US News and Word Report went off the deep end long ago. But this is a new low. They picked up a syndicated Creators Syndicate column by anti-Catholic bigot Jamie Steihm.
They posted a piece which is amazing in the sheer viciousness of its anti-Catholic bigotry.
Highlights:
The Catholic Supreme Court’s War on Women
By JAMIE STIEHM [For more on who is she is, HERE. Imagine my shock to find that her addled world view was shaped in Madison, WI – 77 sq miles surrounded by reality.]Et tu, Justice Sonia Sotomayor? Really, we can’t trust you on women’s health and human rights? The lady from the Bronx just dropped the ball on American women and girls as surely as she did the sparkling ball at midnight on New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Or maybe she’s just a good Catholic girl.
The Supreme Court is now best understood as the Extreme Court. One big reason why is that six out of nine Justices are Catholic. Let’s be forthright about that. (The other three are Jewish.) Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama, is a Catholic who put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence. What a surprise, but that is no small thing.
[…]
Sotomayor’s blow brings us to confront an uncomfortable reality. More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if “you” are female. This is not true of all Catholics – just look at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.
[…]
Catholics in high places of power have the most trouble, I’ve noticed, practicing the separation of church and state.
[…]
The seemingly innocent Little Sisters likely were likely not acting alone in their trouble-making. Their big brothers, the meddlesome American Roman Catholic Archbishops are bound to be involved. They seek and wield tremendous power and influence in the political sphere. Big city mayors know their penchant for control all too well. Their principal target for years on end has been squelching women and girls – even when they should have focused on their own men and boys.
In one stroke with ominous implications, there’s no such thing as Catholic justice or mercy for women on the Supreme Court, not even from a woman. The rock of Rome refuses to budge on women’s reproductive rights and the Supreme Court is getting good and ready to strike down Roe v. Wade, which became the law of the land 40 years ago.
[…]
Read the rest there.
The writer is a great example of the axiom that abortion is the primal feminist sacrament.
The combox is open at USN.
I see that many are using it. I even saw a comment from a regular reader here.
I don’t think this would be ignored.
From the Catholic League:
Bill Donohue is asking Creators Syndicate to drop columnist Jamie Stiehm after her article yesterday; it was picked up by US News and World Report (click here to read it):
“The Catholic Supreme Court’s War on Women” is the title of what is perhaps the most bigoted attack on Catholicism that has appeared in decades by any mainstream media outlet. What set Jamie Stiehm off was Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s decision to stay the Health and Human Services mandate from taking effect January 1.
Sotomayor is referred to as “just a good Catholic girl” who “put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence. What a surprise, but that is no small thing.” The Justice’s decision “brings us to confront an uncomfortable reality,” Stiehm writes. “More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions.” She then lists, as a happy exception, Nancy Pelosi. Sotomayor, by contrast, “is selling out the sisterhood.”
“Catholics in high places of power have the most trouble, I’ve noticed, practicing the separation of church and state,” Stiehm says. “The pugnacious Catholic Justice, Antonin Scalia, is the most aggressive offender on the Court, but not the only one.” Now it seems that Sotomayor “has joined the ranks of five Republican Catholic men on the John Roberts court in showing a clear religious bias when it comes to women’s rights and liberties. We can no longer be silent about this.” (My italics.)
Stiehm also indicts “the meddlesome American Roman Catholic Archbishops” who “seek and wield tremendous power and influence in the political sphere.” Moreover, “The rock of Rome refuses to budge on women’s reproductive rights and the Supreme Court is getting good and ready to strike down Roe v. Wade….”
This is a throwback to the most anti-Catholic vitriol of the 19th century. Creators Syndicate should drop Stiehm immediately. More on this later.
Contact David Yontz, managing editor: dyontz@creators.com
UPDATE:
The Steihm column is so bad that even Fishwrap’s Michael Sean Winters found it “a stunning piece of bigotry”.
Loading ...
I would say I’m amazed by this but in reality Stiehm is only giving voice to opinions generally accepted by the majority of those who call themselves “Progressive”. The fact she would give voice to these opinions indicates to me we’ll be seeing even more public display of hostility to the Church by the Progressive MSM opinionators. They see the Church as the last obstacle to their agenda and intend to do it in anyway they can. I recently read an article claiming that Roman Catholic Church membership declined by some 90,000 in England and Wales and blamed that declined on the clerical sex abuse crises. I say, nonsense. The decline is in response to a problem having to do with getting jobs in the UK, i.e., in conducting background checks prior to hiring, employers are looking with disfavor upon known Catholic job applicants. I can’t prove that, but knowing the intellectual leanings of the Brits, I’d place a bet on that premise. And here’s why. In intellectual circles in the UK there’s a tremendous overweight given to the premise of tolerance of all races and creeds, (read Muslim) and a belief that in hiring Catholics, employers are opening themselves up to claims of permitting, if not promoting, religious intolerance and anti-Gay bigotry. I have not doubt that standard will soon be found to apply in the US. And its well known that employers now scour the Facebook pages of potential employees as part of the vetting process.
In sum, this is only going to get much, much worse.
Check out her personal facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/jamie.stiehm
Choice quotes:
“Jamie Stiehm: Point taken, Steve. But there are five Republican Catholic men on the court, which is bad enough for me. ”
“Jamie Stiehm: THomas Jefferson took a dark view of the Church of Rome”
Have they already closed the combox at USN? I am unable to find any comments there at all, only two empty parentheses after where it says “Comments.”
“Separation of church and state” apparently now means “separation of brain and opinion.”
If you like your religion, you can keep your religion — as long as you never act upon it, breathe a word about it, or dare to oppose the state’s current opinion by even one tiny pixel. In every other discernable way, you must worship Caesar — and the latest proper opinions by those who are his prophets.
I saw it and posted a couple of comments; also posted something on my blog.
My feeling is, if U.S. News and Creators Syndicate want to be in that business, fine. I seem to recall there was a publication, some years ago, that claimed to be “conservative” but repeatedly ranted about the Zionists! They have a right to publish that clap-trap. But they should be understood as such.
So if U.S. News wants to be on the same proverbial shelf with Jack Chick comics, that’s their choice.
“…and the Supreme Court is getting good and ready to strike down Roe v. Wade, which became the law of the land 40 years ago.”
Please let her be right about something!
Pingback: US News: Catholics have taken over the Supreme Court, or something « Hot Air
anachy–
It takes a while for the comments to load. Says there are 136 right now.
This article is anti-Catholic? It seems to be very pro-Catholic. Let’s run through the points:
“a Catholic who put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence. What a surprise, but that is no small thing.”
* Translation, a true Catholic obeys God rather than man
“More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. “
* Translation, Catholics have principles that are reflected in their daily lives, more so than other religions
“This is not true of all Catholics – just look at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.”
* Translation, some Catholics are Catholics in name only.
“Catholics in high places of power have the most trouble, I’ve noticed, practicing the separation of church and state.”
* Translation, Catholics believe that the state must be governed by moral laws given by God….You can’t separate “the practical affairs of running a state” from the practice of one’s faith, as Machiavelli proposed.
“They seek and wield tremendous power and influence in the political sphere. “
* Translation, Catholics make up a sizeable percentage of the US population. They should be able to greatly impact society (Note, the fact that they don’t says a lot about the state of the Church in the US).
“The rock of Rome refuses to budge on women’s reproductive rights “
* Translation, Catholic doctrine doesn’t change, not matter how unpopular it becomes or inconvenient it is to hold.
How is any of this anti-Catholic?
Anti-Catholicism is apparently the last-acceptable prejudice in America. Substitute “Muslim” for each word “Catholic” and watch how fast she would be fired…
Hard to make a comment on that paper which does not accept google or twitter accounts, as far as I can figure. I am not on Facebook.
She has no problem with government funding for abortions (which of course undermine the faith). And so she is likely yet another cream of wheat brained liberal who does not know that the Freedom of Religion of the First Amendment includes the Free Exercise Clause.
Fr. Fox, I don’t see what she posted on your blog. I see something saying there are no comments. Did you decide to remove them?
Or perhaps I am blocked from seeing them by the software here at work. I’ll look again from home.
I don’t find what she says at all surprising, as I run into this attitude all the time. In fact, I was pretty much raised with this attitude. Paul Blanshard’s “American Freedom and Catholic Power” was published in the late 40’s. I read it from the Unitarian Church library when I was 13 or 14. Rereading it recently, all I could think of was to wish the current day bishops were really as (from his point of view) intransigent and united as the ones he was speaking of.
Susan Peterson
Eulogos:
Sorry for any confusion. I didn’t mean to say the author of this op-ed posted anything on my blog. *I* posted something about this on my blog.
If you can’t comment at the U.S. News site, or my blog, I don’t know why.
Pingback: Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » The Obamacare Jiza on the Catholic Church
I guess I don’t share the same definition of anti-Catholicism that everyone else does here. To me, it’s not anti-Catholic to state something that should be true if you are a good Catholic (as expressed in my previous post). Yes, he’s very much against what Catholics stand for on a specific issues and tries to portray Catholic virtues as if they are evil since they oppose what he supports, but if that’s the definition of “anti-….” we’re all anti-“many things” to some degree or another and don’t rejoice when people who support that which we oppose have strengths. To me, being hypersensitive makes Catholics sound like “the boy who cried wolf”. When real anti-Catholic threats exists, non-Catholics will dismiss us since Catholics have played the anti-Catholic card too many times.
To me, something that qualifies as anti-Catholicism must involve slurs, defamation, and grossly exaggerated cliches meant to inspire hatred of Catholic or treating Catholics as subhuman. Google “Chick Tracts” or “anti-Catholic Cartoons” for examples of this.
Pingback: US News and World Report Publishes Vicious Anti-Catholic Screed, Inflaming Readers
Aniwang:
It is anti-Catholic to say that someone would violate ones duties as a judge, for example, in order to serve the purposes of the pope. This is one of the accusations this columnist makes against Justice Sotomayor.
And, I would ask, what do you call it when someone says, “So and so did that because s/he’s __________ (fill in race, nationality or religion of your choice)” — without a trace of fact to support that claim?
I call that bigotry. But what do you call it?
Nancy Pelosi supports the separation of church and state? A few years ago, she was videotaped at a conference saying she wanted to fashion public policy in accordance with “the Word,” meaning the Gospels.
Did Stiehm and other Henry II-wannabees (“Will no one rid me of these meddlesome you-know-what?”) take issue with Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine, on church-state grounds, who declared the government shutdown “unbiblical”?
The fact is when religion can support liberal/progressive policy goals, concerns over the separation of church and state suddenly go out the window.
anilwang: Saying that the Supreme Court is stuffed with Catholics who will undermine American law and “impose their religion” on orders from Rome is pretty much the definition of a slur, defamation, and grosssly exaggerated claim.
“The seemingly innocent Little Sisters likely were likely not acting alone in their trouble-making. Their big brothers, the meddlesome American Roman Catholic Archbishops are bound to be involved. They seek and wield tremendous power and influence in the political sphere. Big city mayors know their penchant for control all too well. Their principal target for years on end has been squelching women and girls – even when they should have focused on their own men and boys.”
That is not an anti-Catholic screed? You must have a VERY high tolerance for vitriol.
It’s very common for a single Justice to issue this kind of Order maintaining the status quo until the case can be fully heard by the entire court–think of all the times that an execution is stayed while one more brief is filed at the Supreme Court. This has nothing to do with how J. Sotomayor or any other Justice will eventually rule in the LSP case (she would need four others anyway).
Recall how often those last minute stays of execution don’t prevent the result to be avoided. IOW, Stiehm needs to settle down, no matter what her animus may be.
Pingback: Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » The Missing Word in Jamie Stiehm Rant
Those who love abortion and wish to see others have as many of them as possible and see it expanded exponentially have over the years always relied on this “not imposing my values on others” canard which has been articulated in the public square by certain prominent ‘catholics’ in government, and enshrined at Notre Dame in an address given by Gov. Mario Cuomo in the 80s. And, particularly on ‘catholic’ university campuses and in some dioceses and with certain types of pastors at the helm, it has, to a very large degree, worked as a strategy to obtain greater numbers of abortions than even the roe authorizing court could have ever dreamed or intended. These ‘catholics’ who promoted the notion of ‘not imposing my values on others’ (cuomo, kennedy, biden…) have been enablers of the greatest slaughter of American human life ever, more than all world wars combined. Now, people who have been formed in that mentality as ‘orthodox liberalism’ (or totalitarianism or the dictatorship of relativism) such as this US News author are shocked that a good number of Catholics remain who never went a long with that regime in the first place and are willing to stand up for life.
And, this author just proves Pope Francis’ comments: the msm is OBSESSED with abortion. Holy Mother Church, she is all about life.
There are two other aspects besides the columnist’s horrific bigotry which should be addressed. First, the disinformation that she and others promote pretending that the Roe “right” emanating from a “penumbra” is free standing and absolute. Even the Roe decision, as anyone reading it can see, stated that as the growing child was indeed human life that the child’s rights entered into it. The Roe court rather arbitrarily “balanced” the rights of both humans at the child’s third trimester. However, science since Roe informs us that indeed the child’s rights are established at conception and not at the third trimester. Third trimester abortions, and infanticide, for that matter, are illegal because of Roe’s stated recognition of human life and that the human life has his or her own rights, rights that the mother’s rights never eclipse. Though many abortions have occurred since Roe and certain politicians and activists continually desire and advocate for even more, this jurisprudence stemming from Roe is not changed. It should in fact be changed to reflect what science tells us, which is that the human being’s rights are demonstrable from conception.
As to her attack on Sotomayor and other justices, anyone studying just a little bit of constitutional law could tell that the Obama HHS requirement was an impermissible and unconstitutional intrusion and violation on religious liberty, not just for Catholics, from the moment the regulation was written. It’s only a matter of time that it gets struck down, and this columnist is egregiously incompetent for either not being aware or not admitting that this is so. No one acquainted with constitutional law, even at the high school or college level let alone law school, is surprised that Justice Sotomayor granted the injunction.
It’s even weirder that these folks expected Justice Sotomayor to knee jerk disregard basic constitutional law to do their bidding. What do they think the Supreme Court is all about? Just a puppet and instrument of the executive branch? If this author’s column can’t be construed as propaganda without basis in fact then I don’t know what is.
The real story here is that given that even college students in constitutional law can easily conclude that the Obama HHS regulation on its face violates religious liberty, Obama’s agenda is informed by blatant harassment and bullying of people who object to abortion on religious grounds. Knowing full well as those top aides and policy wonks must that this would be struck down as unconstitutional, what political base were they trying to energize and pander to by putting it out there in the first place, and continuing to attempt to brief and argue it in the courts, as in the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor? This is what we should be paying attention to. This columnist’s opinions are clearly formed from that campaign of hatred against people who wish to let children live, and pretend publicly that Roe declared that they have no rights to life at all.