IS THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE'S DONOHUE WORRIED ABOUT BLASPHEMY OR GIRL COOTIES?
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is still trying to milk a five-week-old Jon Stewart sketch that mainly focused on Fox News (which is appalled at the term "war on women" but is always eager to talk about a "war on Christmas"). The joke that set Donohue off wasn't specifically aimed at Catholics; what Stewart said was that, since Fox is apparently comfortable with "war" terminology when the "war" is on Christmas decorations, maybe women can get the war on women taken seriously at Fox by blocking state-mandated pre-abortion transvaginal ultrasounds using a "vagina manger" placed at the crotch.
(Sorry -- I really killed that joke by trying to explain it, didn't I?)
Today, Donohue has an ad on the op-ed page of the print New York Times; you can read the ad at the League's Web site. What I find amusing is this line from the ad:
Had a conservative host made fun of President Obama's abortion policies by putting a depiction of the Obama family between the legs of a naked woman, those who think it's cute to mock The Holy Family wouldn't be laughing.
Does Donohue think this would outrage us? After all the vile imagery and vitriol we've seen directed at Obama and his family -- Barack and Michelle depicted as monkeys, guns aimed at the president's head, and so on? Why on earth would we care about seeing the Obamas in front of a woman's crotch? It would be an odd way of attacking the president, but, um, Bill? We don't think women's bodies are repulsive. We don't think they're inherently grotesque or unclean or abhorrent.
Apparently you disagree.
Yeah, I understand having a particular set of religious beliefs, and finding that what Stewart did mingles the sacred and profane in an unacceptable way. But -- unless you think we worship the Obama family (which may be the case) -- it seems you imagine that we'd be repulsed at seeing anything we think is good in close proximity to a vagina.
That's not a healthy attitude, Bill.
