Now It’s the Progressives’ Turn to Go Off on Simcha Fisher

So a couple of weeks ago, Simcha Fisher made the commonsense observation that if you deny or make excuses for the murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis (you know, “It never happened and besides they deserved it”, that sort of thing), then you have parted company with all decency and sanity.

Naturally, this elementary moral observation brought out every kook on the internet and they all appeared in poor Simcha’s comboxes to demonstrate the truth of every word she said, culminating in the edifying spectacle of a vicious kook telling a mother of nine that she was a “pro-abort kike”. Class with a capital KKK. Simcha was her usual sensible self and it all died down.

But the other day, Simcha managed to make another absolutely non-controversial-for-non-insane-people comment–namely that it is idiotic, crazy, and evil for the lunatic head of the Episcopal communion to characterize demon possession as a gift of God. Result: the Wrath of the Crazies in her comboxes.

This time, however, the lunatics were not from the uber-Trad “Hitler was more sinned against than sinning” crowd but instead from the uber-Progressive “You are a meanie for making fun of crazy Episcopalians like Katharine Jefforts-Schori” crowd. Interestingly, most of these people were not Episcopalian (that battle-weary demographic was feeling very supported and affirmed by Simcha). Nope. It was dissenting “progressive” ex-Catholics and their ilk.

There were a lot of highlights from the “You are Intolerant of Our Separated Demonic Brethren and Judgmental of These Spirits Merely Because They are Damned for All Eternity–and Beside Ms. Jefferts-Schori Looks Quite Fetching in Rainbow Colors” Brigade, but I think the winning post had to go to the woman who issued a plea for tolerance from mean Catholics and then added “in spite of the Catholic abhorrence of sex, they breed like cockroaches.”

I don’t care who you are. That right there is textbook irony. Progressives using the language of vermin to describe Catholics that Julius Streicher used to describe Jews! And in a plea for tolerance and an implied boast about one’s own progressive open-mindedness and love! Nothing like some good-old “You Catholics are filthy breeders” rhetoric from fatuously un-self-aware Progressives to remind you of the fact that when you run off to one political extreme you wind up meeting your enemies coming at you from the other direction. These guys have more in common with the Holocaust Deniers than they imagine. Catholic-hatred is the anti-semitism of the Left “Liberal”. Only there’s nothing liberal about it.

  • GinaRD

    This seems to be the state of most Internet discourse these days: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/05/22/not-mentioning-any-names/

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

    “Bishop” Shori’s comments were indefensible and represent a complete break from Christianity. If progressives are going to throw their lot in with her, then as St. Paul says, let them “be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

    • Dan F.

      We’d probably be able to have a good conversation with the heathen and the publican….

      • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

        True that.

  • Guest

    Muhahahahaha….they’re on to our secret plan.

  • Marco

    “Catholic-hatred is the anti-semitism of the Left “Liberal”. Only there’s nothing liberal |or socially unacceptable| about it.” There, Mark, I fixed it for you.

    • Marco

      Well, I wish Disqus would let me edit comments. Lest I be perceived as an anti-Catholic troll, what I meant to imply is that anti-Catholicism – even publicly-pronounced examples of it – are completely acceptable in our current social context, and the hard left (or whatever you want to call it) capitalizes on that opening at every opportunity.

  • http://blog.goliard.us/ Blog Goliard

    It’s not just the trolls, but a large proportion of people, who have lost all ability to engage in logical discourse…especially when questions of right and wrong come into the picture.

    As I’ve noted, much of the argument in those comments boiled down to: “What Simcha said was wrong, because it’s wrong to tell someone that what they said was wrong; and she should be ashamed of herself, because it’s wrong to shame people.”

    I’ve known few frustrations in life so profound and despair-inducing as trying, and failing, to get someone with a “Ph.D.” after his or her name to see the logical contradiction there.

    • Colin Gormley

      Sadly I’ve had this experience as well. I once tried in vain to explain to a Ph. D that denying the Law of Non-Contradiction undermines the physical science he loves so. The conversation was head spinning.

    • CatholicItalian

      Blog Goliard, The Head of Anglicanism (started by Anglo whites) is the Monarch of England, not the “archbp” of Canterbury. This goes back to the 1534 power-hungry, Catholic-executing & misogynist (divorced & beheaded his own wives) King Henry VIII of England. Queen Elizabeth II continues to be the official head of Anglicanism, thus making England a technical theocracy. Anglicanism’s founder, the King Henry VIII executed many Catholic Saints & Martyrs (St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, Martyr John Stone, & even lady Saints) first in England & eventually spreading to Catholic Ireland. English King Henry VIII is nowhere mentioned in the Bible unlike the true Holy Catholic Church (where Jews & Gentiles were made One in Christ) instituted by Jesus Christ Himself through St. Peter the Apostle (Bishop of Rome, marytred in upside down cross in Rome), formerly Simon, when Jesus explicitly told him: “Thou art Peter (“Rock”/Petros) & upon this Rock (Peter) I shall build my Church. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” And then gave St. Peter the Keys of Authority “so that whatever you bind or lose on Earth shall be bound or lose on Heaven.” St. Peter is the First among Equals (Apostles). St. Peter is always listed first among the lists of Apostles in the Bible for a reason. But nowhere is the Head of man-made Anglicanism (1534 Catholic-executing Henry VIII) mentioned in the Bible. Come home, my friend, to the True Holy Catholic Church. Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant REVOLT, also has another man-made religion that has divorced itself from the True Catholic Church. I’m a Catholic in both the Roman & Maronite Rites.

      • wlinden

        Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Queen is the head of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. She is also, legally, the head of the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian — NOT the Episcopal Church of Scotland, which is the Scottish Anglican province. The Anglican Communion has no “head”.

        • Martial_Artist

          wlinden,

          Thank you for the timely reply to Catholicitalian’s erroneous comment. I was about to correct him myself when I discovered that you had dealt with his error.

          To the extent that the Anglican Communion, to which I belonged for 39 years prior to my being led to the Catholic Church, has a “head,” it would likely be considered by most Anglicans to be, or at least include, the Anglican Consultative Council, which is one of their four “instruments of communion,” and is headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the Primate of the Church of England and, within Anglicanism, considered the primus inter pares.

          Pax et bonum,
          Keith Töpfer

      • http://blog.goliard.us/ Blog Goliard

        What on Earth does this have to do with my comment?

        Friend, I’m on the same side as you. I am not now, nor have I ever been, associated with the Anglican communion. I know all about how that outfit was founded (in fact, if you were to visit my home, you would be greeted by a large portrait of St. Thomas More hanging in the living room).

        And as someone on the same side, I say to you: please stop. Posting the same rambling, overlong, overwrought rant over and over and over again–whether it’s relevant or not, whether you’ve already posted it five times in the same thread or not, whether you’re replying to someone who already agrees with you or not–is not helping anything.

        Please reconsider your approach.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    If kooks are railing against you, just turn the other cheek and take it as a compliment. It’s when the kooks start agreeing with you that you need to worry.

    • Chesire11

      I agree.

      I’ll let you to read into that what you may ;?)

  • http://twitter.com/waywardson23 James

    Progressivism, as an ideology, isn’t about logic and reasoning, it’s about emotions. Simcha is demonized not because of her ideas, but because she hurt somebody’s feelings.

    Peel back this and you will usually find a lot of hurt and anger in their backgrounds. They are often deeply wounded. Many embrace emotion because they have had a history of being taught to repress their emotions or have had their emotions invalidated. As a result, their emotional growth is stunted, and they, quite literally, cannot have an adult conversation.

    Many of the most angry progressives have a history of psychological problems and self-destructive behavior due to this wounding.

    Sometimes this develops due to exposure to reactionary, authoritarian conservative ideals. Conservative does not necessarily mean orthodox. Fear-based reactionary conservatism often breads anger-based progressivism.

    • Chesire11

      Nonsense! There are very many progressives who are both intelligent and rational. Stereotyping either end of the political spectrum is simply a refusal to engage their ideas in respectful discourse, and is intellectually dishonest.

      • http://twitter.com/waywardson23 James

        There are no shortage of emotional conservatives either.

        The far end of both sides of the political spectrum are often more emotional than rational. The left tends to be driven by anger, the right by fear. (Although, to a certain degree, that’s a distinction without a difference.) These are the people hurling abuse in the comboxes.

        As an ideology, however, much of what passes for modern “Progressivism” is stale ideas that don’t work, but have a certain emotional “feel good” quality to them. Conservative ideas are more likely to be good in theory, but fail to account for the human element.

        Politically, I am way out in deep centerfield.

        • Chesire11

          Okay, I’m in general agreement with that. My disagreement is more of degree than of kind. I have often characterized the modern political divide as being between the the “do I haftas” (conservatives) and the “but I wannas” (liberals). The right doesn’t want to have to eat their vegetables and do things like pay taxes, or help the less fortunate among us, while the left wants to stay up past their bedtimes and just do whatever they feel like doing.

          • http://twitter.com/waywardson23 James

            That, I would agree with completely.

  • alishadefreitas

    I read Simcha’s post and laughed out loud. And not in a fake internet “LOL” kind of way, either. It was funny. And True. And oh, yes, I belong to an Episcopal church.

    The Bishop’s sermon IS bonkers. I just mentioned it on my blog again today. http://www.eastofeden.me/blog/80-religion-politics/366-pesky-piskie-problems

  • brian_in_brooklyn

    And she was way out of line about the disciples when she said, “Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” Bishop Jefferts-Schori said in her homily, because they say, “If she is not one of us, she cannot do good. If she is not of our party, she cannot do good.” …The disciples, Bishop Jefferts-Schori explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.”

    Intolerant, closed off disciples?! Jesus broadening the horizon beyond the disciples?! She’s crazy!

    Except that it wasn’t Bishop Jeffert-Schori who said this–this is a quote from a Vatican Radio report quoting Bishop Francis of Rome (attribution and sex of the outsider changed)

    But hey, her exegesis was unconventional, so …let’s burn her, she’s a witch!
    Text from page http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445
    of the Vatican Radio website

    • Timothy Jones

      Except, Brian, that the Pope and Ms. Jefferts-Hyphen-Schori were talking about completely different incidents; one in which the disciples prevented an outsider from doing good and were corrected by Christ, and one in which the Apostle Paul prevented a woman from being demon-possessed any longer, and was corrected by nobody… until Ms. Jefferts-Schori.

    • athelstane

      Uh, Brian? Have you read the homily? Did you notice which passages were being talked about?

      One of these two leaders was condemning St. Paul for exorcising a demon. The other one was not.

  • wlinden

    If Catholics “abhor sex”, how are they DOING all this breeding?

  • Jason Hall

    “I don’t care who you are. That right there is textbook irony.”

    But what if I’m someone who doesn’t read irony textbooks?

  • athelstane

    It’s unusual to see progressives showing up in any numbers on conservative or traditional blogs, so this surprises me.

    To the extent that they’re online at all, they rarely venture out of their echo chambers.

    The exchanges in Simcha’s combox just shows how far gone some progressive Catholics, “ex-” or otherwise, really are, when they can’t see what is so fundamentally un-Christian about what Katherine Jefferts Schori said.

    • Chesire11

      As a person whose political sensibilities are moderately center left, I can tell you that the reason progressives rarely show up in conservative comboxes is because the moment they start scoring points in discussions they are promptly banned. Conversely, at least at the progressive blogs i frequent, conservatives are allowed to post freely. as a result, they tend to blog-swarm and post profanity laden taunts and abuse, and generally disrupt whatever conversation is taking place. Don’t get me wrong, having spent years presenting a Catholic perspective to the political left, I am well aware of the incivility of progressives, but in my experience, it pales in comparison to the vitriol that I have witnessed from a very vocal segment of the conservative movement.

      • http://blog.goliard.us/ Blog Goliard

        “I am well aware of the incivility of progressives, but in my experience, it pales in comparison to the vitriol that I have witnessed from a very vocal segment of the conservative movement.”

        My first impulse would have been to say the very same thing…but with the positions of progressives and conservatives reversed.

        Upon further consideration, I think it’s likely that confirmation bias accounts for a good 90% of whatever difference either of us thinks we’re observing between the vociferous left and the vociferous right.

        • Chesire11

          I think you are probably right about that.

  • Pete the Greek

    Lately I have had to squint harder and harder to tell the difference between New Atheists and the so-called ‘progressive Catholics’ in comboxes. I think in years to come they will meld into one and found a new movement, perhaps called “First Church of TOTALLY NOT A CHURCH, unless you want to be, which is cool, but you’re still a Dim”

    Not sure how they’d fit all that on a sign, though.

  • fats

    simcha is awesome… who knew a mother of 9 could irritate so many people :>)

  • Martial_Artist

    A minor corrective, Mark. Katharine Jefferts Schori is NOT “the head of the Episcopal Communion” even in her dreams (no such-named organization exists). She is an (alleged) bishop without a see. Her title is Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (aka the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, or PECUSA), which organization is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, whose head is the Archbishop of Canterbury, (as in Canterbury, England). Her principal function is to preside over meetings of the PECUSA House of Bishops. Of course, you and I (or at least I) know that there are no Bishops in PECUSA (nor priests for that matter) as their orders have been deemed to be invalid by the Holy See. But as charitable conduct to others (even such apostates as PECUSA) we can still use her correct title.
    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

    • chezami

      I stand corrected.

  • CatholicItalian

    The Holy Catholic Church instituted by Christ Himself through St. Peter the Apostle (Bishop of Rome, martyred in upside down Cross in Rome, called “Rock” by Jesus, & given the Keys of Heaven by Jesus which is today the Papal Symbol) made Jews & Gentiles become One in Christ. Anglicanism was man-made by Catholic-executing white (“Anglo”) power-hungry divorcer King Henry VIII in 1534.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X