Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you.
Get updates from Vox Nova delivered straight to your inbox
Ouch! A bit harsh on the Bushies.
The prominence of The Onion newsbox makes me wonder is this is a parody, but I had enough experience with anti-Catholic evangelicals at college to know its for real.
Glad you included the “Humor” tag…I thought you were serious for a moment!
I am willing to bet they do vote Republican, and many like them do too. Of course we know how some people would use it (in serious, not humorous) discourse, for both sides.
On the other hand — I recognize the guy on the far right — he was at CUA a couple days ago. I gave a parody of their arguments back at them (someone filmed it too, so I am expected to be the crazy Catholic somewhere). They thought I was crazy and silly — among other things — although I was just taking time to act like they do (ok, I was bored and had to wait for dinner with a friend).I don’t think they got it. Although a few of them did shut up by the time it was done, when I gave them what they do back at them.
See these democrats protesting the Catholic Church’s policies here:
Humor needs a basis in reality, and this is about 30 years too late to be relevant. It would make a lot more sense to parody a portion of the activist Democratic base, and not just for the headline grabbing Marcotte-type anti-Catholic/Christian soundbites that have their time in the news cycle sun. Some very, very, very nasty stuff has dominated leftist protests, online and in the real world – especially since 2000.
i laughed when I saw this. Funny!
Humor needs a basis in reality, and this is about 30 years too late to be relevant.
Are Bill Clinton jokes still funny?
“Some very, very, very nasty stuff has dominated leftist protests, online and in the real world – especially since 2000.”
This is blogland, Catholic blogland, and I would just have to search some archives of 2004 to find some of the nastiest, uncharitable posts done by conservatives. I would suggest that one needs to find that harsh is a bipartisan problem. And that while Bill Clinton dealt in dirty politics and polarized the process, the Republican dirty politics tam created such events as “Willy Horton” and “welfare mamma” and many others from the 1980’s.
Buck up. This flows both ways.
Apparently, if you tag your post as “humor” you can say even the most offensive things. If this is the case, Morning Minion, then you must be an arrogant pro-choice homosexual. I mean, you are a democrat, after all.
Oh wait! I think there has been a misunderstanding. I’m so sorry. It’s just that when you say “Pope,” I think of Benedict XVI and not Barack Obama as you do. Now I see why you are so out of sorts.
Quick point, though: Policraticus, I always enjoyed your other website “Evangelical Catholicism.” I didn’t always agree with you, and I never appreciated your holier-than-thou attitude that you (unwittingly?) conveyed sometimes, but you always made me think. I followed you here to Vox Nova, and I have been disappointed. Yes, many of the Vox Nova commentators make good points, but I have to put up with too much ridiculous garbage from the likes of Morning Minion (he should only be allowed to post about universal healthcare, which he seems to have some knowledge about). Anyways, I know I am ranting, and maybe this isn’t the appropriate forum for that, but can you please–PLEASE!–reform this blog from within. When you first came to Vox Nova it was a decent enough place: intellectual, civil, good humored, and now it is none of these things. I’ve seen a complete devolution. If this can’t be done, if Vox Nova is too far gone, Policraticus, then go back to your old blog. “Evangelical Catholicism” was refreshing, Vox Nova is depressing. For everyone who shares my sentiments, I have a solution for you: Quit Vox Nova. Make a mass exodus to http://www.Godspy.com. I’m not associated with Godspy, but I have been impressed by their devotion and their depth of insight. Refuse to be browbeaten and insulted. Reject the facile “answers” and the ridiculous caricatures that are often presented here. Retire Vox Nova to the blogosphere geriatric ward where it belongs! If you want to read about how live out your faith more authentically, go to http://www.godspy.com. Because Vox Nova is simply bad for the soul.
Just go to “On the Square” and you get similar stuff, the opposite way–by a man of the cloth, no less.
Talk about an oversimplification!
Sorry. I meant “Public Square”. Sorry for the scandalous oversimplification.
I’d echo “Gotta Rant” — this blog was much more promising when it started, as opposed to the juvenile insults and uninformed political analyses that are more common lately.
M.Z.: The amount of cognitive dissonance required for you to make such a statement is staggering. You make this statement after shortening your own psuedonym lest anyone stumble upon your behavior here and think ill of you. This all wouldn’t be so bad if you could manage to refrain from insulting the very forum that gives your adolescent whines a voice.
I take it that the humor we’re supposed to take from this is that it was actually Democratic senators who held up Brownback & Casey’s resolution welcoming the pope lest they should be responsible for allowing the Senate to approve of the pope “witnessing to the value of each and every human life”.
Again, I find it amusing that on a Catholic blog, people got most upset when one pokes fun at (i) Republicans; (ii) fundies.
What, I’m not allowed to use my initials like you do, MZ? Maybe I should go totally anonymous, like five of the Vox Nova bloggers.
And for the record, MZ, my regular criticisms of Vox Nova (regular only because the occasion arises so often) arise mainly when 1) a poster is saying something irresponsible for obviously partisan reasons; or 2) a poster is opining about legal or judicial issues of which he knows little to nothing. Neither complaint is “adolescent,” and I’ve never had anything against your posts in particular.
Perhaps you could stick with claims I make rather than looking for implicit claims.
That’s supposed to be a response? To what?
Also, MZ, if everyone’s posts were like yours, I’d have nothing to complain about. (Which is why your comments here are out of the blue — why the hostility and personal insults?)
Watch out for the ‘implicit’-explicit distinction; you are liable to get a threat of banning next. Some have a quick trigger
I never questioned your right to use whatever handle you like. I asserted there was cause behind the change of psuedonym. An example of addressing the claim I made would have been to say, “No M.Z., I didn’t shorten my psuedonym for that reason.”
As to your calling, and one shared by a number of people, to point out irresponsible claims made for partisan reasons or claims made incompetently, I really don’t have an issue. I and other contributors really don’t have a problem with rigorous debate. So much so is this true that many contributors are rendered impotent to manage their own comboxes.
I take issue with anyone who insults the forum itself. It is truly one of the most obnoxious things a person can do. It is one of the things I think should result in an instaneous ban. As to what is adolescent, it is the he started it stuff; he did it so I can too. I can’t stand it when contributors do it, and I try to address it the best I can. Courtesy is imperative of those who comment, or this whole thing just dissolves into a bullying match. Bullying matches are the most prominent feature of St. Blogs. I’m tired of it.
MZ — the point is, so what if there was “cause”? Anyone who chooses anonymity at any point had “cause.” So you could equally say that several of the bloggers here were cowards from day one, for choosing an anonymous handle. I’m not saying that, but you should explain why you’re not.
Sorry for “insulting the forum.”
I share a name with a former employee of Catholic Apologetics International. This caused great confusion at first. Since he preceded me, I adjusted my eponym.
Right amidst the early days of the Katrina disaster in New Orleans and the controversial Harriet Meiers nomination, the president’s aides were scrambling around to find their missing boss.
Whenever they finally located Mr. Bush, they first posed this pressing question: “Mr. President, just to clarify matters, where do you now stand on the issue of Roe vs. Wade?” To which the president responded, after his characteristic fifteen seconds of deliberation, “Of course I am for that, if those fools cannot row, then have them wade!”
First of all, MM, you didn’t “poke fun” at fundies. If you want to make a joke about fundies, go right ahead. Instead, you unfairly maligned Republicans by making them synonymous with a religious fringe group.
Now, I’m not republican (although I was in the past) and I probably make more Republican jokes than you do, but I actually try to make jokes with a wink and a nudge. I have been here long enough to realize that you do not. You don’t “poke fun.” You malign and insult. I don’t know you personally, but I’ve read enough of your foul blatherskite to realize that you have an ax to grind. Here’s a newsflash for ya that just might blow you away: some Republicans are actually people of good will, just as are some Democrats. Why don’t you try to reestablish an ethos, so that you can actually make jokes without being thought of as mean spirited. You have tremendous gifts, but YOU have wasted them away with blog posts such as these.
Now, I’m sure you are going to respond with “How dare you–you don’t know me!” You’re going to try to push it back on me–you’re going to try and say that I need to get a sense of humor or what not. But, whether you realize it or not, the problem is YOU. YOU need to take some responsibility for your posts. YOU know that many people are frequently upset and insulted by your posts, because they tell you this quite often. Why don’t YOU actually give these people some credit–they’re not republican operatives or secret quasi-calvinists or whatever else you might think they are. Your critics are maybe–just maybe–also people of good will such as yourself. Maybe YOU can learn from them. Maybe you can be sanctified by them. Maybe you can CHANGE!
YES YOU CAN!
Did you forget your meds somewhere? You are free to go to Godspy, and don’t let the cyber door hit you in the rear.
Thanks for the laugh, MM.
Alyosha, I realize I am being melodramatic and hyperbolic–and maybe I made a mistake in how to express myself stylistically, but the point remains: MM appears (or is) mean spirited, and it is his own fault. I’ve been frequenting this site for a year or more, and I have tried to interpret MM’s comments charitably, but with this man, I am convinced that charitable interpretation is merely self-imposed delusion. MM may request the “benefit of the doubt,” but he does not deserve such benefit. Not given his history.
*takes medication* No… really… I’m asthmatic.
Katerina (I know you haven’t commented on this post yet), you once chastised AmericanPapist for using a picture of a poor woman to score cheep laughs. You said that people shouldn’t be instrumentalized for some stupid joke… something about the categorical imperative… or the golden rule or something. I’m curious: what do you think of MM’s joke? You know him better–is he innocent of my charges? Is he a dove? Or a viper?
I saw those guys outside Yankee stadium. I figured they were from somewhere like West Virginia. : )
Uhm… That was not American Papist. That was Jimmy Akin and what JA did was to post a picture of a poor woman with a wrinkled face and an optometrist apparatus in front of her and asked for captions. His recommended captions were directly related to the woman’s appearance (her wrinkles) who actually was an indigenous woman from somewhere in Latin America. Here is the actual post. If MM’s post would have targeted actual persons poking fun of poor people (even if they weren’t poor) and their appearances and encouraging the fun, then yes, I would’ve been upset. But if you think that MM’s post is “malign” and “insults” more than Jimmy Akin’s, then hey, be my guest. That’s your problem not mine.
Tim F. – Lay off.
Come on Michael don’t you have the least bit of sense of humor.? Did you miss the smiley face? I guess I should have just stated that assuming these anti-Catholics are Republicans makes about as much sense as assuming they are from West Virginia or Georgia for that matter. You can find fundy anti-Cathoics everywhere.
Katerina, I was simply asking for your opinion because I respect you. In fact, you and your fiance are among the few that I respect here.
But, I ask again, because you really didn’t answer the question: Do you find ANYTHING objectionable with this kind of joke? Or is it all hunky-dory?
Here’s a thought experiment for you that you might appreciate: Let’s say there was a recent influx of immigrants from an anti-catholic country into the United States. This particular group of immigrants was not the majority or even a significant minority of all immigrants. As we know, most immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are law-abiding, sensible people of good will. But, let’s say these anti-catholic immigrants were recently featured prominently on the news. Would it be appropriate for Morning Minion to post the picture he has posted and title it: Immigrants Greet the Pope!
Would you think his joke just a knee-slapper if ever there was one? Or would you find it in poor taste? Maybe I’m hitting close to home, but that’s the point.
There is a difference between making fun of someone’s appearances (Jimmy Akin) and finding humor in differences of ideologies, which is what MM is obviously doing here. There is a huge difference. Ideologies vs. persons.
Would you be offended if I put up a picture of environmentalists holding “tree-hugging” signs and put a caption that says “Democratic base meets the Pope”?
Tree-hugging signs aren’t usually offensive–I like tree-huggers, and I often find myself in agreement with them, so if I was associated with them, then, no, I wouldn’t find it offensive.
If the tree-huggers were holding up signs that said that loggers were going to hell, and someone insinuated that this was the “Democratic Base,” then I would most definitely find it offensive, and so would most people.
I mentioned the Jimmy Akin incident not to say that the two issues were parallel, but because I knew you had a sensitive spirit (a good thing!) with regards to certain kinds of jokes.
Finally, I don’t agree with you on the nature of this joke. MM is not finding humor in “differences of ideologies.” The religious fringe group in the photo does not represent the ideology of the Republican party just as the “loggers-are-going-to-hell tree-huggers” aren’t representative of the ideology of the Democratic Party. Frankly, the ideologies of the Republican and Democratic parties are remarkably similar. I agree with Alasdair MacIntyre: there are only three major veins of thought in America: liberal-liberals, moderate-liberals, and conservative-liberals.