doctor?
      It is between the woman, her doctor and God, period.
      What right do I have to tell someone down the street what to do with her body? and especially as a man, what do I know of her body?
      All of you people that read this, tell me that you have never had sex for pleasure, only to conceive, never had premarital sex, not once in your life, never got drunk as a kid and had sex, never messed up, just sex for re-creation only, and I will shut up.
      Thats not going to happen. Not unless you’re a liar.
      Diane above has it right,
      “The true Christians are so busy feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, visiting the prisoner, etc. that they do not even pay lip service to the dog and pony show going on in politics today”
      So quit shoving your beliefs on people, you will get a much better response if you share.
      Right now, the spokes people for the Christian Right, are making idiotic statements, wild accusations, and just plain stupid remarks. You real Christians need to reel in these idiots so you can rebuild the system and allow more people in, instead of alienating them.
      I was raised a Catholic, I have been to church most of my life, and I am about to be out of religion altogether if this impossible trend keeps up. And so are millions of people.
      I think that instead of pastors opinions in the pulpit, there should be teachings of God. And while I am on my HighHorse, maybe some community outreach instead of these huge megachurches would be a grand starting point.
      Can you imagine the impact on a community, if these giant churches, instead of building monuments to themselves, took that money into the community and helped people having trouble with their mortgages, people with major medical debt, people that need a hand for a minute on their journey through life?
      What a brilliant world this would be!!

      • Bill

        You know who railed against the use of expensive product in religious ceremony?

        Judas Iscariot.

        I am sure you probably don’t know that though.

        • What business is it of anyones what happens between a patient and her doctor?
          It is between the woman, her doctor and God, period.

          Exactly what we’re saying, sean. It’s between a woman and her doctor — so why bring in the government, taxpayers and her employer? Why force religious employers to pay for her “private choice”?

          • sean

            I remember an article I read a few months back, I will try and find it.
            It stated that a Catholic school was suing the Gov’t for forcing them to pay for contraceptives in the insurance.
            Then they found out it was always in the contract for the last 10 years.
            They are not forcing employers to pay for anything, they are forcing insurance companies to include it in the coverage.
            Figure these things out Lori, turn off the Fox and read something!

            • Jared

              And the insurance company offers this out of the kindness of their hearts?

            • Ted Seeber

              Splitting hairs. Sin by direct formal cooperation or remote formal cooperation is still cooperation with evil.

          • sean

            and I cant believe thats all you got out of that.
            Sad, very sad

            • I don’t watch Fox, sean, I don’t even own a TV. I am not a Republican, I’m a registered Democrat. I read a lot, much more than you, evidently, because you know very few of the facts in this matter.

              That whole “insurance companies are going to pay for it” idea was considered by the administration and dropped. It is still all on the employers. Many religious employers act themselves as insurers for their employees, so yes, they themselves will be paying for the contraceptives and abortifacients.

              Oh, and President Obama himself thinks all religious people lose their right t religious liberty when they decide to engage in business, and he doesn’t even care about the 250 employees of this company hat would lose their jobs because of this mandate:


              Now can you knock the silliness and answer my question?

              Why should we suffer all this so someone else can make their “private” decision?

              • BTW, being a registered Democrat doesn’t mean I vote Democrat. It’s just the minimum way I can support what the party used to be without being responsible for causing any of the harm the party does at present.

                • Tim

                  Good to see you recognize what the party used to be. The party of JFK ended in ’76 when they aligned with the abortionist to get Carter elected. And their objective is to keep people in poverty (lower middle class at best), not raise them out. That carrot of “helping the poor” is what keeps the votes coming and keeps them in power (when I was 18 and registering to vote for the first time, I asked myself which party profits from me remaining lower middle class. I answered the question and registered as a Republican)

                  • Tim, I cam of voting age in 1976. I’m from a family of staunch Democrats and looked forward to voting the same way. It was Carter’s support for abortion that made me realize I couldn’t do so and I haven’t done so since. Very depressing.

        • sean

          That has nothing to do with anything I just wrote, nothing.
          I suggest you re-read my post and try again
          Thank you

      • LaVallette

        “I was raised a Catholic, I have been to church most of my life, and I am about to be out of religion altogether if this impossible trend keeps up. And so are millions of people.”

        Do not believe a word of it. With your attitude you have no idea what Catholicism stands for. The startagem of I was “born, raised, educated, confirmed as a Catholic ” or I was an altarboy, member of the chior in our church” or worst still , the ” Ii am a devout practising Catholic”, all followed by the specific or implied big “BUT” and a denial of or attack on fundamental Catholic Doctrine is an intellectualy disgraceful and bakrupt stratagem used by TROLLS in every serious Catholic Blog or magazine/newspaper commentary and the poltical sphere in a bid to claim credence and standing for the stupid point being made. Some of the best practioners are senior demoncrats like Pelosi, Biden and “Uncle” Ted Kennedy.

        The level of this contributer’s line of thinking is that he has no idea that t in espousing his cause he is insisting that others compromise their conscience, their rights and their pockets..

      • john

        What right do you have to tell me how to practice my religion?

        • LaVallette

          How lacking in comprehension are you? If course you can practisce YOUR (“MY”) religion however you like, but it is not the CATHOLIC religion!!!

          john you are already known as the progressive episcopalian “troll” on Christopher Johnson’s blog “Midwest Conservative Journal” defending the extreme positions of the revisionists in the Episcopalian Church. You will not however be allowed to pollute this blog by pretending to be the champion of the so called “Catholic” progressives. Mark is not as tolerant as Chris (God bless him) when it comes to dealing with trolls abusing his site. You EVEN forgot that you made your initial contribution here under the handle of “sean”. In other words you have been SPRUNG!!

      • Jared

        In order,

        1. Insulting the other side of an issue, especially when it includes almost every other commenter here, is poor form.
        2. No, I don’t think Obama wants a war with the Church. The Bishops fighting back is bad publicity.
        3. Obama is not God. He cannot grant anyone a Free Will; however, he can force someone to either lose their job or compromise their beliefs so that everyone has access to contraception, which is, I assume, incredibly rare right now if he feels this is necessary.
        4. Assuming you’re talking about abortion here, the logic is grounded in emotion, which always leads to flawed thinking. If you take a moment to consider basic highschool biology, you may recall Punnett Squares. These are used to determine the probability of different alleles after gametes come together to form a new organism. I guess you could claim there’s a difference between a human organism and a human person, but people who do that tend to go down as history’s villains.
        5. Drop the sexism. Just because a murder takes place within a woman does not mean men cannot try to stop this murder.
        6. Shut up 😉
        7. The Catholic Church is the world’s biggest charity. There’s always room to grow, though, if you’d like to help out 🙂
        8. We are on a God-given mission to bring the faith to everyone. We do them no favors by keeping the Truth to ourselves.
        9. The problem of Catholics thinking the Republican party is the Catholic party and not simply less bad? That will go away with the time. If your complaint is that the Church continues to be the Church, that will go on through eternity, bud.
        10. Teachings of God like “life is sacred”, “marriage is a union between a man and woman that only death separates”, “preach the Gospel to all nations”, or “be fruitful and multiply”? 😛

        Yes, the world would be better off if people took better care of the poor, but we already do that. A lot. And physically caring for the poor, while very important, is not our primary mission. If we give someone a more comfortable life and watch as they live in a way that risks damnation, what good have we really done?

      • Ted Seeber

        Where is the free choice in the demand that soup ktichens, hospitals, homeless shelters, newspapers, immigrant and sex trafficing ministries, and mutual aid societies aren’t catholic enough to be considered Catholic?

      • Alma Peregrina

        I have never had sex for pleasure.
        I have never had premarital sex, not once in my life.
        I never got drunk as a kid.

        Now keep your promise and shut up.

      • ChrisKaba

        “What business is it of anyones what happens between a patient and her doctor?”

        So how dare anyone object to being forced to PAY for what a patient and her doctor feel like doing, right?

        “What right do I have to tell someone down the street what to do with her body? and especially as a man, what do I know of her body?”

        Well, I admit, as a man, I’m far too retarded to be able to learn the basics of human biology, so what right do I have to tell someone down the street what they can do to the bodies of their offspring?

  • B.E. Ward

    “No Catholic in their right mind should vote for him.”

    Ah HA! You *do* support him!!

  • Richard M

    “The Democratic party is, at its core these days, a secularist party. ”

    It’s taken them forty years to get there – it began in earnest in 1972 – but that is indeed where they are now. It becomes easier to understand how liberal Catholics who worked hard and sincerely to give Obama cover over the years were effortlessly tossed overboard when push came to shove over the final HHS mandate decision.

    The Republicans are not always our friends. Sometimes they are hardly even allies of convenience. But the core of the Democratic Party now seems to determined to be our enemies.

  • @ Richard M,

    You write:

    the core of the Democratic Party now seems to determined to be our enemies.

    Not being a member of that party, I am unsure about the core. The leadership (the DNC, to be specific), however, appears to have signaled that they wish to be separated from faithful Christians by a “great gulf” (if you’ll pardon the scriptural allusion). The developing story can be found at this article. (Fr. Z’s WDTPRS post on the topic alerted me to it.)

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  • Mark R

    Obama is bad and all that, but I fear once that “demon” is shown the door seven worse will take his place. New administrations have a tendency to approve tacitly the policies of the prior admin.

    • I too fear this which is why I try to work out how to exercise popular oversight so that what we both fear does not happen. This is a technical challenge, but a vital one for our time.

    • Ted Seeber

      My experience over the past 40 years I’ve been alive shows this to be a sure bet. I can’t name a single president who, in hindsight, wasn’t considered worse than the one who came before by somebody.

  • unironic

    So either Jerusalem is the capital or there is no God?

    • Ted Seeber

      Yeah, I mean, I know the whole “Tel Aviv is the capital of secular Israel, Jerusalem is the capital of religious Israel”, but personally, I think a far better solution would be to treat Jerusalem the same way we treat the Vatican- as a separate, if surrounded, nation.

  • David Agnew

    Nice bit of rhetoric, but no logical substance to it. Democrats didn’t boo God. They didn’t deny God. They denied A+B. If B is false, then A+B is false. Saying A+B is false doesn’t mean A is false. (So A+B+C requires all three to be true)

    A is God
    B is Jerusalem
    Many, it is clear, denied B. They were not denying A (since Muslims believe A, and many who were upset clearly were upset about B). So many were denying B. That doesn’t mean they denied God.

    Then, at the end, when it sounds like it didn’t get 2/3, C (that it passed) seemed to be false. The boos were for the claim C is true when it is false.

    I mean, if someone put in an amendment: “We believe in God, and we think every gay should be killed on sight,” if people deny that amendment, does it mean they are denying God? NO.

    • Pitchfork

      Thanks, I was about to leave a similar comment. This was about kowtowing to AIPAC, not denying God.

      It’s posts like these that remind me how cancerous is the right-wing noise machine — it even infects (as here) the writings of orthodox, peace-loving Christians when they don’t get the full story.

      Repeat, the fiasco at the DNC was about Jerusalem, not God.

      • Mark Shea

        It was about both.

        • Pitchfork

          All those Michigan Muslims shouting “Nay” were also denying God’s existence or whatever? Sorry, just admit that you kinda got only half the story on this one. Saying “it was both” is pretty disingenuous in this context.

          • Mark Shea

            No. Those Michigan Muslims, like Massachusetts prolifers cheering for Scott Brown, Champion of Roe v. Wade, were getting played–by people who, in addition to being hostile to AIPAC (a perfect defensible position) are also deeply hostile to God and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Look, dude. They could have just addressed the matter of Jerusalem. They didn’t. Why? It’s about both issues for a goodly chunk of the Dem demographic. http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/544529_201262039984059_552048721_n.jpg

            • Ok, we’re really just talking past each other here. Do some dems dislike the idea of God? Of course. But you’re making the point that the people shouting “Nay” — in this particular caught-on-camera moment — were motivated primarily by hatred of God rather than opposition to the Israel lobby’s lip service to moving the capital. Doesn’t matter, I don’t really have a dog in this fight other than the fact that htere is evidence that indicating that this broohaahaa was about Israel, not recognition of God.

              Anyhow, I love your blog, didn’t mean to rile you up, etc. I just don’t like being told “No, it’s both,” without being offered any kind of evidence. Just keep doing what you do. We’re good as far as I’m concerned.