The sad fact is that many Edwards supporters believe people who oppose them are "wingnut Christofascists", like Melissa McEwen believes. That kind of comment encapuslates the kind of hate speech the political left is today noted for.

How's the Libby trial going?

Who would've thought ol' Robin Hood Edwards would employ people who lie? After all, he's the one complaining about "the Two Americas" from his multimillion dollar ranch home while pretending to live in the America that doesn't come with room service.

John F not good for Libby or the VP

The sad fact is that many Edwards supporters believe people who oppose them are "wingnut Christofascists", like Melissa McEwen believes. That kind of comment encapuslates the kind of hate speech the political left is today noted for.

Posted by: Bruce | Feb 8, 2007 12:41:29 PM

The sad fact is that Bruce, after reading this thread, decides to do the same thing he is complaining about. Where is the proof that many Edwards supporters believe this. Just another lie
to perpetuate this kind of partisanship. That kind of comment encapsulates the kind of hate speech the right is today noted for.

The sad fact is that many Edwards supporters believe people who oppose them are "wingnut Christofascists", like Melissa McEwen believes. That kind of comment encapuslates the kind of hate speech the political left is today noted for.

Posted by: Bruce | Feb 8, 2007 12:41:29 PM

And what about those on the Right who claim people left of the center are wingnut terrorist sympathizers?

Pope is evil anyhow.

Also, I've read Marcotte before and I can attest that the Libune must've found one of her most tame passages to be able to excerpt it above. It's nigh-impossible to find a passage of hers that isn't liberally peppered with the f-word and doesn't somehow imply that the government is constantly trying to take away the right (particularly women's) to purchase contraceptives. She's a big fan of pridefully calling herself a "slut," too, in the new Paris Hilton/Britney Spears way, I guess.

I can't imagine why middle America would blanche at her writings.

Ah, the pot calling the kettle black.

A February 2 article in Women's Wear Daily described Donohue's efforts to "manufacture controversy" -- and, unlike the Times and AP articles, noted that other Catholics disapprove of his antics:

The same thing that keeps Donohue in the press prevents him from becoming truly respectable within the religious community, where his antics are a source of frequent consternation.

Mark Silk, director of the Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College said, "He's a thug. He reverts to bullying because he thinks that's what the job entails."

Rev. Mark Massa, a Jesuit priest and co-director of the Curran Center for American Catholic Studies at Fordham University, accused Donohue of being unable to differentiate between healthy debate and real religious bigotry. "Not everyone who criticizes the church is anti-Catholic," he said.

The editors at the Catholic weekly magazine America seem to agree. In 2000, they chastised Donohue for denouncing movies he hadn't even watched. "While being first may increase one's chances of attracting media attention, there is a danger that the Catholic League reinforces the stereotype that the Catholic Church is at best unreflective and at worst unfairly biased and paranoid," wrote Rev. James Martin. "In the long run, this may do more harm to the church's reputation than a short-lived movie or play."

Catholic, Conservative, Liberal, Whatever. It's a sad day for American politics when we have to dump on the Pope to energize a campaign. Last time I checked, he was not a candidate.

Catholic, Conservative, Liberal, Whatever. It's a sad day for American politics when we have to dump on the Pope to energize a campaign. Last time I checked, he was not a candidate.

First of all, a devout Catholic group calling anyone else a bigot is laughable. I believe the saying is that the "pot is calling the kettle black" (which some idiot will inevitably call a racial comment). The point being that until Catholics stop persecuting homosexuals and single mothers, they are completely irrelevant.

Bush won the election because he mobilized what his own people termed his "evangelical base" across the red states. Basically he catered to all the bible thumping religious nuts in Middle America. I wouldn't go so far as to call them fascists, but anyone who places fairy tales over logic and human decency doesn't deserve an opinion.

The comment on the Pope was off-base as the reasons for the Church's opposition to abortion are based off of moral beliefs, not tithing. This would have been a more accurate place to throw the fascism dig in to, since the church advocates creating anti-abortion laws, forcing their views on others rather than simply stating their point and letting the individual decide. Now that IS a fascist practice.

Edwards did the right thing here. Stick with your people, believe in your people, just get them under control. These bloggers are hired for the "edge" that they often bring, that edge just needs to be tempered a bit when part of an official campaign.

The sad fact is that the right can dish it out but they can't take it. Turn on Rush and you hear three hours of whining. He and his wingnuts remind me of Dudley Dursley, the spoiled kid in Harry Potter.

Oh, goody, here comes Media Matters. Once again, they're not actually "correcting conservative misinformation", which is supposed to be their raison d'etre, but instead they're shouting to the mountaintops, "Hey! What about our talking points? See, they're just as bad!"

Notice that in their latest press release, there's no mention of the former Media Matters staffer that was under investigation by the FBI for helping to illegally obtain the credit report of Republican Michael Steele, a candidate for U.S. Senate. Now that's an example of a REAL "dirty trickster".

I applaud the Catholic League for pointing out that a potential presidential candidate allowed people with such virulent bigotry to work for him... Edwards decision to keep them was not an attempt to show strength, it was an implicit agreement with what they had said, and with what they represent. I for one can no longer even remotely consider casting my vote in his direction. We have enough blatent political panderers in DC anyway.

yawn... zzzzz....

Say what you will about these bloggers but up until a few years back the rightwing Evangelicals preached that the Pope was "the anti-Christ".
The rightwing KKK believes in this twisted version of reality also.

The robots on the right need to create an enemy so they can pretend that they are protecting us from the evil forces that are going to be storming the shores of America soon,i.e.Saddam..

And by the way, this same former Media Matters staffer was opposition research director for Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign.

Just one big happy family...

In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of scientific fact by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over just about any liberal vs. conservative issue. It's too bad bloggers have to resort to name calling as they advocate for their position.

This does nothing for the Edwards campaign in the way of getting the 'not necessarily conservative but still Christian' vote-(numbering probably in the millions). Keeping far-left anti-religion ranters on will only damage his chances of wooing the 'on the fence' South Park Republican types who would vote Democrat if the Dems could actually come up with a centrist platform besides the hardcore liberal stance most Dems seem to take...

ToddH-

Since you're so concerned about completeness of reporting I'm sure you'll want to clarify that the former Media Matters staffer was not employed by Media Matters at the time of the incident, or at any point thereafter and as a result Media Matters has absolutely nothing to do with the incident.

The Democrats have a tiger by the tail. They've pandered to radicals for so long, they dare not stop lest they turn and attack them. The Dem establishment planted the wind by being too timid to demand civil and reasonable discourse of their followers, and now they're reaping the whirlwind of insane, out-of-control rhetoric and a spray-painted capitol.

Virulent, hateful, narrow minded, simplistic...

Marcotte and McEwan would fit in perfectly among the Swamp regulars.

It's all quite delicious, actually. Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan prostitute themselves by disavowing the overwhelming majority of their own bodies of work to keep their jobs, while Edwards flip-flops from yesterday and caves under the pressure of a group of progressive internet extremists to keep them on staff.

In one impressive act, all three affirmed they are willing to say or do anything to cling to the tiny shreds of relevance they once thought they had.

Good luck in Iowa.

What is the uproar about? The women told the truth. Why is that so dangerous? I hope to hear more unvarnished truth.

And I am a moderate middle of the road woman, but I agree with those statements. Its a fact. Birth control is a huge threat to a church that has consistently sided with repressive regimes to keep its consituents in line...Ireland, Germany, South America, to name a few. Birth control gives women freedom of choice .. a dangerous thing to a male dominated institution.

"Christofascist"? Sounds like a word that most gay activists use...

I love how Frank "My pay is subsidized by the Democratic National Party' James spends almost as much time trying to trash Republicans in this post about John Edwards keeping his Christian-hating dribble on the payroll.

[quote]
Who would've thought ol' Robin Hood Edwards would employ people who lie? After all, he's the one complaining about "the Two Americas" from his multimillion dollar ranch home while pretending to live in the America that doesn't come with room service.
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 8, 2007 12:47:34 PM
[/quote]

Jeff:

How much did Bush spend to purchase his ranch in Crawford back in 1999? I don't think he's ever released that fact, and Texas is one of the states where public disclosure of real estate sales prices is prohibited.

BC

Tony, I thought that clarification was made by the phrase "former Media Matters staffer". But maybe it wasn't.

So, while we're "clarifying", which of the events in Media Matters' press release occurred as part of John McCain's presidential campaign? If the answer is "none", I guess that makes them irrelevant to you.

Isn't Media Matters trying to suggest by their press release that Republicans are just as guilty of hiring people of questionable character as Democrats? If so, isn't the character of the people hired by Media Matters (a Democratic operative) just as relevant?

Johnny D criticizing others for hateful talk. That's a funny one.

What's all the fuss about? How old are these "liberal bloggers"? 20? Do their opinions matter - liberal or not? Of course. But shouldn't the media use a little wisdom before reporting this.

Last time I checked, the Catholic Church and Pretestants gave up on forcing people to convert 500 years ago. Same with Islam...oh that's right...their killing "infidels" now. I sorry, I should not have written the previous statement; how insensitve of me!

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to
find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and
find out there is.

John Edwards hired some inexperienced and non-professional bloggers to lead his blogosphere campaign, apparently without reviewing those bloggers past publications to determine whether they would be embarrassing to the Edwards campaign.

Now, like President Bush, Edwards' decision to retain these bloggers proves that when Edwards hires people who are inexperienced and incompetent, Edwards sticks by those hires no matter how much embarrassment and genuine damage their inexperience or incompetence causes.

This is not a good sign for the Edwards campaign any more than Bush sticking by Rumsfeld was a good sign for the future of Iraq.

francislholland.blogspot.com

One can only wonder if Marcotte and McEwan also scapegoat and stereotype jews, African-Americans, muslims and homosexuals in the same way they do social conservative christians. Or, would that be considered hateful according to their compassionate, progressive, and tolerant liberal views. Go figure...

By injecting religion into presidential campaign, the extremists are intended to overthrow our constitution of seperating church and state.

If and when religion rules, then US is the same as other islamic states where mullahs rule.

Thank goodness, there are many nations don't have the same fanatics.

Get religion out of politics. It should be a completely personal decision and not something the government has anything to do with.

If you want to believe that Jesus saved you, or that Mohammed was the true prophet, or that the Temple's gonna get rebuilt, or whatever, that's fine.

As far as politics goes, keep religion out, as the founders intended.

At the same time, we have idiots like Bruce calling out "leftist hate-speech."

Bruce, calling a spade a spade is not hate speech. Get over it. Religion is a fantasy, its all in your head, it does not correspond to reality whatsoever. This is the most obvious observation a human being can make about the world we live in. And, insofar someone is Christian, or Muslim, or whatever, they will want to be governed by a body who believes the same.

So, they can correctly be called wingnut Christofascists because they want a state that is run according to the letter of the law of Christianity, not the constitution.

These people are just as dangerous as any religous group to the freedom and peace of reasonable America.

The use of the word "Christofascist" is a parody of the right-wing term "Islamofascist," which a lot of you seem not to have understood. (Mr. James should have provided the context applicable to that quote.) It's a demonstration of how the left-wingers are not at all the only ones who entertain themselves with semantics (e.g. political correctness). Whether it's offensive is up to you; I wouldn't be surprised if the somewhat frequently used term "Islamofascist" has offended many Muslims. Nonetheless, neither term should be used because it's effectively name-calling, which is effectively propaganda, and there's nothing you can get out of that except for journalistic terrorism.

I'd imagine that about 80 percent of the real people in this country are pretty sick of the phrases "virulent bigotry" and "partisan attacks". They hold about as much mud as the phrases "Exterertrial threat" and "World Conspiracy". Facts are not oppinion. For the 23 freepers and assorted lobbyists out there who probaly have the time to write about half these comments, get a job.

real
winky

Limbaugh regularly feeds his audience a diet of falsehoods, misstatements, distortions, invective, and childish put-downs in service of the conservative movement. During his long reign over the airwaves, Limbaugh has called abortion rights activists "feminazis", told an African-American caller to "take that bone out of your nose," referred to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as "blow[ing] some steam off, " and declared that "what's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party." He touts his close connections to Republicans, claiming that he "[g]ot a big hug" from President George W. Bush during a 2004 White House visit.

from Media Matters

These right wingers need to scour their sites good.

(Sorry about the spelling problems)

I'd imagine that about 80 percent of the real people in this country are pretty sick of the phrases "virulent bigotry" and "partisan attacks". They hold about as much mud as the phrases "Extraterrestrial threat" and "World Conspiracy". Facts are not opinion. For the 23 freepers and assorted lobbyists out there who probably have the time to write about half these comments, get a job.

real
winky

"What is the uproar about? The women told the truth. Why is that so dangerous? I hope to hear more unvarnished truth.

And I am a moderate middle of the road woman, but I agree with those statements. Its a fact. Birth control is a huge threat to a church that has consistently sided with repressive regimes to keep its consituents in line...Ireland, Germany, South America, to name a few. Birth control gives women freedom of choice .. a dangerous thing to a male dominated institution."

I cant agree more. Why cant christians wake up and notice that there are more people in our country and the world who dont believe in their little black book.

Let us put our religious belief aside and do what is right for all American citizens irrelevant of their religious beliefs. Take health care - I dont care what you believe in, but I would rather have had all the money put into the war into providing you health coverage irrelevant of whether you believe in Allah, Buddha, Christ, God, or no one. Who doesnt want to be healthy or wish sickness on someone.

Dear Losers,

One thing about getting older that doesn't suck is that I can remember when we used to say even MORE inflammatory and prejudicial things in back rooms in the days before there was an internet to let the rest of the world find out what we really thought.

What they said is actually quite mild and Mr. Edwards was pretty responsible in understanding blogging is a business, they have to write what sells - he just made it clear what prose he does and doesn't want to buy.

Anyone pretending criticism of the pope is irreligious is ignorant, satanically evil scum! (good invective of the stort that would have stayed in the back room 20 years ago). After all, the New Presbyterian Church of Scotland holds it as dogma that the Pope is the Antichrist and Roman Catholic mass is Idolatry. The Pope has a 2000 year church history to live down to even get CHRISTIANS to like him!

Comments mention the Libby trial - a very important issue! What Mr. Edwards did is to say up front he doesn't want to play that game - that there are moral limits on what will be said and done. If he gets elected hopefully this will make him the first president in living memory to not have prosecutions and scandal plague his administration!

How come the christofascists don't complain when Ann Coulter spews filth about "godless liberals"?

From a moderate agnostic (in other words, a non-religious person who does not bash religious people, or hate them) ... I think the bloggers' attack against Catholicism was inappropriate. Even if you agree with them, that sort of general attack doesn't belong in politics. Attack facts, not religion.

Besides, there are plenty of nominally Catholic Americans who don't obey every word of the Pope. Just as with any religious sect, there are varying degrees, and some people are more observant than others. Those bloggers probably alienated a small minority of liberal Catholics.

In fairness to Amanda, she put links to her sites in her introduction to the JRE blog. She didn't hide anything.

I don't care for the colorful talk, but I have been impressed with the posts she has put up at the site. I don't think these women are there because of their beliefs. I think they are there because they know the blog biz.

It takes all kinds of people doing all kinds of things to bring us all together, hopefully in a team effort, to get things done. Edwards has given a great chance to two young people to make a success. They aren't terrorists - they are bloggers. In the real world - their past posts are just that. Someone once said "All saints have a past - All sinners have a future." I certainly hope so.

Exactly! "...the word "Christofascist" is a parody of the right-wing term "Islamofascist..."

The right wingnuts dish it out hate speech all the time, and boy do they get upset when we give it back to them!

As my old platoon Sgt. used to say, "You don't like the bed you made and have to lie in now? Well suffer biatch!"

You all are freaks. Why can't we all just get along? Anyone spreading that kind of hate should be fired. This country was founded on religious freedom. Any presidential candidate who sides with those attacking another's religion should bow out now. My father was a U.S. Marine and died defending the Constitution (including the first amendment). My older brother is in the Army, my younger brother was a U.S. Marine and I was in the Navy. We volunteered to protect a country that we believe in and love- The United States of America. P.S. I'm neither dumb nor poor. I volunteered because I wanted to.

John Edwards hired some inexperienced and non-professional bloggers to lead his blogosphere campaign, apparently without reviewing those bloggers past publications to determine whether they would be embarrassing to the Edwards campaign.

Now, like President Bush, Edwards' decision to retain these bloggers proves that when Edwards hires people who are inexperienced and incompetent, Edwards sticks by those hires no matter how much embarrassment and genuine damage their inexperience or incompetence causes.

This is not a good sign for the Edwards campaign any more than Bush sticking by Rumsfeld was a good sign for the future of Iraq.

francislholland.blogspot.com

Let's compare Donohue's vehement response (whether real or staged) to this comment with his reaction to the man who said this: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press." The commenter also said: "So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars."

The author of these vile comments was Jerome Corsi, author of "Unfit For Command" and one of the "leaders" of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. Donohue's response? As Media Matters reports, he dismissed these comments as "quips" and "jokes" for which Corsi (described fondly in Donohue's press release as "Jerry") later "apologized."

Corsi's comment are geniune anti-Catholic bigotry. But to a political operative like Donohue, defending his co-religionists from ugly prejudice is less important than carrying the torch for the right-wing and Republican causes.

by R.J.Eskow

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held its annual get-together in Washington this weekend. This was not just some random, fringe event. Speakers included Vice President Dick Cheney, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, 2008 presidential hopeful Sen. George Allen, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Newt Gingrich. This event was comprised of the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

Ann Coulter was also a featured speaker, despite -- or because of --her history of repeatedly urging the murder of her domestic political opponents and government officials by methods ranging from terrorist attacks to poisoning to skull-bashing with baseball bats. None of those violence-advocating comments ever prevent the most prominent Republican groups from inviting her to speak, nor do they prevent the most prominent Republican politicians from appearing next to her without ever condemning her remarks.

Coulter’s appearance at the event was not, of course, a surprise; to the contrary, it was touted as an attraction beforehand by the event organizers. The remarks she made at the CPAC event have now been well-documented, and include unsurprising gems such as: ""I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences’" and "If we find out someone [referring to a terrorist] is going to attack the Supreme Court next week, can't we tell Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalito?"

Sigh. I remember when liberals big criticism of conservatives was that the right was intolerant. They hastened to point out that they had expansive, inclusive mindsets that would save the country. What happened up there on the high ground? Was the air too thin?

Francis L. Holland, Esq. & JCK, you said it all.

I've always felt that some (of course not all) of those posting in The Swamp who call themselves "Liberals" are simple minded and hateful. Some of the responses above bear that out. The vicious stupity expressed here is worse than disgusting, it's downright frightening.

The Right Wing Loonies aren't the only ones spewing bile. Be they Right or Left, loonies will be loonies and I have no use for them.

And nor does Edwards.

I don't believe for a second that these 2 nitwit bloggers represent Edwards' point of view. It may or may not be fair, but his campaign will suffer badly for this. He's going to be spending the rest of his time explaining and apologizing about this before he can talk about an agenda.

In response to JCK:

No: the air wasn't too thin. What's happened to the liberals is what happens to everyone who has ever fought a war. It doesn't matter if you're one of the good guys: if you're going to beat the bad guys, you have to be just as ruthless as they are. People like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have worked for years to poison the well of public discourse. They were successful. Now the well is poisoned, they complain about the fact. The truth is, they're afraid.

The situation actually bodes well for America: Hitler and his Nazis were able to shout down the opposition because the opposition was afraid to shout back. But we Americans ARE shouting back. We've put up with a lot of ruthless, lying cowards and bigots long enough. We're not going to take it any more. We're calling the liars to account in language we know they understand because they've been using it on us for years. We also know that if it comes to a real fight, they'll cave in because they simply don't have any guts.

I spent four years in the U.S. Marines, 1969-1972. Rush Limbaugh didn't serve because he's an anal cyst, or something. Gingrich didn't serve because he had other priorities, he said. Bush went AWOL. All those chickenshits found some way to duck the biggest issue of our generation and yet they run their mouths, like belt sanders, over guys like me because we're liberals. Now they're afraid, as I said, because it begins to look as if they're not going to get away with what they've been doing any longer. And they all know what they deserve.

Catherine,
Yeah, I think a good source on Limbaugh is Media Matters. Good research.

Even if true, tell me which Presidential Candidate has hired Limbaugh or Coulter in the same fashion Edwards has hired these two?

The unfortunate thing is that you usually come across as articulate (can I use that word?), but you are handicapped with defending a left wing view. Tall order.

Good point, JD, on the fact that the two in question aren't employed by anyone running for office. Limbaugh made his fortune because of Bill Clinton's escapades and if he were a voting man, he'd probably vote for Hillary just to have something to talk about. Most of these right wing pundits have been enriched by their fealty to the Republicans. They're all free agents but they know which side of the street to play on.
Too bad you don't like Media Matters. When I go to the actual sources to read their stuff, I get nauseous.

Jimmy, is Bill Clinton then a "chickenshit?" Because I have a letter to an Army Colonel full of dissembling that shows just how far he went to avoid serving like you did. It's not a republican or democrat issue, you know. Last I checked John McCain's service record is unquestionable. And he agrees with you, incidentally, that we have to be just as ruthless as the bad guys to win this war. Right now we're not giving our soldiers anywhere near what they need to win.

Catherine, you really need to get out of that basement with your bro John E and stop looking at media matters, dailykos and moveon.org.

First of all, Limbaugh was a huge success before Slick Willy became prez and continued to be a huge success after Slick Willy. Something your friends at Air UnAmerica never could do -- success, you know. Media matters also is as objective as a Dan Rather special report on President Bush's National Guard Service or a squirrel is about an oncoming car.

Yeah, JohnD. Rush was huge alright.

The former Media Matters staffer who created a fake e-mail address in order to steal Michael Steele's credit report for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is also a convicted felon because of it. Her name's Lauren Weiner and if she were a republican the whole world would know about the shocking scandal.

BC, please direct me to the statement Bush made where he tried to act like Robin Hood, the way John Edwards habitually does while never taking A SINGLE pro bono case during his illustrious law career despite his obligation spelled out by the North Carolina Bar Association, and I'll see the merit in your point. As it is, what you wrote is irrelevant.

"The point being that until Catholics stop persecuting homosexuals and single mothers, they are completely irrelevant."

Persecution? Are the Catholics burning single moms and homosexuals at the stake, or are they merely refusing to condone their lifestyles? It seems to me that the main gripe the left has with the Pope is that he won't get hip to their moral depravity.

Live your life how you want. But don't demand that Catholics revamp their religion so what you do isn't classified as sin anymore.

Since you provided no links yourself, Jeff, your writings must be irrelevant as well.

Larry, apparently several popes condoned the pedophile priest lifestyle since most of them did NOTHING to stop it until it started to hurt the church financially.

Catherine,

Im pretty surprised at that last lame post. You're usually capable of better. You are obviously bitter about Catholicism (you're a fallen Catholic, maybe? or just a bigoted non Catholic?) and it's clouding your judgement.

I for one can fully understand not liking this institution, The Roman Church. I certainly don't.

However, I know enough about it to know that popes "did NOTHING" out of negiligence and naivete -- NOT because they condone pedophilia. And they started to act when they became aware of it -- when it became a well publicized scandal.

Now that's not admirable, I know, but it's not nearly as despicable as your baseless implication.

You're implying a callous and malicious greed when you say that popes acted only when "it started to hurt the church financially". You have no basis for implying that money is their only motive, and it reflects badly on you.

I'm seeing some people on the Left in this thread, posting with pure emotion and little reason or fact. And it looks really ugly, people. You're acting exactly like the hatemongers on the Right that you routinely condemn.

Clearly, hypocrisy is at home in every political camp.

PS to those who would now attack me: I'm not religious at all, so find a different tack.

Juanito, you haven't pegged me right yet.
There may have naivete and negligence 40 years ago but Church hierarchy has known for a long time that they should have not allowed these sick men anywhere near children. It is behavior that is indefensible and yet some still defend it. Not only were children harmed but families made to feel as if they were responsible for the behavior. Perhaps money wasn't their only motive for the big cover up but that's probably because they didn't realize how much this was going to end up costing them in money and in lost parishioners.
In general, I am tired of all religeous types who pull their sanctimonious crap when they are obviously not very Christian at all.

So which is it? Bitter fallen Catholic or just an old fashioned bigoted non Catholic?

Now that I've called you on it you've decided to change your tune. You've now let the Popes off the hook. That's good since they didn't really belong on the hook you initially put them on.

Yes, local bishops have been covering up. Yes, many people have been seriously hurt. Yes pedophelia is indefensible. However, I've never heard anybody defending this behavior as you alledge -- maybe you could elaborate on that, and tell me exactly who has defended it.

I've already answered your question-I'm neither. Unlike you, I think a patriot can question the government and a religious person can question organized religion. I can also see that you are as non-religious as you are an independent. Whatever-different strokes and all that.
I think as long as the Catholic Church allows priests with credible allegations of abuse against them to be sent to parishes, it will seem defensive of the behavior. I am thinking of that MacCormick guy. Someone must have defended him in order for him to be sent to a parish again.

I take "defensive" in this situation to mean "justifying", or "to speak in favor of". I think the choice of words is very important here. What you're talking about is a cover up and not a defense of this behavior -- as obviously it is impossible to justify pedophelia.

And the point of my taking you to task here is that, yes religious institutions can and moreover SHOULD be criticized. In the specific case of the Catholic Church it is easy enough to do that by sticking to the facts and being reasonable. In that vein, go ahead and criticize away with my blessing.

However, when critique becomes shrill and emotional and bends facts to fit an agenda, it isn't worth much and it reflects poorly on the person mouthing it.

PS: Don't take offense at my critique of you here. None was intended.

I wonder how many teachers/coaches have been nabbed for pedophilia vs. Catholic Priests.

Anyone got that info?