Sunday, June 5, 2011

Random political observations Sunday

Kudos to Matt Abbott (and a hat tip to Lisa Graas) for defending Michele Bachmann against Alex Pareene's anti-Catholic smear. In my long and checkered career, I've had friends and acquaintances who were racists and anti-Semites ... even one who was overtly anti-Catholic (he was the first person to tell me about the mitre with "666" encoded on it). Generally, we've been able to look past disagreements towards shared interests and values. 

Now, if both Bachmann and her pastor are unaware of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Churches' anti-Catholic stance, and that Bradlee Dean has called the Pope "that devil disguised as a minister of righteousness", that can't look good no matter how you slice it; nevertheless, it still doesn't follow that she herself considers B16 to be the Antichrist. And, as Abbott puts it, "I love it when liberals who normally don't care a wit about Catholicism suddenly voice concern about a conservative politician's alleged anti-Catholicism — even if their concern is somewhat tongue-in-cheek or just a political ploy. Never mind all the abortion- and unnatural vice-supporting 'Catholic' politicians out there; we practicing Catholics should really be concerned about the likes of Bachmann and Sarah Palin."
*     *     *

Recently, the much-maligned Ordinary of the City of the Gay, Abp. George Niederauer, weighed in against the proposed circumcision ban, which just barely got onto the November ballot and which current nose-counting predicts will be defeated 2:1. “Although the issue does not concern Christians directly," Abp. Niederauer wrote in the SF Chronicle,  "as a religious leader I can only view with alarm the prospect that this misguided initiative would make it illegal for Jews and Muslims who practice their religion to live in San Francisco — for that is what the passage of such a law would mean.”

Having had intactivist literature foisted on me before, I've long noted within the ridiculously inflated, hysterical rhetoric an implicitly anti-religious tone, though I would have thought it "anti-Semitic" only in the way that New Atheists can't help being anti-Semitic through their hatred of religion in general. After all, when your zombie-like supporters all chant that "male genital mutilation" is an "outdated barbaric religious practice", it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the zombies believe Judaism to be barbaric. (There is a smaller group called Jews Against Circumcision; however, I suspect that they're what Yiddish-speakers used to call Shabbes goys ... i.e., Jewish When Convenient.)

However, both Mark Shea and the Anchoress have brought Monster Mohel to our attention:

 If you really want a case of the shivers, then read the P J Tatler's reprint of panels from's online comic book, Foreskin Man. (I'd send you directly to the MGM Bill site; however, I don't want my blog associated in any way with theirs, especially not as a referral site!)

First, there's no way this initiative will pass ... even in San Francisco, where a good portion of the residents have an unhealthy obsession with penises. Second, even if it did pass, it might survive scrutiny at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court, where they threw away the written Constitution a couple of decades ago and now just rule according to the progressive agenda; however, SCOTUS would bounce it out as an infringement of religious liberty. Third, I'm sick of the overblown hyperbole — I want to see some hard evidence (you should excuse the expression) proving that infant male circumcision does psychological damage not attributable to anything else.