Daily Links, May 23: "Religious liberty" (what else?), comments v. commentary, social action

Meghan Murphy-Gill| comments | Print this pagePrint | Email this pageShare
blog

Bill Donahue reveals he doesn’t understand the difference between a web commenter and commentary by a magazine. In his defense, they both have the word “comment.”

This line: “Oh,” thought Johnson, “you wait and see.”

Also linking to the story I’ve linked to above, Kartemquin Films, the company that most recently made the film The Interrupters, shares a clip from an old film of their (Thumbs Down, from 1968) that showed “the other side of the youth movement” of the late 1960s: A bunch of Christians. I think I saw Peggy Olsen in one of the clips.

Nicolas Cafardi quotes Proverbs, "Do not go hastily to court, for what will you do in the end if your neighbor puts you to shame?" (25:8), and wonders why 43 different Catholic organizations were so hasty to file a law suit against the President’s administration. He sizes up the battle cry for religious liberty as nothing more than religious control, a strategy he points out some bishops have begun to rethink.

E.J. Dionne points out the other side of the lawsuit: Only 13 of the 195 Catholic dioceses joined the litigation. “There is a healthy struggle brewing among the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops,” Dionne writes. “A previously silent group, upset over conservative colleagues defining the church’s public posture and eagerly picking fights with President Obama, has had enough.”

Our own Scott Alessi asks if you can still be a faithful Catholic and disagree with the “religious liberty” frenzy. If the bishops keep saying “This is not about contraception, this is about religious liberty,” then why do Catholics who disagree that the mandate is a religious liberty issue keep getting the message that by not being for things such as the fortnight of freedom, then they’re against the church. Certainly, disagreeing with the bishops and Catholic organizations who’ve chosen to sue the Obama administration is not a matter of faith and morals.

And Steven Schneck, who will be featured in our July 2012 issue, rightly criticizes the cover of Columbia magazine (the publication of the Knights of Columbus): “The cover is Orwellian, featuring an illustration of an apparent cowboy, astride a black horse, with a 30-30 Winchester in his right hand and a large crucifix around his neck. Emblazoned in red across the bottom the words read: ‘Freedom Is Our Lives.’ The issue is devoted to mobilizing Knights to fight for religious liberty against the Obama administration.”