Minnesota Dems issue anti-Catholic mailer in final week

posted at 9:25 am on October 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

If the Minnesota DFL intended to make a splash in an otherwise-obscure state Senate race, well, they succeeded. The party, which is the Minnesota version of the Democratic Party, sent out a mailer attacking Republican challenger and Christian minister Dan Hall by accusing him of ignoring the poor for opposing ObamaCare. However, the front of the postcard shows a headless man wearing the traditional shirt and collar worn by Roman Catholic priests, with a button that proclaims “Ignore the Poor” — which has a large number of Catholics in Minnesota angry over a perceived attack on their church. KSTP reported on the mailer and the DFL silence last night:

A political mailing is causing a major stir in one race, and even the Catholic Church is weighing in on it.

It is part of a two-piece mailing, 10 thousand pieces in all that the DFL Party sent out last week.

One ad shows what appears to be a Catholic priest wearing a button that says “ignore the poor.” …

Hall, who says he spent 30 year serving the poor, says the ads are “way out of line,” and he believes they’ll backfire.

Consider this Minnesota’s Aqua Buddha moment.    Luke Hellier at Minnesota Democrats Exposed has the full scans of both sides of the mailer.  The picture of the priest wearing the button includes the text, “Independent expenditure paid for by the Minnesota DFL State Central Committee, Brian Melendez, Chair[.]”

The flip side of the mailer is a classic case of a cheap-shot, last-minute attack campaign that both parties indulge in the final stretch of an election, but the front picture goes way beyond anything in recent memory in attacking a church of any kind in a political campaign.  The full context in which this was issued makes it difficult to believe the archdiocese’s expressed hope that this was just a poor decision.  A few weeks ago, the Catholic bishop issued DVDs with the Catholic Church’s arguments on same-sex marriage, which the DFL and its supporters decried as interference in the election.  This looks suspiciously like payback.

Beyond that, though, this demonstrates a long-standing argument from Democrats on social justice and helping the poor.  They argue that the only way to do that is through government programs that redistribute wealth, and that anyone opposed to such programs — or even the size and scope of such programs — hate the poor and downtrodden.  Some people believe that the call to help the poor was an individual call, and people like Dan Hall spend their entire adult lives doing the work themselves rather than having government force the money from other people to get it done.  Furthermore, while government “safety net” programs have a place for the truly defenseless, they’re much less efficient than a group like Catholic Charities, which generates almost $3 billion a year in donations, with more than 90% of the money going directly to program recipients, not spent on layers of bureaucrats.

There are several layers of hostility behind this attack mailer, and Catholics aren’t the only targets.  Small wonder the DFL has decided to stonewall in the aftermath.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Churches are still legal in Minnesota? The DFL has some work to do.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 9:26 AM

What makes the guy in the clerical collar a Catholic priest? Many other denominations also put their clergy in collars (Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc.)

Don’t get me wrong. The flyer is certainly an anti-Christian slur, but it’s not specifically anti-Catholic. And the flip side, condemning “Preacher Dan Hall” for the horrendous sin of not criticizing Pawlenty, is cheap, tawdry, and reeks of desparation.

But I’m not seeing anything specifically “anti-Catholic.”

notropis on October 27, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Colleen what? Mah-who-knee?!

Jaibones on October 27, 2010 at 9:30 AM

You know, when I see a priest sitting on an airplane, dressed up in his Catholic garb…

VastRightWingConspirator on October 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Amazing, especially when you consider the Christian missions and faith-based charities which dot the heart of the big city liberal districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul, missions which serve a large number of homeless and poor.

Bishop on October 27, 2010 at 9:32 AM

99.99999% of the left hate God. I didn’t say they don’t beleive in him, I said they hate God.

The others will be saved.

madmonkphotog on October 27, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Beyond that, though, this demonstrates a long-standing argument from Democrats on social justice and helping the poor. They argue that the only way to do that is through government programs that redistribute wealth, and that anyone opposed to such programs — or even the size and scope of such programs — hate the poor and downtrodden.

I went to a very liberal seminary (had to do it because of location and denominational support) and I can tell you that what Ed says here is exactly true.

The point is lost that both sides (liberal/conservative or Republican/democrat) want to help the poor and downtrodden.

What is deemed important is the MANNER and if one does not agree with the MANNER than you must hate the poor.

It’s an exceedingly stupid, ignorant and self-serving argument…

…and yet it’s almost impossible to dissuade someone of this position.

And let me note here is that things like this show that there can never be any compromise on issues…

…not when the MANNER is the end-all be-all.

Religious_Zealot on October 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Why do people make fun of us here down in Louisiana?

Minnesota is WAAAAY more FUBAR than we are!

HondaV65 on October 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Those steeped in marxist theology view other religions as a threat.

rbj on October 27, 2010 at 9:35 AM

notropis: If Protestants wear the Roman collar, they do it incorrectly.

The Roman collar (pictured in the ad) was mandated by the Pope, I believe, around the time of the Reformation (or perhaps after). It signifies allegiance with the Vatican, and as such is a uniquely Catholic symbol.

Therefore, if a Protestant minister actually wears the collar, they are either showing allegiance to the Vatican (which is… most likely not the case), or they are completely ignorant of the actual meaning of the collar.

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:36 AM

CONSERVATIVE OF MN SUBURBS … BREED AS FAST AS YOU CAN! YOUR CHILDREN ARE YOUR LAST HOPES.

THE PARASITES IN THE CITIES LIKE ST. PAUL ARE TOO WILD, GREEDY, AND HUNGRY!

TheAlamos on October 27, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Why do people make fun of us here down in Louisiana?
HondaV65 on October 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Because it’s….Louisiana.

Bishop on October 27, 2010 at 9:37 AM

You know, when I see a priest sitting on an airplane, dressed up in his Catholic garb…

VastRightWingConspirator on October 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM

My thoughts exactly.

txhsmom on October 27, 2010 at 9:38 AM

It’s not only Roman Catholic priests who wear collars. Sheesh.

Akzed on October 27, 2010 at 9:38 AM

As a follow-up to the above note, the fact that Wikipedia gets this entirely wrong is not surprising. (Note: there are no Catholic sources for the page.)

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM

A few weeks ago, the Catholic bishop issued DVDs with the Catholic Church’s arguments on same-sex marriage, which the DFL and its supporters decried as interference in the election. This looks suspiciously like payback.

Turnabout seems fair play. Pumping out DVD’s to influence government policy on non-Catholic marriages seems less critical to Christ’s message than influencing government policy to help the poor. Better yet, skip the DVD’s and the RCC can use the tax-exempt dollars to help the poor directly.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM

The reason it’s anti-Catholic is that most people who see this card are going to associate the picture with a Catholic priest. True, other denominations wear the Roman collar, but Catholic priests are most closely identified with it. If you showed it to most people, they’d identify it as a Catholic priest as well.

Not really surprising coming from the Democrats. They just get more honest about their motives when they get desperate.

Nethicus on October 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Akzed: See my note. The collar has a very specific significance.

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Suggested State Motto; “Minnesota is the New California”

Done That on October 27, 2010 at 9:40 AM

It’s not only Roman Catholic priests who wear collars. Sheesh.

Akzed on October 27, 2010 at 9:38 AM

While what you say is technically true…

…what point are you trying to make?

Considering the back history between the Catholic church in MN and the DFL, are we really trying to say that the Catholic church is being too defensive?

Do we really think that this wasn’t a swipe at (at least) the Catholic church?

I’ll admit, though, it would be even MORE monumentally stupid if the DFL is trying to smear ALL Christian denominations.

Religious_Zealot on October 27, 2010 at 9:42 AM

When they become desperate, the facade drops, and the real DFL can be seen.

Are all in the DFL anti-Catholic bigots? Are there NO Catholics in the DFL to speak out against this smear?

novaculus on October 27, 2010 at 9:43 AM

dedalus: The fact that you think ‘helping the poor’ is more important than ‘saving the institution of marriage’ to Jesus Christ is a very interesting position.

Articulating the Church’s position on morals is actually the primary purpose and duty of the Catholic church.

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:43 AM

the Church stands strong against abortion and gay marriage. And that makes some very angry

The church stands strong against changing the definition of marrage. Let’s not let them hijack the language. He who controls the language usally wins the argument.

dentalque on October 27, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Articulating the Church’s position on morals is actually the primary purpose and duty of the Catholic church.

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:43 AM

And unless the same-sex marriage issue is either on the ballot or a major campaign issue…

…then the DVD is hardly affecting the political races.

Religious_Zealot on October 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM

From the French Revolution, to the Bolsheviks, to the Maoists, to the Spanish Civil War, “progressives” have always hated the church, because it gets in the way of their totalitarian dream whereupon opponents of statism are either enslaved or murdered.

Measures to accomodate the lunatic, murderous left have always ended in disaster (e.g. liberation “theology”).

It’s a badge of honor to be hated and abused by “progressives”. Leftists are the enemies of God, dignity, intellect and humanity.

NoDonkey on October 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM

I am not sure about Minnesota’s religious breakdown (Protestant/Catholic) but I felt like this was an attack on the “conservative” Christian community in America (not just Catholicism).
What strikes me as ironic however is how wrong the ad is. I remember seeing a report on one of those national news shoes (20/20 or somesuch… it was probably a Stossel segment), about how lower-middle class families in North Dakota gave more money to charitable causes than upper class folks on Rodeo Drive.
Our “conservative” Judeo-Christian ethics are the reason the USA gives more money to charity (both aggregate total and per capita) than any other country in the world.
It infuriates me when conservaitve/libertairans are viewed as “uncaring” becuase we don’t want to do our “giving” through the government.

therambler on October 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Why do I get the impression that the attitude among Minnesota Democrats, who know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are about to get their proverbial clocks cleaned next Tuesday, is that if they are going to go down, let it be in flames?

pilamaye on October 27, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Sorry, but the “colerino” shown in that photo dates to the 17th century. Clerical garb survived the Reformation, genius. Except among Anabaptists.

Akzed on October 27, 2010 at 9:48 AM

In the name of the Father, Son & the Holy Spirit (makes sign of cross)…..that’s all

huskerdiva on October 27, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Articulating the Church’s position on morals is actually the primary purpose and duty of the Catholic church.

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:43 AM

They should articulate the position, but the RCC institution of marriage is different than that of most protestants, non-Christians, or a national government. As it should be.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 9:50 AM

What makes the guy in the clerical collar a Catholic priest? Many other denominations also put their clergy in collars (Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc.)

Don’t get me wrong. The flyer is certainly an anti-Christian slur, but it’s not specifically anti-Catholic.

notropis on October 27, 2010 at 9:29 AM

The irony is that few (if any) evangelicals (like Hall) wear clerical collars — so in addition to displaying the Dems anti-Christian bigotry, the ad also shows their stupidity.

Bigoted and ignorant. Yep, they must must be Dems.

CJ on October 27, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Pumping out DVD’s to influence government policy on non-Catholic marriages seems less critical to Christ’s message than influencing government policy to help the poor. Better yet, skip the DVD’s and the RCC can use the tax-exempt dollars to help the poor directly.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Economically speaking, bolstering traditional marriage is one of the best ways to prevent people from being poor in the first place.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Minnesota: it’s like Vermont, only dumber.

Ted Torgerson on October 27, 2010 at 9:52 AM

If one wants to understand the underlying reasons that liberals hate religion (and usually have to resort to distorting and out-and-out lying about doctrinal issues)…

…one only has to understand that Jesus Christ refused to be drawn into any argument/discussion about the role and necessity of government.

All of Christ’s teachings are focused on how INDIVIDUALS act and respond to God’s love and grace.

And paramount in those teachings is the concept and understanding of free will – people have a choice to accept or reject (see the story of the rich young man).

Jesus never taught that the government should take care of people, He taught that we should take care of each other.

And all of this (free will, people taking care of each other instead of institutions) is anathema to the liberal/progressive cause of bigger government and the lack of free will.

Religious_Zealot on October 27, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Akzed: See my note. The collar has a very specific significance. Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM

A. Your note was wrong. Where’d you get that “fact,” a Chick tract? The collarino pictured was invented way after the Reformation.

B. When I wear a collar it symbolizes what I and my superiors say it symbolizes.

Akzed on October 27, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Minnesota gave you Michele Bachmann, we should get a little credit here. And water skiing was born here.

Bishop on October 27, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Akzed: Yes, it survived the Reformation. However, that does not change what the meaning of the collar is, and it does not change that Protestants coopted something that is 100% against the Reformation.

dedalus: Oh, I agree, and if I had to determine the best policy for this country, it would be to remove non-religious marriages completely, and standardize the tax benefits to partnerships.

I was under the impression that the DVDs distributed were to members of the diocese? Therefore, it was a DVD instructing them in their faith?

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM

If people are married and not in poverty, they are very unlikely to vote for Democrats.

Democrats selfishly work against families and against individual success, to ensure their own electoral success.

Therefore, all Democrat politicians are selfish, stupid and evil. There are no exceptions.

NoDonkey on October 27, 2010 at 9:55 AM

quick guys lets riot and threaten to kill people. That’s the only way to stop this!

MFn G I M P on October 27, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Akzed: You can say something is whatever you like. That doesn’t mean it is what you say it is.

That, of course, also applies to me. I do find it interesting that Catholic sources and Protestant sources are so divergent on this issue.

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Economically speaking, bolstering traditional marriage is one of the best ways to prevent people from being poor in the first place.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM

The children with gay parents would agree on the value of marriage, and would benefit if their family’s property received the same government protection as kids in other families.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Turnabout seems fair play. Pumping out DVD’s to influence government policy on non-Catholic marriages seems less critical to Christ’s message than influencing government policy to help the poor.

So it’s okay to influence the government when it comes to helping the poor, but not instructing people on the Catholic teaching concerning marriage?

It’s pretty darned clear here that the government will go to any lengths to smear Catholicism (and, by extension, all Christianity) for the crime of ungoodthink. Throughout history, governments run by anti-religious types have cracked down on the Church and people of faith lest God get in the way of the god-state. I find it laughable to think that orthodox Catholics would do anything to align themselves with government policy helping the poor (i.e. liberal’s define this as “socialism”) when it’s clear socialist liberal governments are hostile toward faith.

They should articulate the position, but the RCC institution of marriage is different than that of most protestants, non-Christians, or a national government. As it should be.

Gee, as someone who was raised a Protestant, who is familiar with non-Christian marriage, and with the historical policy of national government, I’d say the only major differences between Catholic marriage and those others is that Catholic marriage is not dissoluble by divorce and prohibits contraception. Otherwise, the notions of marriage between a man and a woman with emphasis on long-term commitment, has been the norm. And no one can tell me with a straight face that the rampant rates of divorce and widespread use of contraception (which correlates to the rise in divorce, infidelity) are good things. Ergo, the Catholic definition of marriage is correct.

And unless the same-sex marriage issue is either on the ballot or a major campaign issue…

…then the DVD is hardly affecting the political races.

I think the Church always has a duty to instruct the faithful on how to vote. It doesn’t set up priests in the ballot box to make sure Catholics vote against gay marriage and abortion, but does have an obligation to instruct the moral parameters of casting a vote.

englishqueen01 on October 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM

I’d view this postcard as simply anti-Christian, not necessarily anti-Catholic — unless there is a Catholic candidate they’re opposing. I’m not following all of the races in Minnesota, so I don’t know. But, there are many protestant ministers who wear shirts and collars like that, too. What the DFLers in Minnesota may not know is that a study done several years ago, covering a 10-year period, showed that Christian Conservatives are the most generous demographic of all, in monetary donations, volunteering and even to donate blood! Sincere caring about the poor has little to do with perpetual handouts. We believe in a “leg up” not handouts which ensure dependency on the government for generations.

LindaDinNev on October 27, 2010 at 10:01 AM

VastRightWingConspirator on October 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM

winner!

cmsinaz on October 27, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:55 AM

It seems we agree. Ed would know more about the purpose of the DVD. His post is the first I read of it. I’m sure Christ would be OK with DVD’s and he’d probably be using Twitter if he were here today.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Akzed: Yes, it survived the Reformation. However, that does not change what the meaning of the collar is, and it does not change that Protestants coopted something that is 100% against the Reformation. Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:55 AM

The collar depicted was not in use when your alleged papal order was given. I don’t know how else to say it but you aren’t paying attention.

You should look up “semiotics.” Symbols do not have inherent meaning.

Akzed on October 27, 2010 at 10:03 AM

The children with gay parents would agree on the value of marriage, and would benefit if their family’s property received the same government protection as kids in other families.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM

I’m sure the children of bank robbers would feel the same, but it isn’t going to sway the church’s opinion.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 10:03 AM

You know, when I see a priest sitting on an airplane, dressed up in his Catholic garb…

VastRightWingConspirator on October 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM

My thoughts exactly.

txhsmom on October 27, 2010 at 9:38 AM

You get the urge to go to confession in case the plane crashes? O.o

pannw on October 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Turnabout seems fair play. Pumping out DVD’s to influence government policy on non-Catholic marriages seems less critical to Christ’s message than influencing government policy to help the poor. Better yet, skip the DVD’s and the RCC can use the tax-exempt dollars to help the poor directly.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM

What did Jesus say on this exact matter? Google “expensive oils Jesus Bethany Mary” and you get the idea. The problem with “government policy on non-Catholic marriages” is that it becomes “government policy on Catholic marriages” due to the creeping lawmaking processes in our Government. We’ve already seen the Methodists dinged on “government policy on Methodist marriages”, when a Methodist organization refused a gay couple the use of a pavilion commonly used for marriage rites; the Methodist organization lost the tax exemption attached to the pavilion as a result.

Given that in this case one person’s attempts to take a right not previously recognized takes from another a right which was previously recognized (the right to determine the religious use of a property owned by a religious denomination), I’d say the Catholic Church has great wisdom in trying to bell the cat early on.

It isn’t as if we Catholics haven’t been there before — you can google “Catholic adoption agency Massachusetts” or “Catholic hospitals abortions Massachusetts” to see where we might be going in terms of government/church interaction if opposition isn’t up front and forthright.

unclesmrgol on October 27, 2010 at 10:14 AM

What makes the guy in the clerical collar a Catholic priest? Many other denominations also put their clergy in collars (Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc.)

My late father was a Lutheran pastor and while he wore a collar I can’t recall ever seeing him in black. Usually he wore some light shade of blue. I don’t know if this was by choice or if it was done as a standard practice so that lay people wouldn’t think he was a Catholic Priest.

If I recall correctly, I’ve only seen Catholic Priests in black shirts.

SPCOlympics on October 27, 2010 at 10:14 AM

I think the Church always has a duty to instruct the faithful on how to vote. It doesn’t set up priests in the ballot box to make sure Catholics vote against gay marriage and abortion, but does have an obligation to instruct the moral parameters of casting a vote.

englishqueen01 on October 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM

There are US laws restricting how a church can influence votes. When Christ met with Pilate they didn’t discuss Roman public policy. Focusing on helping its members prepare for the next world seems like a bigger priority than being policy advocates.

Regarding your other point, divorce and contraception are very consequential restrictions for RCC marriage. Yet, there is no imperative for the RCC to coordinate its marriage policy with each national government.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 10:17 AM

The government is inept at running a charity, i.e. SS, Medicare/caid, Food stamps, etc.
This is why if we as a nation are going to help the poor & downtrodden, we should turn that task totally over to competent charitable organizations, i.e. the Catholic church, the LDS church, etc.
Charities that spend most of their $$ on administrative costs, i.e. United Way (at least as of 10yrs ago that I am aware), should not be in the charity ‘business’ bcs that’s all it is to them.
If state govts want to give grants to these organizations so that they may distribute help, I am all for it.
However, the Feds need to stay the he!! out of the chairty distribution process. They really suck at it.

Badger40 on October 27, 2010 at 10:17 AM

The party of Al Franken.

The other mailer the DFL sent out included a large picture of a Catholic alter.

Sure looks like Catholic-bashing to me, but regardless — the fact that the DFL can’t tell one Christian denomination from another (or is simply indiscriminate) shouldn’t provide comfort to any person of faith.

Tres Angelas on October 27, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Badger40 on October 27, 2010 at 10:17 AM

The government is not inept when it comes to charity.

The treasury is looted to pay off Democrats and their supporters, the poor get little or nothing and whatever problem the charity is intended to address, gets worse.

And that’s the way the whole thing is designed – for the benefit of Democrats.

Success.

NoDonkey on October 27, 2010 at 10:22 AM

It doesn’t matter if the church is Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, or whatever. To use the image, not only attacks the Catholic faith, but all faiths.

If Christians of all faiths don’t take umbrage to this, and stand together against these kinds of tactics, it can, and will get worse.

capejasmine on October 27, 2010 at 10:24 AM

You know, when I see a priest sitting on an airplane, dressed up in his Catholic garb…

VastRightWingConspirator on October 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Well, you know how fanatic those Catholics are…blowing up airplanes, markets, schools and mosques, raising their kids to be homicide bombers, and all that. Thank goodness the TSA is well aware of the threat. /

Who can forget this little gem (Detroit Metro Airport)? Those dastardly Catholic nuns…

coldwarrior on October 27, 2010 at 10:24 AM

It isn’t as if we Catholics haven’t been there before — you can google “Catholic adoption agency Massachusetts” or “Catholic hospitals abortions Massachusetts” to see where we might be going in terms of government/church interaction if opposition isn’t up front and forthright.

unclesmrgol on October 27, 2010 at 10:14 AM

So inevitably the RCC must then push to outlaw contraception? Birth control is far more impactful on Catholic marriages than whatever government license is given to Gays.

The religious sacrament of marriage is different from the state marriage certificate. The first is about a spiritual commitment while the second is about property. Conflating the two does a disservice to both.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 10:24 AM

What has certainly emerged in this discussion is the inseparability of politics (things having to do with the relations of people) and religion (things having to do with God). This intersection is consistent with Christian faith, as it is with many others as well. I note that no place of worship in the last election, including the Rev. Wright’s, lost its tax exemption for speaking of political matters from the pulpit.

The Democrats have capitalized upon that intersection with their own usage for political purposes.

unclesmrgol on October 27, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Are there no Catholic Democrats in Minnesota?

Half the Catholics I know are Democrats.

This whole thing is just incredibly stupid.

Sackett on October 27, 2010 at 10:28 AM

The only meaningful authorities in Jesus’s Judaea were the Roman occupiers and their Temple quislings, so why anyone would think the Gospels used a socialist frame of reference is hard to fathom. Jewish Scripture does enjoin the periodic forgiveness of debts, but the thrust of the New Testament is (if we must drag modern
politics into this) Tea Partyish – the “publicans” (ie tax farmers) needed redemption, not encouragement.

As for the ad, a Roman collar is sartorial shorthand for religion in America, unless you happen to be running the Grayson campaign, in which case burkas are better.

Seth Halpern on October 27, 2010 at 10:31 AM

They just get more honest about their motives when they get desperate.

Nethicus on October 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM

This.

lower-middle class families in North Dakota gave more money to charitable causes than upper class folks on Rodeo Drive.

therambler on October 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM

I will have to say that as a non-native North Dakotan, they may be gossiping backstabbers sometimes & blackballers of the highest level when you raise their ire, but they ALWAYS take care of people in need, even at their own expense.
I have never lived in a community where there is a pancake supper etc like every week to raise funds for the ill, poor, accident/disaster victims etc.
I know rural MN, as well as MT & SD & WY are like that, too.
I have never met more generous people in my life.

Badger40 on October 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM

So inevitably the RCC must then push to outlaw contraception? Birth control is far more impactful on Catholic marriages than whatever government license is given to Gays.

The religious sacrament of marriage is different from the state marriage certificate. The first is about a spiritual commitment while the second is about property. Conflating the two does a disservice to both.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 10:24 AM

No, the RCC doesn’t have to push to outlaw contraception, since it has well defined rules in place against same. I would equate the RCC’s right to produce a DVD against contraception with their right to produce a DVD against same-sex marriage.

I have already given you one example of a place where the intersection of the disparate ideas “gay marriage” and “Christian marriage” have had negative effects for one denomination. Given that, the conflation is warranted. From allowing “gay marriage” to disallowing tax exemptions for religious organizations that do not permit same on their property is a small step as we’ve already seen.

I’m going to push back hard on this, in hopes it does not ever happen.

unclesmrgol on October 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM

This can’t be bigotry because the ad was – you know the words, sing it with me – “taken out of context.”

Which, of course, means that the ad communicates exactly the message they were going for – just not as subtly as they were hoping for.

landshark on October 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Half the Catholics I know are Democrats.

This whole thing is just incredibly stupid.

Sackett on October 27, 2010 at 10:28 AM

I think that the fact that there are ‘practicing Catholics’ who are Democrats is incredibly stupid.
That party is associated with DEATH.
They always are also extremely ready & willing to trash any Christian religion when given the opportunity.
From my experience as a LDS, very few Mormons are Democrats.
Reid is an aberration & no Mormon I’ve met yet wishes to claim him.
Such a curious thing, aligning yourself with a group that stands for everything you stand against.

Badger40 on October 27, 2010 at 10:35 AM

But did the flyer mention if they were nervous when they see a Catholic Priest on a plane identifying himself as a Christian/SARC.

Dr Evil on October 27, 2010 at 10:47 AM

I’m going to push back hard on this, in hopes it does not ever happen.

unclesmrgol on October 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM

The Ocean Grove pavilion is a public facility on a heavily trafficked boardwalk. It is used for birthday parties, Bar Mitzvahs, and many non-Methodist weddings.

You can argue with the court decision but the first question would be whether the space is public or private. The court ruled it was public accommodation rather than a place of worship.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 10:49 AM

I’m sure the children of bank robbers would feel the same, but it isn’t going to sway the church’s opinion.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Your original point was about marriage preventing poverty. Bank robbers enrich themselves by impoverishing others. The analogy doesn’t logically work.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Badger40 on October 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Exactly my experience in western SD. Our little school district has fundraisers every year that raise thousands of dollars for charity. 69% of our students qualify for free or reduced lunches and even so this year, so far, we have raised $8500 to help a student with cancer. Last spring we raised about that much for Haiti. We raise money every year for various causes and that is on top of the pancake dinners, raffles, street dances and so on that the rest of the community hosts.

Lily on October 27, 2010 at 10:57 AM

From another point of view:

DFL mailing pictures of headless Christian religious leader
DFL = Taliban?

ZeeMI on October 27, 2010 at 10:57 AM

You know, when I see a priest sitting on an airplane, dressed up in his Catholic garb…

VastRightWingConspirator on October 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM

My thoughts exactly.

txhsmom on October 27, 2010 at 9:38 AM

You get the urge to go to confession in case the plane crashes? O.o

pannw on October 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Almost. I am relieved that I and everyone else on the plane will receive general absolution if the plane goes down.

Goldenavatar on October 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM

What a brilliant campaign strategy!

WannabeAnglican on October 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Turnabout seems fair play. Pumping out DVD’s to influence government policy on non-Catholic marriages seems less critical to Christ’s message than influencing government policy to help the poor. Better yet, skip the DVD’s and the RCC can use the tax-exempt dollars to help the poor directly.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Of course I’m sure they do use their money to help the poor directly. Making these DVDs doesn’t have to take away from that anymore than paying their priest a salary must.

And as to turnabout, this ad makes them look like bigots, so I’m not sure this is the revenge they had in mind.

Esthier on October 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM

No, the RCC doesn’t have to push to outlaw contraception, since it has well defined rules in place against same. I would equate the RCC’s right to produce a DVD against contraception with their right to produce a DVD against same-sex marriage.

unclesmrgol on October 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Of course it is, but if they were doing so in an election where the outcome might have something to do with the legality of contraception, it would be seen as interfering in the same way.

It is odd that there is no push on the issue of contraception the way there is on gay marriage. I suppose this could be attributed to a Prohibition effect, where people realize the difficulties of outlawing something that was made legal, but it does still seem a little odd.

Esthier on October 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM

The analogy doesn’t logically work.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 10:53 AM

My original point was that traditional marriage with a mother and father is the best anti-poverty program available. You got off the subject by pleading the case of families where they are committing an abomination in the church’s eyes. As far as the church is concerned, a family with actively gay parents is in sin as much as a family with bank robber parents.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM

*shrug* Doesn’t surprise me that the Catholics are being targeted. Just look at how popular Mormons are amongst the left too.

And if you think about it, you can see why leftists of all stripes hate what could be called Conservative Christians. I put committed Catholics in that area, the Easter and Christmas only Catholics don’t count.

What do the Mormons and the Catholics and Baptists, etc preach? Self sufficencicy; that you are accountable to a Higher Power for your actions, and to help those who are less fortunate than you. In the Mormon’s case, since I’m most familiar with them, such help includes teaching people how to become independant and not rely on others for everything.

All of these positions destroy the need for a liberal to run your life. If you can take care of yourself and your family, and if your community is full of people likewise, and you have self mastery, what need is there for government? People who can govern themselves really have little need for a government; certainly not an all encompassing one. Thus, no need for liberals. And that strikes at their whole concept: that you need them to take care of you.

Vanceone on October 27, 2010 at 11:16 AM

My original point was that traditional marriage with a mother and father is the best anti-poverty program available. You got off the subject by pleading the case of families where they are committing an abomination in the church’s eyes. As far as the church is concerned, a family with actively gay parents is in sin as much as a family with bank robber parents.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM

From an anti-poverty standpoint, two moms works perhaps as well. Certainly better than a single mom. Is reducing poverty the goal or is there some broader Vatican agenda, which would logically apply to the intrinsically evil use of contraception by Americans?

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 11:33 AM

A few weeks ago, the Catholic bishop issued DVDs with the Catholic Church’s arguments on same-sex marriage, which the DFL and its supporters decried as interference in the election. This looks suspiciously like payback.

Turnabout seems fair play. Pumping out DVD’s to influence government policy on non-Catholic marriages seems less critical to Christ’s message than influencing government policy to help the poor. Better yet, skip the DVD’s and the RCC can use the tax-exempt dollars to help the poor directly.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM

I am very, very much non-Catholic, but don’t you feel a little weird lecturing them on what should be important to their faith?

It is very much part of the Christian faith to “remember the poor,” but it’s hardly part of the Christian faith to give to the poor through government.

And while I don’t agree with some of the Catholic teachings on marriage, it should be obvious that same-sex marriage violates Catholic — and Christian — moral values.

tom on October 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

From an anti-poverty standpoint, two moms works perhaps as well.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Not even close. Who teaches the boy how to act like a proper man, and the daughter how to select someone who will? A stable family is multi-generational.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Of course I’m sure they do use their money to help the poor directly. Making these DVDs doesn’t have to take away from that anymore than paying their priest a salary must.

Esthier on October 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM

It depends what the priest does. Helping the poor is consistent with tax-exempt status. Political campaigning isn’t. There is a shortage of priests and an abundance of lobbyists. No point in turning the former into the latter.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 11:40 AM

the front of the postcard shows a headless man wearing the traditional shirt and collar worn by Roman Catholic priests

Like Hollywood often does, the Political left just mixes and matches every subset of Christendom.

I’ve noticed in countless movies over the years… I should write a book.

mankai on October 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM

From an anti-poverty standpoint, two moms works perhaps as well.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Not even close. Who teaches the boy how to act like a proper man, and the daughter how to select someone who will? A stable family is multi-generational.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

No, no, no! Anything which can be said about the traditional family must be said to be equally true about same-sex marriage! If you don’t agree with that, then you’re obviously a homophobe!

At least, I believe that’s the argument…

/Getting a little weary of the same-sex marriage advocates always making the exact same argument

tom on October 27, 2010 at 11:49 AM

I am very, very much non-Catholic, but don’t you feel a little weird lecturing them on what should be important to their faith?

tom on October 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

I’ve done the opposite. They should listen attentively to the bishops on matters of faith. As Americans each of us has to understand that the government can’t synch up its policy with each church. In fact it was founded on not doing so.

Catholics should believe contraception, divorce, and extra-marital sex are wrong. It will prepare them for their eternal life. The government attends to mundane matters and works best when it is limited with a presumption of liberty for people of all faiths.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Beyond that, though, this demonstrates a long-standing argument from Democrats on social justice and helping the poor. They argue that the only way to do that is through government programs that redistribute wealth, and that anyone opposed to such programs — or even the size and scope of such programs — hate the poor and downtrodden. Some people believe that the call to help the poor was an individual call, and people like Dan Hall spend their entire adult lives doing the work themselves rather than having government force the money from other people to get it done. Furthermore, while government “safety net” programs have a place for the truly defenseless, they’re much less efficient than a group like Catholic Charities, which generates almost $3 billion a year in donations, with more than 90% of the money going directly to program recipients, not spent on layers of bureaucrats.

EXACTLY. And it’s not “some people” who think that Jesus was calling on individuals – it’s every educated Christian. The social justice a-holes are only pretending to believe that Jesus was a commie. It just doesn’t hold up upon close examination. There is no collective salvation, only individual salvation.

This issue, like so many others, represents the failing of conservatism to get the message out. Yes, I know a lot of the problem is that kids are brainwashed in school by their lefty teachers, but we’ve got to attack ignorance on ALL FRONTS now.

Democrat baloney needs to be stopped in its tracks if we expect to sustain the pushback. Not only the lies about conservatism, but the lies about liberal “concern.” I’m sick of concern trolls duping their base and we have to call them on it as well as their bogus “war on poverty.”

disa on October 27, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Not even close. Who teaches the boy how to act like a proper man, and the daughter how to select someone who will? A stable family is multi-generational.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Google?

Who teaches the kids when there is a single mom with a job, or two parents each working full time? Should we return to the tradition of women at home? It’s the way I raise my kids, but realize not every family can do it.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Seems the Democrats and all garden variety socialists hate everybody including themselves.

And remember,”Big Brother is a DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!”

adamsmith on October 27, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Why do people make fun of us here down in Louisiana?

Minnesota is WAAAAY more FUBAR than we are!

HondaV65 on October 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Why do people make fun of us here down in Louisiana?
HondaV65 on October 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Because it’s….Louisiana.

Bishop on October 27, 2010 at 9:37 AM

C’mon folks…. lets not go here. We’re all Americans.

itsspideyman on October 27, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Who teaches the kids when there is a single mom with a job, or two parents each working full time? Should we return to the tradition of women at home? It’s the way I raise my kids, but realize not every family can do it.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 11:57 AM

That’s the whole point. A family with a single parent, or two parents of the same gender, does not do as well as a traditional family. Even a family with both parents working that does not concentrate enough on child rearing will have difficulties in later generations; the stats prove it. My family has a stay at home mom as well; I think many people could do it, if not for the desire to have so many material goods.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Actually, how many Muslim groups do you find helping to feed and clothe the poor? Ponder that, Dems….

chai on October 27, 2010 at 12:13 PM

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Yes, we should.

We make sacrifices to raise our own children, not to outsource it. They are only infants, toddlers and pre-schoolers once.

We don’t have luxury cars and designer clothes.

Why have children if you’re not going to raise them?

I realize that some families cannot afford to do this, but many are just making excuses. No one cares more about your child than you do.

NoDonkey on October 27, 2010 at 12:14 PM

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” Pope Benedict XVI

Branch Rickey on October 27, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Articulating the Church’s position on morals is actually the primary purpose and duty of the Catholic church.

Scott H on October 27, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Favorite poster at Hotair! :)

Branch Rickey on October 27, 2010 at 12:20 PM

That’s the whole point. A family with a single parent, or two parents of the same gender, does not do as well as a traditional family. Even a family with both parents working that does not concentrate enough on child rearing will have difficulties in later generations; the stats prove it. My family has a stay at home mom as well; I think many people could do it, if not for the desire to have so many material goods.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 12:11 PM

We agree on what is best for kids. We live in a country though where kids (most kids) are going to be raised in non-optimal environments. Where the government can level the playing field w/o growing in size or affecting onerous wealth redistribution, it seems a reasonable and broader good.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 12:21 PM

We don’t have luxury cars and designer clothes.

Why have children if you’re not going to raise them?

I realize that some families cannot afford to do this, but many are just making excuses. No one cares more about your child than you do.

NoDonkey on October 27, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Much agreed.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Where the government can level the playing field w/o growing in size or affecting onerous wealth redistribution, it seems a reasonable and broader good.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 12:21 PM

That’s just it – they can’t.

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 12:27 PM

The Dems. have been singing this song as long as I can remember, I survived the 60′s when our downward spiral really started.
My question is after 50′s years of “for the poor” and “for the children” why is there just as much poverty? the only difference is the Black community has finally wised up and are getting education and helping their own communities.
NOW they need a new group of poor and uneducated voters,OH I KNOW lets help the hispanics.
They are so tranparent and the only people they helped in 50 years was themselves. So pathetic

concernedsenior on October 27, 2010 at 12:32 PM

For those suggesting this was an acceptable tactic by the MN Democratic Party because that photo could have been interpreted to be clergy of any faith, it wasn’t just the doctored photo of a Roman Catholic priest. The second mailer had a doctored rendering of a Roman Catholic altarpiece depicting a Roman Catholic saint bearing a banner with has been modified to say “Blessed Are The Rich”.[ PDF scan from KSTP here ]

Make no mistake, Minnesota’s Democratic Party officials were deliberately using all this distinctly Roman Catholic iconography in a calculated strategy to falsely imply to voters of District 40 that Dan Hall, a Protestant, is an eeeevil statue-worshipping Roman Catholic who was taught to betray the poor for the benefit of the rich.

Many officials of the state’s Democratic Party apparatus at very high levels would have had to have reviewed these photographs, including, it may be assumed, the candidate John Doll on whose behalf these mailers were sent, from the planning and pasteup stages through proofing and final printing & distribution. It strains credulity that they would have all signed off on both of these items without being of the despicably cynical belief that these particular graphics would have a very particular resonance, at the very least among their targeted voters in the 40th district of the state legislature.

I, for one, find it impossible to accept the preposterous explanation now being given that these manipulated photographs were accidentally included in the state Democratic Party officials’ multiple efforts to discredit a politician of another faith and I highly doubt that any other reasonably intelligent adult with any knowledge of the politics over the last century would be able to accept it either.

There’s a very long ignominious history in this country of bashing “papists” under phony pretexts just like this in desperate last ditch efforts to scare voters in Protestant majority communities and this is a direct throwback to those very well-documented dirty, fear-stoking tactics appealing to rank prejudice.

Imagine the outcry if Republicans or if the Libertarian or even the Green Parties had put an insulting photoshopped picture of a Muslim Imam on a last minute mailer, for example, and then claimed it was an innocent mistake, that they had instead intended to slander a member of a different faith for HIS religion.

As if that would somehow make it acceptable for politicians asking to be entrusted with the task of protecting the welfare of all members of their community to do!

leilani on October 27, 2010 at 12:40 PM

We agree on what is best for kids. We live in a country though where kids (most kids) are going to be raised in non-optimal environments.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 12:21 PM

But the argument against the traditional one is that single-parent or two parents of the same gender, or whatever the “flavor of the day is” must be equally good. There is no “BEST” in their argument.

If you agree that a traditional nuclear family with a stay-at-home parent is “best” why wouldn’t you encourage that as the optimal solution… other solutions may work, but this is “best”.

Of course if you state that; you’re a homo-phobic, anti-gay evil christianist (in the eyes of our social “betters”… i.e. the liberals).

Where the government can level the playing field w/o growing in size or affecting onerous wealth redistribution, it seems a reasonable and broader good.

Perhaps we should hope we get skittle-crapping unicorns first; that seems more plausible than a government that can deliberately enact meaningful change without massive restrictions, unimagined costs, increased size and power, and dreadful side-effects.

Since we’re looking for the “broader good”, and everything the government does is designed to cost more, restrict choice, and limit freedom… wouldn’t the “broader good” be not getting the government involved unless absolutely necessary?

gekkobear on October 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2010 at 12:27 PM

That’s a different and big topic. I’d favor cutting government by 25% and flattening the tax but that’d still leave a huge government with a lot on its plate. For instance, I think lowering barriers to education is a good thing, but public schools aren’t.

dedalus on October 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2