Send in The Clowns: William Donohue
Yesterday CGG at CT Local Politics posted a letter from William Donohue, which was sent to every single legislator in the Connecticut General Assembly. Emphasis in this letter was added by CGG and is maintained by me:
Dear Connecticut Legislator:
I have no doubt that all of you share my contempt for state officials who ask patently illegitimate questions of expert witnesses who testify before them. Unfortunately, two members of the state legislature, Representative William Lawlor and Senator Edwin Gomes, did just that on March 26.
To be specific, both men asked a series of questions of Brian Brown, executive director of the Connecticut Family Institute, that probed his religious convictions as they pertained to same-sex marriage. If you think I ’m exaggerating, listen to the audio at http://ctnv1.ctn.state.ct.us/J/jud_3-26-07.wmv. or read our transcription< of the relevant portions of the discussion by visiting http://catholicleague.org/3-26-07_transcript.htm.
It is entirely legitimate to ask witnesses about the source of their convictions, religious or otherwise. But when the questions become personal, intrusive and persistent, a line is crossed. Mr. Brown was not called to testify about his personal religious beliefs, but to explain why he takes the side he does on a public policy matter. Separation of church and state, it needs to be stressed, cuts both ways: Just as it would be illegitimate of me to ask Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Gomes to go on record explaining their personal convictions about the wisdom of Catholic teachings, it is equally illegitimate of them to pepper expert witnesses about their private beliefs.
Senator Joseph Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew who cares deeply about Israel. As well he should. It would be obvious—even to Lawlor and Gomes—that a line would be crossed if Senator Lieberman were subjected the kind of probing questions regarding his religious convictions that Mr. Brown was.
I hope this is the last time I have to address this issue. Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Gomes should rest assured that if this continues, my response next time will not be in the form of a letter.
Sincerely,
William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10123
catalyst@catholicleague.org
212-371-3191
212-371-3394 (fax)
First off, please please please come to Connecticut. You can be a guest on Afternoon Drive with Colin McEnroe. If you come on a Friday you might get to play Win Those Tweezers. A good time will be had by all.
Second, if you don’t want questions to be asked about your religious beliefs, don’t put them on the table at a public hearing. It’s really as simple as that. If the beliefs are worth anything, they’ll hold up under questioning.
Third, at the very least you should get the names right. Don’t you have access to Google at the Catholic League?
William Doohue has a legitimate right to question the tactics used during the legislative session. If the topic had been different and Brian had been a woman or a minority, for sure the media would be crying for them at the moment. We as Catholics, have learned from the liberal playbook and we have decided that we can no longer allow the secular world to push around. William Donohue speaks out for our rights. When our God is defamed we don’t go and right and murder in the streets like the Muslim-we pray and use the courts now. Thank God that someone like William Donohue exists to fight for our right to live and practice our religion freely in a country that wants to silence us.
Opal
Opal – You seriously think that this country wants to silence Catholics? There are 5 Catholic Supreme Court Justices and the 1st Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion – including Catholicism. Despite a series of court rulings that ALLOW the display of creches and other overtly religious displays in a civic context somehow it’s Catholics that are under attack, not the establishment clause of the US Constitution. FYI – a ‘Happy Holidays’ sign at Wal-Mart isn’t an attack. Wal-Mart has customers of all faiths and it’s good business to welcome all of those customers in a neutral inoffensive manner. If the government is trying to tell you how to practice your faith in your church I’ll be fighting right beside you defending your right to free exercise.
If you the Catholic League’s agenda is to overturn the establishment clause of the First Amendment then good luck with your cause. I’ll be opposing you but you have the right to try to amend the US Constitution to enshrine your particular religious sect above all others. But I supspect you people like Bill Donohue are happier to play the victim and spin salacious tales of the victimizaton of Catholics in the US – conveniently attached to fundraising appeals for the Catholic League.
Opal,
Give me a f’n break. April fools was yesterday. I’ll respect this site and won’t rant on my true feelings regarding this clown…I rather take the gloves off on my own site.
You can practice your “religion” all you want, just as long as you attempt to ram your “religion” down my throat.
Ctblogger,
I’m sorry, but I don’t see where Opal was “ramming” religion down your throat, or where you referring to William Donahue? It never ceases to amaze me how you guys cry out that we are “ramming religion” down everyones throats, when in reality you all are trying to “ram” your liberal bias down everyones throats. Give me a break, (without expletives)
“You can practice your “religion” all you want, just as long as you attempt to ram your “religion” down my throat.”
That’s right. Go practice your religion all you want. Just don’t talk about it openly. Keep it to yourself or you will be silenced by them freedom lovin’ libs.
Wrong thinking will be punished. Right thinking will be rewarded.
Steve – I guess Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Alito, Justice Roberts, and Justice Thomas are ’secret’ Catholics who don’t openly talk about their religion, attend mass, etc.. I’m 100% free exercise of religion. It’s when the government starts defining what that religion should be that we get into problems and by problems I mean bloody purges and wars.
So talk about it open, proselytize, knock your socks off. Just don’t confuse a the lack of government endorsement with oppression because that is ridiculous.
Well Joe, I guess I just don’t see the connection between “government defining what religion should be” (which, incidentally, nobody ever said government should do) and Lawlor’s and your angst at Donahue and those that agree with him for exercising their first amendment rights by talking about their faith in the public square.
I was there for much of the hearing and watched the rest of it live. Lawlor & Gomes deserved more than what Donahue gave them. They were both *clearly* attempting to smear Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher and others soley for their religious beliefs, which weren’t even inclusive of their arguments.
If states allow gay marriage how exactly does it effect the Catholic Church? If Catholic Churches don’t want to marry gay people, don’t. I support the right of churches to make their own rules. It’s churches that don’t suppor the right of the state to make rules that don’t establish the teachings of a certain religion as law. Also, did I miss something or does the Catholic Church allow muliple marriages now? Do Catholics lobby the state to prevent legalizing divorce? I guess Bill Donohue is quiet on that one. Strange how one teaching is so controversial and the other an afterthought.
I have no angst over Bill Donohue’s speaking about whatever he pleases – I do have a problem with him bullying people to restrict their speech with his screeds, his ginning up bogus controversies and fundraising from people of faith to pay his own fat salary, and being a generally uncharitable, prideful jerk. When Muslim cabdrivers who have cab licenses try to refuse customers who carry alcohol they are smeared for injecting their faith into American society by the likes of Bill Donohue. When Catholic hospitals who take state funds and are licensed by the state refuse treatment based on their faith they are applauded by the likes of Bill Donohue. I’m all for independent livery services denying service to passengers and independent hospitals denying service to patients. My sister got thrown out of a pizzeria once for sopping up grease on a slice with a napkin. It offended the owner. I’m OK with her getting tossed as well. But when you take state money, you have to abide by the Constitution. Taking state money and putting church doctrine above the Constitution violates the establishment clause. There is no compromising on that fact.
The solution is to A) not take any state funds and do as you please according to your beliefs or B) provide services under the law. Pollster George Gallup said the United States is “a nation of biblical illiterates.” and nowhere is that more in evidence than the irrational hatred of homosexuals in this country. If you feel the need to have hearings on one obscure line in the Old Testiment that is as prominent as dietary laws laying out the dos and don’ts of eating shellfish you have the right to free speech. I support your rights. I have the right to say rasberries to you and hell no to funding anything that discriminates AT ALL in the name of religious doctrine.
Rep. Lawlor wasn’t the one to bring up the Catholic Church – it was Brian Brown. Rep. Lawlor asked if Brown “personally [felt] that homosexuality is intrinsically evil and objectively disordered.” Brown found that to be some kind of religious test – the phrase ‘tendency to a moral evil’ comes from a Vatican letter penned by then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict. So Brown was indignant. I don’t see why that’s out of line.
Would it have been out of line to question a Mormon in 1972 about his personal beliefs on civil rights because the Church of the Latter Day Saints didn’t allow black clergy until 1978? I think it’s a fair question. If a Judiciary Committee asks a witness if they believe in ‘turn the other cheek’ justice, or ‘an eye for an eye’ justice would that be a religious test – or just legitimate context with common cultural references?
Methinks Bill Donohue protests too much – or just enough to keep the funds rolling in to continue his bogus crusade againt illusory Catholic discrimination.
“If states allow gay marriage how exactly does it effect the Catholic Church?”
It will affect everyone. This law’s underlying meaning is that traditional marriage is discriminatory; that Christian & religious teachings about marriage are bigoted, and those that believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman are bigots. Since gay marriage has been framed by the left as a civil rights issue, gay marriage will be given protected status by law, and every single organization that is in some way regulated by the state (501c3’s, non-profits, charities, etc.) will be forced by law to recognize gay marriages as equal to marriage between a man and a woman. This law will run head-on into religious liberties (as it already has in Massachusetts, forcing catholic adoption agencies to close,) it will be taught in public schools (again, as in Mass where parents are not allowed to opt their children out of homosexual agenda classes,) etc. This law will profoundly affect society and religious liberties under the first amendment.
About Lawlor. When he asked Brown if he thought that “homosexuals” were “intrinsically evil and objectively disordered”, he was partially quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church in an effort to trip up Brown. Of course the Catholic Church does not teach that homosexuals are intrinsically evil, but this is precisely what Lawlor was trying to get out of Brown. I’m impressed that Lawlor knows the precise wording of the catechism, but that doesn’t bode well for Lawlor – as he’s a liar of the first order. The fact that he knows what the catechism says and teaches clearly indicates that his rewording of the catechism was premeditated. A clever little fellow, that one.
I think you’re a little confused though, Joe. How did this become a debate about Catholic hospitals? I thought we were talking about gay marriage… In any event, since you seem to want to talk about Plan B – you might want to write to your state rep & senator. The legislation that they are trying to pass will force Catholic hospitals to provide Plan B whether or not the hospitals accept state funds. But it is encouraging to know that you’re with us on this one…
About Donahue; we need more like him.
“This law’s underlying meaning is that _____ is discriminatory; that Christian & religious teachings about _____ are bigoted,”
Can women become Catholic priests? No. Can women hold any other job in society? Yes. Does the Catholic Church continue their prohibition against women priest some 40 years after women entered the workplace in large numbers and decades after sex discrimination in the workplace became the law? Yes. Do most people consider all Catholics bigots because they prohibit women from becoming priests? No. Many people think it’s foolish and wrong headed and inconsistent but they respect the right of the Catholic Church to maintain their own beliefs and doctrine and practice their religion freely.
I value the right of people of all faiths to exercise their religion freely. In US society that freedom flows outward from citizens to citizens through the First Amendment. It doesn’t flow from religious doctrine through US law.
Joe,
You’re missing the point and confusing the issue. The state will not (at least immediately) outlaw religious doctrine and practices. The law will, however, change how the state regulates social organizations – at the very least. Again, since this has been framed as a civil rights issue (which, incidentally, it isn’t) every regulated organization will be forced to recognize same-sex marriage. This has and will continue to interfere with religious liberty. I’ve already provided examples of how this *is* happening.
And it doesn’t matter if people consider religious people bigots. Simply changing the definition of marriage declares that traditional marriage is flawed & discriminatory. The bigotry of those that believe in traditional marriage will be written into law.
Utter nonsense. Once again, religion is attempting to dictate how people should live their lives. This is just as outrageous as those who refuse to administer the Plan B pill at drug stores.
THIS IS a civil rights issue plain and simple and you have no right to force you beliefs on the general public. Does the term “separation of church and state” mean anything?
Sorry ct. “Religion” isn’t trying to dictate anything here. On the contrary. It is the homosexual lobby and the Connecticut legislature that is trying to dictate a redefinition of marriage for *everyone*. This isn’t only a homosexual issue. If this law passes and the state allows marriage for persons of the same sex, then all will be forced by law to accept it. It will fall under the same protected category as race. That’s a fact.
But this ISN’T a civil rights issue. Civil rights are granted when a certain class of persons are denied something that other classes possess. The right to marry is currently equal for all persons. Simply because homosexuals don’t desire to exercise their rights as they exist does not mean that they are being denied. Homosexuals wishing to “marry” want *something new*; they want a right that *no person* (or class) currently possesses – and this new institution that they wish to call marriage (but isn’t) will evoke a change of the legal definition of marriage that will affect all of society, not just homosexuals.
Steve – You are saying that because homosexuals are entitled to marry people of the opposite sex (‘he right to marry is currently equal for all persons’) they enjoy the same rights as heterosexual adults. That’s severely flawed logic.
Homosexuality is overwhelmingly believed to be a biological determination. Having extra-marital sexual activity is grounds for divorce. Being sexually attracted to the opposite sex would mean you are not homosexual. Therefore what you are really saying is homosexuals have the right to marriages where they are celibate or cheating. If marriage is so valuable would you support such deception and farce?