If the folks at The Daily Kingfish think I'm a conservative who believes Bobby Jindal's religion ought not be an issue in the Louisiana gubernatorial race, can you really trust anything that blog has to say about Jindal?Or his faith?
Or anything?
After all, if the Kingfisher can refer to your Mighty Favog this way: "A handful of conservatives are now uncharacteristically claiming that Jindal’s faith should not be an issue," it's pretty obvious that he/she/it either didn't read the Jindal post on Revolution 21's Blog for the People, didn't understand the post's plain English or is lying like a rug.
Then again, it is a political blog run by Democratic Kool-Aid quaffers, so "truth" isn't nearly so important as "smear."
FIRST, as I mentioned explicitly in my oh-so-"conservative" post, I happen to be a Democrat. And if the political hacks who run The Daily Kingfish had taken a mere 10 minutes to look at Revolution 21's Blog for the People, they quickly would realize that I'm no political conservative.
I will plead guilty to being a social conservative . . . if that's the proper term for a Roman Catholic who actually believes what his Church teaches -- all of it. And who happens to be pro-life. And who opposes the death penalty, by and large. And who is foursquare against the insane Iraq War.
But I don't think that's what the Kingfisher was getting at. He/she/it seems to think I'm a GOP shill. I'd like the Kingfisher to explain this, then.
Furthermore, if I were one of those "conservatives" who didn't want the public to read Bobby Jindal's 1994 account of an exorcism in The New Oxford Review, why in the world would I have linked to it?
My objection is that to the extent Louisiana Democrats seek to portray Jindal as unfit to govern, and indeed as nuts, based on his acceptance of things he believes in unity with the Catholic Church, that is the extent to which they will be engaging in rank religious bigotry.
Highlighting positions Jindal takes due to his Catholicism which might have negative public-policy implications -- and then straightforwardly outlining what those might be (minus the slurs and innuendo) -- would be one thing. I might not agree, but that is fair political discourse.
Implying that Jindal is a certified whackadoodle because of beliefs the Church has held for, oh, 2,000 years (and Judaism for thousands of years before that) is juvenile, hateful and sliding down the slippery slope toward David Dukeville, which is right down the road from Adolf Hitlerburg.
And if that is the Dems' intent, I think the state central committee needs to be asking some hard questions of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu and every other Democrat who also happens to be Catholic . . . and who, at their confirmation into the Church, made some public vows:
HERE'S A NEWS FLASH, SKIPPER: Believing in the reality of Satan -- and all the evil spirits "who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls" -- is part of the package. Always has been.Bishop: Do you reject Satan and all his works and all his empty promises?
Candidates: I do.Bishop: Do you believe in God the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth?
Candidates: I do.Bishop: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was born of the Virgin Mary,
was crucified, died, and was buried,
rose from the dead,
and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
Candidates: I do.Bishop: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who came upon the apostles at Pentecost
and today is given to you sacramentally in confirmation?
Candidates: I do.Bishop: Do you believe in the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?
Candidates: I do.Bishop: This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church. We are proud to profess it in Christ Jesus our Lord.
All: Amen.
Always will be.
Bobby Jindal's New Oxford Review piece merely reflects that Jindal has experienced quite directly what all Catholics are solemnly bound to believe.
So, what would be worse, those Democratic pols lying to God or, by the party's own implication, trying to fool the voters about what they themselves have publicly professed?
I think your Dems have painted themselves into a divine corner there, Kingfisher.
MEANWHILE, as the Louisiana Democrats try to illuminate Jindal's supposed demons-and-freak-show nuttiness for believing what his allegedly crazy-ass Church believes, The Daily Kingfish likewise tries to tar Jindal for supposedly violating the supposedly nutball Catholics' Official Nutball Protocol. In other words, Jindal conducted an Unauthorized Casting Out of Demons.
What isn't noted is that nobody at the prayer meeting in question ever intended to be involved with an exorcism. Wormwood just happened to appear in the midst of it. What the hell (ahem) were they supposed to do, invite the apparent satanic minion for tea and crumpets?
Furthermore, Jindal apparently was the only Catholic there. He wasn't running the show. It seems to me that, in that event, praying hard was an entirely reasonable response.
Then again, it's pretty apparent that the Louisiana Democratic Party has scant experience with reasonable responses, so it's unsurprising that The Daily Kingfish has trouble recognizing one when it reads about it.
I feel a reasonable prayer for my fellow political partisans coming on now. It was written by Pope Leo XIII at the end of the 19th century, lots and lots of Catholics say it at the end of every Mass, and it goes like this:
St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
2 comments:
The link to your website has been removed from the essay in question. As stated in the beginning of the essay, no one was asked, ordered, or told to unpack the story Mr. Jindal wrote about experiencing an exorcism. The Louisiana Democratic Party is not affiliated, in any way, with the ownership of the website or with any of the opinions expressed therein.
You were referenced as a conservative apologist, because you appear to be a conservative apologist. You readily admit you are a "social conservative," and despite your cursory obituary of Molly Ivins and your disapproval of President Bush (more than 70% of Americans also disapprove), I see little evidence of your alleged alligiance to the Democratic Party, particularly considering your baseless and rabid criticism of the Louisiana Democratic Party, who, once again, had absolutely nothing to do with the Daily Kingfish's decision to publish an essay primarily concerned with Jindal's own writings.
You should also consult more recent writings concerning the Catholic Church's stance on the Rite of Exorcism.
Either way, the point was not to insult Mr. Jindal's religious faith, but simply to quote and examine his own published work. There is no need to embark on a debate about doctrinal nuance, though there are many Catholics who will reiterate the same concerns about the details of this exorcism. Regardless, Mr. Jindal's work reveals a man struggling with a sense of identity, and considering these writings are the only documentation we have about Bobby Jindal's "pre-political life," they offer a fascinating glimpse-- a glimpse Mr. Jindal's willfully encouraged when he decided to publish his work.
LAMediaWatch writes:
"You readily admit you are a "social conservative," and despite your cursory obituary of Molly Ivins and your disapproval of President Bush (more than 70% of Americans also disapprove), I see little evidence of your alleged alligiance to the Democratic Party, particularly considering your baseless and rabid criticism of the Louisiana Democratic Party, who, once again, had absolutely nothing to do with the Daily Kingfish's decision to publish an essay primarily concerned with Jindal's own writings."
Calling for George Bush's impeachment = disapproval. What? Should I call for bloody jihad against the man?
As far as my allegiance to the Democratic Party, my voter registration in Douglas County, Neb., is all the allegiance required in these here United States.
And God forbid that I criticize my fellow Democrats when they are being idiots -- which, sadly, is very nearly a 24/7 proposition. It seems to me that your definition of No Criticism = Allegiance is real similar to that of some other fine political organizations.
You know, like the German Nazi Party, the Communist Party in all its totalitarian iterations . . . the Republican Party in the Era of Bush. Yeah, that No Criticism = Allegiance Thang has worked out so well for all of you.
Being that Louisiana has been an overwhelmingly Democratic-run state for much of my lifetime -- and long before my lifetime -- it would seem that unquestioning fealty to a bunch of kleptomaniac grafters and losers has gotten the Gret Stet into exactly the fix it's in today.
That would be teetering on the cusp of oblivion. How's that workin' out for y'all, podna?
Post a Comment