Some on the Left Cheer Attack on the Pope

If it were not so typical, it would hardly seem credible.  Expressing joy over such an incident can be pretty revealing.

Comments

[Mick]

At least some/few more level headed lefties apparently showed their disdain for the BS. Sad stuff none the less. Like you, I am not shocked nor even mildly surprised.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, this is the ugly underbelly of the political left wing that is rarely reported in the mainstream media. When you have extreme right individuals or groups that say or do very bad things-- or even if they just say something that is regarded as impolitic-- it is dutifully and prominently reported. But when ugliness occurs on the left, it may not be reported at all.

[Sue]

Joe, I don't condone verbal attacks on the Pope's well-being, but it's a left+right problem. One side doesn't own the nastiness. If you've got a cure for commenters' outrageous nasty comments, be sure to let us all know.

See this link for terribly nasty comments in the past few days about President Obama. They're not less ugly than the ones you cited and there's no difference between them; they're both national leaders. Ugly comments are NOT ok just because you (dis)like the person to whom they are aimed:
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/12/28/fox_nation_the_church_police_ask_why_obama_did_not_attend_church_on_christmas.php

[Joe Guarino]

Sue, if anyone on the extreme right advocates or cheers physical harm against Obama, as was done in the case of the Pope, then it ought to be repudiated.

[Sue]

There have been many comments calling for physical harm, shooting, family injury and misfortune and similar ugliness against President Obama on major blog sites, including Fox Nation (?) and more. No one needs to be on the "extreme" left or right to repudiate them, but Fox leaves them online (yet criticizes other sites for their comments). I have a problem with that apparently hypocritical 'standard' but I'm glad that you repudiate them.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

"Ugly comments are NOT ok just because you (dis)like the person to whom they are aimed."

That's almost funny coming from the person who very recently said, "Peace on earth and goodwill towards some."

Did anyone else's stomach turn on that one?

[Stormy]

Sue,

Do you remember a movie being made in 2006 by the title of "Death of a President" which had George Bush killed by a sniper? This was also "ugly". Ugliness has been a close acquaintance of the left for a long time.

"Rod Liddle, a newspaper and magazine columnist who also makes documentaries for Channel 4, said he thought the Bush film gave voice to a common sentiment in Britain."

"You will never, ever be able to overestimate the degree to which the British people loathe George Bush," Liddle said. "It will be a free round of drinks in every pub for the person who plays the assassin."

"Liddle said there was nothing wrong about making a documentary about the assassination of a U.S. president, even if it was difficult for some people to watch."

"I don't find it particularly objectionable, but then I'm not George Bush's family," he said. "It seems to me to be a reasonable premise, even if it is uncomfortable."

Difficult to watch, indeed.

[Joe Guarino]

I think there is a particular problem associated with cheering harm to the Pope that almost exceeds that associated with any wish for physical harm against a transient head of state.

The Pope is the spiritual leader of, I think, a billion Catholics in many nations around the world. He is viewed as the primary intermediary between individual Catholics and God Himself. He is also viewed as the primary living spiritual descendant of Saint Peter through direct apostolic succession. In Christian circles, even outside the Catholic church, those attributes are often considered to be a pretty big deal. And cheering harm against someone like him has enormous significance.

That is not intended to minimize any stated wish for harm to Obama. But the Pope has much more lofty attributes in the eyes of faithful Catholics than Obama, by definition, can ever legitimately claim in the eyes of anyone. That really magnifies the degree of insult associated with the behavior of segments of the left in reaction to the attack against the Pope.

[jaycee]

Sue, if you think the Pope comments were OK, then you should have no problem with a white man attacking Obama physically, right?

So it would be OK for the right to stand up and cheer if blog comments read: “Having just about enough of this black dominance bull---t, one bold white man ran up and knocked down Obama and his wife!”

[Mick]

Where do you see Sue said it was OK?

[Roch101]

For the love of God, Joe, have you lost all ability for critical thinking? In addition to your own clearly fantastic "so typical," the article to which you link has all the marks of a work of fiction. Tackle this one, for example, just who is Newsmax quoting with, "One blogger’s 'attack on Catholicism and Catholics was met with near universal approval within the HuffingtonPost community.'"

You are a nice guy, Joe and frequently thoughtful, but that you swallow this stuff from time to time and regurgitate it with your own stamp of hyperbolic approval is truly worthy of ridicule. You might as well title these posts with "I am really gullible."

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, I think there is little question that, among some segments of the American political left, there is disdain for the Catholic church and particularly its social teachings. It is therefore not inconceivable that some among this group would be happy with a physical attack on the Pope. We can debate what the numbers may be, but I do not doubt for a minute the overall message I took away from the Newsmax article.

[Roch101]

I understand that the article affirmed you preconceived notions, I am laughing that you found it credible.

[Joe Guarino]

I appreciate your sharing your perspective, Roch.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Joe, you're a saint.

It would be very nice if Roch (who we all know has no preconceived notions whatsoever) could share his perspective without ridiculing and "laughing" at others.

[cheripickr]

I gave up on that expectation a long time ago. Unconstructive criticism is the only game he knows. Some people are simply best ignored. And yes, Joe is a saint for lending his "commentary" a modicum of respect that it practically never warrants.

[Brian Penn]

I would say that cheering for the harm of anyone is bad and that in God's eyes we are all equal. I would say the Pope, George Bush, Barack Obama, Brian Penn, Mary Johnson, Joe Guarino, Roch, etc... are all special. I have a particular problem with anyone cheering harm to any other person regardless of their religous, social, political or other status. It does seem like the blog mentioned was an isolated person or group and does not represent a larger group sentiment.

[Bubba]

"That's almost funny coming from the person who very recently said, 'Peace on earth and goodwill towards some.'"

But it IS expected.

That particular story is well known among those who refuse to roll over for the the domineering and elitist attitudes that pass for "authority" among the "business as usual" crowd.

[scharrison]

Joe, please don't consider this any kind of rationalization or tacit approval of what happened to the Pope, or an attempt to compare a mere mortal to the Holy Father.

But when something similar happened here locally, to someone that you actually know, and other people that you actually know responded in an "impolitic" fashion, you chose to ignore what happened until a commenter brought it up. At that point, your responses were:

"With respect to the incident you describe, I do not know precisely what happened, or why it happened. And it appears that what the bearded man did was reprehensible and unjustifiable. But depending on what the facts were, it may be that the journalist involved may benefit from some self-examination."

"I think there are some important questions to be asked about the incident with the bearded man. Certainly, the attacker could have been mentally ill, and attacked the reporter with no real precipitant. But it also could be that there was some kind of trigger.

We can perhaps chalk it up to mental illness; and we can explore whether there was also something that set him off."

I'll leave the reader free to make whatever connections between the incidents, or the speculation about causality of the incidents, their mind leads them to make.

[Joe Guarino]

Brian, I don't think anyone is representing that the reaction represented the sentiment of a majority of the group. I think many people will regard expressions of joy at an attack against the Pope as particularly egregious.

Steve, if my memory serves me correctly, you are posting about reaction to the alleged attack against Joe Killian at the McCain-Palin rally. I do not know Joe except online. But I think it would be wrong for anyone to express joy in the event he were attacked. It is reasonable to ask why a journalist would be attacked at a political rally.

I suspect the woman who attacked the Pope was mentally ill (in fact, I believe that was reported); and there did not appear to be any immediate precipitant in that case.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Interesting example, scharrison. Let's take the examples of deliberate ignorance of bad behavior (on a local level) one or two steps further.

This past year, former judicial candidate, Rachel Hunter, was DISCIPLINED by the North Carolina State Bar for using the moniker, "Madame Justice" on her website - a moniker she had apparently been using for years on any number of "ancient" sites. The Bar's charge (that said moniker was somehow misleading to the voting public - which the Bar apparenly assumed was both ignorant and stupid) was CLEARLY bogus and politically-motivated, and an IN-YOUR-FACE spit-fest on free speech.

Rachel actually lost her job. Yet, not a PEEP was heard out of any of the oh-so-progressives in the enlightened N.C. blogosphere. They HATED Rachel, so anything the Bar did to her was o-kay.

A few months later, a blogger who could not take even a small portion of what he dished out on the blogs in kind, took "mean" and outright libel one (illegal) step further and started hurling threatening e-mails into this blogger's Inbox . . . e-mails that (because of what happened to Rachel) I had no choice but to take VERY seriously. There are several folks in this blogosphere (indeed on this thread) that HATE me so much that they've tried to rationalize what he did . . . which I will repeat, was illegal, and that's why he'll be in Court in February.

And if you wanna talk about causality, "Peace on Earth, goodwill towards some" actually summarizes my experience in this rarefied ether very, very well.

Not all of us are apparently worthy of fair play or justice no matter what we do. Equality is a myth (Brian) and cruelty is NOT isolated . . .

. . . cue Roch's laughter.

[scharrison]

I have to admit, Doc, you are as smooth as Jiffy peanut butter. The smooth kind, not the crunchy kind. And I don't mean that in a bad way, it makes it easier to talk to you.

But..."alleged"? It may not be your intent, but that comes pretty close to saying, "I have no proof that he didn't lie about the incident." That's not quite as smooth as you would put it, but I'm working on it.

And looking back at your (older) comments, the "benefit from self-examination" thingie sort of floats the idea that Joe could learn from whatever mistake he made that earned him a leg-kicking.

It is also possible that I am misinterpreting your comments. It wouldn't be the first time I'd done that, for sure. If so, you have my apologies.

[scharrison]

Mary, the "Doc" address above was for Joe. I mean, you're a doctor too, but I didn't know you were going to post before I could post, and I didn't want you to think the peanut butter reference was for you. You're more of the crunchy kind, anyway. That was a joke, my dear.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

No offense taken, sharrison. It was clear you were addressing Joe.

I just got the call. Feburary 23rd, Courtroom 1A (Randolph County). 9 AM.

"Crunchy." Yep.

[Joe Guarino]

Steve, there was some doubt expressed in the local conservative blogosphere (elsewhere, I believe) about what precisely happened at that rally. I don't think what happened to the Pope is in doubt in any major way.

[Mick]

Weak, Joe.

I'll go with "Busted" on this one.