Auth Cartoon Has Catholics In A Fury

[Ian David]

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it organizes hatred," opined French educator and philosopher Jacques Brazon. Truer words have never been spoken.

What began as a crusade for civility in public discourse quickly descended into an ideological power struggle where civility has become censorship and freedom of speech has become freedom from thought.

The original goal of political correctness - to ensure that dignity and discourse walked hand in hand - soon got thrown from the train when the powers that be recognized that the politically correct billy club could be used as an effective weapon to suppress dissent and stifle discourse. Thus, the drive for principle was forsaken by the allure of power.

<snip>

Five of the justices, however, were shown with smug faces and sporting miters. Traditionally, a miter is a type of headgear worn by bishops in the Roman Catholic Church. The five justices who held in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban - Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito - are all traditional Catholics.

Auth's message to the American public was clear - those five Catholic's on the nation's highest bench were in the Vatican's back pocket. To make his point, Auth pandered to the ignorant and sought to ignite the flames of fear among those who truly believe that Catholics are out to rule Washington from Rome. Just like Imus, Auth had crossed the line.

More:
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18270424&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

Auth's cartoon appeared in the latest issue of "Duh! Magazine" I suppose?



See also:


The cartoon I get -- the objection, not so much

My friend and opinion-side colleague Rod Dreher (who is not Catholic) finds this Tony Auth cartoon -- poking fun at the Catholic majority in the Supreme Court's decision on partial-birth abortions -- "obnoxious."

I am and don't.

Moreover, I've read Rod's objection on his Beliefnet blog. Read it twice, in fact. And I have no idea what he's saying.

We can argue about whether religion should have a bearing "on discussions of public morality" -- whatever that is. But, surely, Rod doesn't believe that religion should influence a Supreme Court justice's vote on whether a state law is constitutional.

Does he?



More:
http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/04/post_17.html