Religious Bigotry Ethics: Kamala Harris’s Attack On The Knights Of Columbus

Sounds like monsters to me!

Here is another embarrassing story the mainstream media is shrugging off, presumably because it exposes one more ugly side of the preferred (by many in the media) candidate for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination, California Senator Kamala Harris. In truth, journalists do Democrats no favors when they cover for them like this: it makes the Democrats being shielded careless, it makes them reckless, it makes them stupid and unable to disguise their extremism and  ruthlessness.

Yes, it makes them into Hillary Clinton.

In recent judicial nominee hearings, Harris teamed up with Sen. Mazie Hirono–she’s the Certified Silly Person who said that Democrats have a hard time connecting with voters because Democrats are too “smart” and “know so much,” you know, like Mazie—but she couldn’t be elected dog-catcher outside of Hawaii, so I’m not going to bother using this episode to further prove what is already proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, she is an idiot. Harris, however, is supposed to be brilliant, plus she’s a lawyer, she’s black, and she’s woke.

Before Christmas, Harris, along with Hirono, attacked judicial nominee Brian Buesche for belonging to the Knights of Columbus, the venerable Catholic social and charitable organization founded in 1882. Senator Harris  demanded that Bunche, seeking confirmation for  a U.S. district court judgeship, end his membership in that organization and recuse himself from cases in which it has taken a position. In other words, being Catholic disqualifies individuals for federal judgeships. Strange, I thought we put this bigotry to bed when Jack Kennedy made a campaign speech promising that he wouldn’t take orders from the Pope.

The Knights, say the two Senators (but let’s concentrate on the Woman Who Would Be President, Harris), assert that the Knights have taken “extreme positions,” meaning that they follow the Catholic Church’s doctrinal opposition to abortion and gay marriage. I don’t see how anyone can interpret the Senators’ position as anything but anti-religion bigotry.  Writes Ramesh Ponnuru,

Support for the traditional definition of marriage is not an extreme position; it is held by roughly a third of all Americans. It was certainly not an “extreme position” at the time of Proposition 8: The initiative won 52 percent of the vote in one of the most liberal states in the country, the same day that state voted overwhelmingly to make Barack Obama president…If Harris and Hirono want to maintain that all judicial nominees must support abortion, beyond just saying that they will respect existing law, then they should just say that there are scores of millions of Christians they would never allow on the federal bench on account of their beliefs.

In 2017, Senator Diane Feinstein hinted of rising Democratic anti-religious hostility, or perhaps more transparent hostility, when she seemed to look askance at Judge Amy Coney Barrett membership in the Catholic Church, observing darkly, “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.”

Paul Mirangoff clarifies that Harris “doesn’t want to ban all Catholics; just the ones who take the Church’s teachings seriously.”  Catholic John Kerry, for example, supports abortion on demand, but says that he also believes as his Church does that killing a fetus is murder. He’s a good Catholic in feminist, Democratic terms—you know, one without any integrity at all. This was also the stated position of the late Mario Cuomo, though somehow he sounded smarter than Kerry does when he was saying it.

To its credit, the organization responded to Harris’s bigotry (and Maisie’s, but never mind her) with this masterful open letter from the Washington, D.C.  chapter of the Knights:

Dear Senator Harris, Senator Hirono, and respective staffs:

Greetings from your local, Capitol Hill-area Knights of Columbus Council, Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle Council 11302! We recently read about statements which expressed the fear that the Knights of Columbus held many extreme beliefs. It is our great pleasure to assure you that this fear is not grounded in any truth. The Knights of Columbus in general, and O’Boyle Council in particular are dedicated to the three fundamental principles of charity, unity, and fraternity.

In the past few months O’Boyle Council has worked with local parishes including St Peter’s (House-side Catholic church) and St Joseph’s (Senate-side Catholic church) to raise funds and give away over $4,000 worth of coats to neighborhood children, collect soda and beer can tabs to donate to the Lt. Joseph P. Kennedy Institute which helps the developmentally disabled, and collect diapers and other supplies for new mothers in need. Over the course of the past year we donated an ultrasound machine to a clinic, picked up trash around Nationals Park, and donated supplies to a local school.

We do all this as well as social gatherings and spiritual events. We hope this list of activities helps to assure you that we are simply a group aiming to do God’s work while building friendships.

We wish to formally invite you all to join us for any social or charitable event. In fact, this February we are doing the Polar Plunge to raise funds for DC Special Olympics. You and anyone you know are more than welcome to join us either jumping in the cold water or sponsoring our team. Our team’s page can be viewed at https://give.specialolympicsdc.org/kofc. Additionally, if any Catholic men on your staff are interested in joining O’Boyle Council for charitable and social events they can find more information on our website at “https://oboyle.dcknights.org/ and Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/KofC11302/.

If you have any further questions or concerns please reach out to us at kofc11302@gmail.com.

Thank you for this opportunity to write to you. We pray that you have a wonderful Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

________________

Sources: National Review, Powerline 1, Powerline 2

 

 

35 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Religion and Philosophy, Rights

35 responses to “Religious Bigotry Ethics: Kamala Harris’s Attack On The Knights Of Columbus

  1. Other Bill

    Good for the Knights of Columbus. Good Irish humor comes in handy.

  2. Benjamin

    I hope they put her honor Amy Barrett in the Supreme Court next. I think, given the opportunity, I would’ve asked the author of the letter to amend the sentence “It is our great pleasure to assure you that this fear is not grounded in any truth” to say “It is our great pleasure to assure you that this fear is true” and leave the rest as is, lending the letter a grand Chestertonian twist. As I have only just recently said, Deus Vult!

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      Tsk tsk tsk, don’t you know that’s the motto of the Crusaders, you know, that band of Dark Ages, illiterate thugs who attacked the peaceful civilization that was medieval Islam? If you were woke now you revoked!

  3. The knights’ response was perfect, and just about anything they, the offended ladies could say or do will dig them deeper. The strange part is that have they even considered what religion most illegal immigrants are? The Knights would only get stronger. They won’t forget her.

  4. We all need to be screaming YOU’RE A BIGOT at the top of our lungs every time a Liberal or Progressive opens up their mouth and shows their bigotry towards others.

    I’m damned tired of their years of blatantly open bigotry.

  5. Would these same people accuse a Muslim nominee of being a terrorist?

    Implying that Beusche is a kiddie raper is just like that.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      They would not. They’d fawn all over him and say that the Muslim call to prayer is the most beautiful sound in existence. Kind of odd, considering Mohammed disliked music and forbade its use in services, and some nations where Muzzie-whackos are in control have to have tuneless radio broadcast, at the risk of their stations being bombed.

      • Interesting points, Michael and Steve-).

        Consider this: The House has rescinded a “no-hat-in-chambers” rule accommodate Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who wishes to wear a headscarf, obeying the Muslim rule that women keep part of their head (some say nearly all of their head) covered. This is celebrated nationwide as a grand step toward tolerance and inclusion. I wonder if Sen. Harris and Hirono and Feinstein would ever dare to declare/proclaim/assert that “Islamic dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern” to her or a practicing Muslim.

        Aside from that, Paul Mirangoff is right on point that “Hirono and Harris don’t want to ban all Catholics; just the ones who take the Church’s teachings seriously. They subscribe to the left’s view that it’s okay (for now at least) to be a Catholic, as long as you don’t subscribe to any Church doctrine that’s inconsistent with modern left-liberalism. That’s toleration, lefty style.” Apparently, the esteemed members of Congress forgot that the First Amendment protects not a person’s right not to practice a religion, but a person’s right TO practice his/her/their faith.

        jvb

  6. Benjamin

    I was remiss! This, like nearly every other instance, is a call to quote Hilaire Belloc!

    Gentlemen, I am a Catholic. As far as possible, I go to Mass every day. This is a rosary. As far as possible, I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative.

  7. Rip

    Even those of us that do not agree with all the churches stances, and misdeeds still practice as the church is forgiving, sometime too forgiving. But the knights attacked is ludicrous their work with the poor is legendary!

  8. JutGory

    Someone should point out that they very much look like they are calling for a religious test for office (except they would say that they are fine with Catholics like Kerry).
    -Jut

  9. JutGory

    I know you were avoiding Hirono, but how does this play on the cognitive dissonance scale: political stunt, ethics hero, both?

    http://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/12/28/hawaii-news/hirono-to-donate-pay-to-food-banks/

    -Jut

  10. Funny how the tolerant left finds so many deplorable sin the world

  11. Jeff

    I think “anti-religious” is too broad a term for the direction the Democratic party seems to be taking. There’s at least one prominent religion that escapes criticism from elected Democrats, no matter how far its teachings stray from Progressive values. In fact, you’ll often see the most marvellous contortions made to avoid anything that might remotely appear to be slightly critical of this particular religion. You probably know the one I’m referring to…

    “Anti-Christian” would be a more accurate description of people like Harris and Hirono, I think.

    • Isaac

      Except among a small subset of the New Atheist crowd, there isn’t really a broad conflict between “religion” and “anti-religion.” What’s shaping up is an awkward team-up of Christians (including Catholics and Mormons; anyone still invested in classical Christian values) defending themselves against a broad coalition of “everything else.” Progressives don’t care if you’re a Scientologist, voodoo priest, Muslim, militant atheist, witch, Satanist, or “positive Christian” (to borrow Hitler’s term for his State-accepted, neutered, and socialist-approved form of Christianity.) They are not united by anything other than what they hate, which is not only Christianity but also its accompaniments (color-blind non-racism, objective morality, empiricism, fatherhood, masculinity, feminity, etc.) Only when they’ve destroyed all of these will they turn completely on one another.

      • Isaac

        What’s fascinating is the sort of secular taqiyya that they’ll engage in to win their war. You’ll quickly notice that nothing is sacred and nothing is true; if it hurts the enemy, they’ll use it. Notice how they use the language of objective morality (which they don’t believe in!) to convince you that Christians are evil for whatever reason. Then the same exact people will condemn “moral certainty” as a sin. They’ll call you a racist if you criticize Islam (which isn’t a race,) but watch how often they use the pejorative “white” when criticizing Christian values (the vast majority of Christians on Earth are non-white, but you’d never guess that from looking to the progressive commentariat, who would have you believe that all Christians are white Southerners who say “Jebus.”)

        They’ll use the language of modern scientific empiricism, developed by Christians centuries ago, to tell you that Christians are anti-science. Then watch as they go after science next (math and science, you see, are racist and sexist, and should be feeling-based and inclusive of mysticism. Yes, many are already saying this.)

  12. Isaac

    To understand the thought process of our two senators (such as it is,) all you need to know is that their brains registered two very problematic words: “Knights” and “Columbus.” That’s probably as far from the station as the train of thought went.

  13. Ian

    Jack, I missed your 12/29 Ethics Warm-up. You wrote:
    Good Morning.
    (My beautiful Christmas tree is drooping already, despite meticulous care. (Did you know that in Philadelphia it’s called a “Holiday Tree”? Did you know they had gone mad in Philadelphia?) I’ve had some last until February first. Not this one, I fear.)

    FYI – just for safety’s sake …for your readers and you.

    I never had a chance to meet my grandfather …my dad’s dad.

    When my dad was about 10, his dad, home alone, fell asleep in his living room chair with a cigarette still in his hand. His chair was near the “Christmas” tree (in the early 1940’s, folks in New Jersey called it what is was, a “Christmas” tree. I bet folks in Philadelphia did too, back in the good ol’ days!!). It was mid-January, and the was no more life or moisture left in the tree. The tree ignited, burst into a fireball, and the best my grandpa could do was find refuge in the bathtub, to no avail.

    Growing up, my dad would never let us keep any natural Christmas up past January 1st.

    To all, be safe and have a happy new year.

  14. [From a web-based magazine called The New Atlantis and an article called Modernity and Our American Heresies]: “America, some of its critics say, has less grounding in tradition than any other nation in history. The German philosopher Martin Heidegger said that the United States and the Soviet Union were metaphysically indistinguishable in their technological orientation, in their understanding of nature as nothing but resources to be exploited. The Canadian philosopher George Grant, influenced by Heidegger, claimed that the United States has wholly given itself over to technology, defining human purpose as nothing more than the acquisition of power. All genuinely political life — and all philosophy, theology, and other forms of contemplation — have disappeared from America. For these not-entirely-friendly foreign critics, the United States is the country mostly wholly in the thrall of the technological “how” at the expense of any reflection on the “why” of humanly worthy purposes.

    This is, I guess, one part of the basis of my idea that America cannot really be considered either traditional or conservative. America is best defined as constitutionally radical/progressive. But, and I find this interesting and puzzling, someone like Amy Barrett, who Benjamin mentioned, grounds herself in what can only be described as a Catholic-Traditionalism. Because it is genuinely metaphysical, I suppose that it must be understood as being contrary to América, if American philosophy leads away from a ‘grounding in metaphysics’. Therefore, I would only point out — notice — that there is something even a bit absurdiste in the contrast between someone with an active and alive religious orientation, and America as (if this is a true assessment) basically anti-metaphysical.

    Traditional Catholics of the somewhat over-the-top variety speak of the fact of a heresy of Americanism. That ‘heresy’ is expressed:

    [That] the Church should adapt to the new advanced civilization and relax her disciplines regarding not only the rule of life but also the deposit of faith, passing-over or minimizing certain points of doctrine, or giving to them a new meaning which the Church had never held.

    It seems to me that, basically, there you have it.

    For these not-entirely-friendly foreign critics, the United States is the country mostly wholly in the thrall of the technological “how” at the expense of any reflection on the “why” of humanly worthy purposes.

    This seems completely — undeniably — self-evident to me. I try to capsulate this basic fact, try to make simple statements about it. It is not only an underpinning, it is the underpinning. It is in this sense that *America* as such, as a giant entity, can have no connection with the what I might call the ‘progress of metaphysical transformation’. That is to say that there is no transcendent possibility in America.

    However, there is a simulacrum of the meaning in former metaphysics. We hear it in almost every political speech: the reference to ‘God’ and to God’s designs. In my view these become deeply heretical false-declarations since, in truth, the essential motive has nothing — nothing! — to do with metaphysical or transcendent realization. And in my case this is the point where the term ‘Conservative’ and ‘conservatism’ cease to have any meaning. It is a false term.

    All genuinely political life — and all philosophy, theology, and other forms of contemplation — have disappeared from America.

    This also seems to me to be incontestable. Out on the fringes there is ‘religious community’ I guess. My impression (my judgment) is that many are involved in greater or lesser degrees in absurd religion and thus religion is actually a kind of shield against actually living a genuine religious life within a holistic political and social context. These religious mass-expressions seem symptoms of alienation. But then all this strange reference to religious idealism that has become a rhetorical foundation in political discourse — What?! It is postmodern and absurdiste through and through.

    Therefore, it seems to me that unless there is a recovery at a real and a profound level of *true religious orientation* (which in my view means Greco-Christianity because this is the base structure of Europe) that the present — the present as a mechanism that is not directed by intelligence (intellectus) but by the machinations of power:

    “…that the United States has wholly given itself over to technology, defining human purpose as nothing more than the acquisition of power”…

    …will only continue as we see it now increasing. It is, I think, a form of social and cultural madness. I hate to sound doctrinaire but ‘the mad refuse the cure’. But the proposition of a ‘genuine cure’ is a very difficult and involved assertion.

    • Benjamin

      Traditional Catholics of the somewhat over-the-top variety speak of the fact of a heresy of Americanism.

      Should we be ashamed that the top is so far beneath us? /s

      I think the fact that the distinction between liberal and traditional Catholicism is actually a distinction between noncatholicism and Catholicism is clear to the most casual and disinterested observer – but most especially the ones who say otherwise. You said they attack what is their opposite. It’s clear to me you know that this front in our current war exists, but we’ll let the truly casual observer understand.

      We hear it in almost every political speech: the reference to ‘God’ and to God’s designs. In my view these become deeply heretical false-declarations since, in truth, the essential motive has nothing — nothing! — to do with metaphysical or transcendent realization. And in my case this is the point where the term ‘Conservative’ and ‘conservatism’ cease to have any meaning. It is a false term.

      Civic religion and Americanism are both manifestations of a general heresy called Syncretism. It’s the desire to accommodate many or all ordinarily competitive religious ideas into a single non-offensive generalization. Syncretists, as a matter of historical fact, become intolerant of particular and meaningful religious ideas. They err by placing a lesser good, peace and unity, over a greater One, transcendent Truth, Which is the Source of peace, unity, and all other goods, so they ultimately lose out like Faust, as always occurs when one bargains with demons. This was the heresy which also led the Popes to condemn Freemasonry in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Knights of Columbus (there’s that pesky ‘u’ again) were formed as an alternative fraternal society, bringing this discussion full-circle.

      And in my case this is the point where the term ‘Conservative’ and ‘conservatism’ cease to have any meaning. It is a false term.

      Modern conservatism is concerned with preservation of what little of value remains rather than restoration of that which was lost. Until that is rectified, every compromise is a loss, and every victory is temporary. In the American context though, that tactic would ultimately take us back to such as “We hold these truths to be self-evident”. I’ve always found this Russellian brute fact approach a little bit hilarious. It’s as though no idea stands beneath these assertions, and no particular interpretation of them is offered. Rights simply are listed without meaningful discussion of their origins or the natural obligations from which they’re derived. A nation of laws ruled by positivists, in the long run, might as well not have laws. A nation of ideas ruled by true philosophers (as opposed to their opposite: modern philosophers) might not need them. I think even a metaphysical mess like America could have some hope if its ideas were placed in the proper context.

      If we had to settle for a partial victory, the Protestant could retire to his Massachusetts and the Catholic his Maryland, and the two could enjoy their loose federalist affiliation until the cycle repeats. One might be tempted to hope that after seeing the wheel turn once they would understand the pattern, but we’ve learned from history that people don’t learn from history. One of them will inevitably take the One Ring again and strike out against Sauron. Philosophers should be made presidents or else presidents should be made philosophers.

      • Benjamin wrote: “Modern conservatism is concerned with preservation of what little of value remains rather than restoration of that which was lost. Until that is rectified, every compromise is a loss, and every victory is temporary.”

        Then, I have read, there are the Neoconservatives. I don’t understand enough about them, much as I’d like to.

        They do not want to abolish the state; they want to control it—especially if the state they control is capable of controlling all others. They are not “patriotic” in any conventional sense of the term and do not identify themselves with the real and historic America but see the United States merely as the host organism for the exercise of their Will to Power. Whereas the American political tradition has been fixated on the dangers of centralized state power, on the desirability of limited government and non-intervention in foreign affairs, the neoconservatives exalt and worship state power, and want America to become a hyper-state in order to be an effective global hegemon. Even when they support local government it is on the grounds that it is more efficient and responsive to the demands of the Empire, not on constitutional grounds.

        This paragraph was taken from this article. If you have any insight I’d like to hear.

        • Benjamin

          Neoconservatism isn’t my strongest subject. I think the Trotsky/Stalin/Hitler comparison may be a bit strong, but what I know seems consistent with the accusations that they package information into contrived narratives and have an in-name-only sort of relationship to conservative principles. I would heartily agree that last Bush’s Patriot Act is an excellent example. I’ve generally understood them to be the crony capitalist sort too, but I’m unprepared to make the case. I haven’t been completely convinced the militancy is a will to power rather than a hyperinflated sense of self-preservation – the sort that converts the self into a self that’s no longer worth preserving. I guess that does have a certain utopia-by-any-means-necessary ring to it now that I spell it all out. It could be a distinction without a difference.

          I wouldn’t call the accusations wrong by any means. I think I’m at varying degrees of confirming the degree to which they’re right.

          • Neoconservatism isn’t my strongest subject. I think the Trotsky/Stalin/Hitler comparison may be a bit strong…

            I have been thinking about this for many months now. Let me present the following and you will be able to understand at least how I organize my supposition.

            Having investigated the events of 9/11 I have largely concluded (say to 85%) that these were planned events carried out para-militarily. I could easily present my evidence.

            Because in every instance of these 4 attacks there is such evidence, and because the only alternative for instigator is a para-military actor, I would suggest that this points to, and elucidates, the Neoconservative actors mentioned in the paragraph, above.

            [“They do not want to abolish the state; they want to control it—especially if the state they control is capable of controlling all others. They are not “patriotic” in any conventional sense of the term and do not identify themselves with the real and historic America but see the United States merely as the host organism for the exercise of their Will to Power.”]

            Now, if this is true, and one can only guess at the full anatomy of happened there, I would say that beyond doubt that these actors and these acts are of a scale where the Trotsky/Stalin/Hitler comparison is not ‘too strong’ but just about accurate.

            The picture I just painted, if internalized, if applied, is profoundly distressing (obviously) and places *ethics* and concern for ‘the good’ in a kind of absurd relationship. And a full meditation on the *meaning* of this situation, the ramifications, lead one into very difficult areas.

    • You changed your avatar/meme. Nice.

      jvb

  15. Michael R.

    Could it be that John Kerry is ideologically consistent. Can’t he believe that abortion is murder, but that such murder is OK for some people? I mean, the Democratic Party and the Mainstream Media have made it pretty clear that they feel that laws only apply to some people, why stop at immigration, welfare restrictions, campaign finance law, charity regulations, and the Bill of Rights?

    I would say the Knights of Columbus are wrong in their answer. The Knights of Columbus do hold dangerous, extreme, radical beliefs. They believe a power higher than the government wants them to help others. They take action on their OWN authority without asking permission or even approval of the government. They believe in helping all kinds of people. They probably have even helped Trump voters and Trump voters must be treated as somewhat below child molesters on the social approval scale.

    • Benjamin

      Exactly! Watch how that one admission alone turns the letter into an act of truly Cristian defiance:

      Dear Senator Harris, Senator Hirono, and respective staffs:

      Greetings from your local, Capitol Hill-area Knights of Columbus Council, Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle Council 11302! We recently read about statements which expressed the fear that the Knights of Columbus held many extreme beliefs. It is our great pleasure to assure you that this fear is [true]. The Knights of Columbus in general, and O’Boyle Council in particular are dedicated to the three fundamental principles of charity, unity, and fraternity.

      In the past few months O’Boyle Council has worked with local parishes including St Peter’s (House-side Catholic church) and St Joseph’s (Senate-side Catholic church) to raise funds and give away over $4,000 worth of coats to neighborhood children, collect soda and beer can tabs to donate to the Lt. Joseph P. Kennedy Institute which helps the developmentally disabled, and collect diapers and other supplies for new mothers in need. Over the course of the past year we donated an ultrasound machine to a clinic, picked up trash around Nationals Park, and donated supplies to a local school.

      We do all this as well as social gatherings and spiritual events. We hope this list of activities helps to assure you that we are simply a group aiming to do God’s work while building friendships.

      We wish to formally invite you all to join us for any social or charitable event. In fact, this February we are doing the Polar Plunge to raise funds for DC Special Olympics. You and anyone you know are more than welcome to join us either jumping in the cold water or sponsoring our team. Our team’s page can be viewed at https://give.specialolympicsdc.org/kofc. Additionally, if any Catholic men on your staff are interested in joining O’Boyle Council for charitable and social events they can find more information on our website at “https://oboyle.dcknights.org/ and Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/KofC11302/.

      If you have any further questions or concerns please reach out to us at kofc11302@gmail.com.
      Thank you for this opportunity to write to you. We pray that you have a wonderful Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

      Condemn us for this, and they’ll be up to their ears in holy martyrs. Let our apologies rather be apologias. Let us not even attempt to appear to conform, because conformity in inconsistent nonsense is the enemy’s uniform.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.