It's time to speak out against Bill Donohue

Bill Donohue, president of The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
(better known as the Catholic League) displays an almost unbelievable level of paranoia and a staggering persecution complex, and decries any questioning or criticism of the Church, however subtle or mild, as anti-Catholic bigotry. This “bigotry” gives him apoplectic fits of anger and incites him to give press conferences and to go on cable news programs ranting and raving about how Catholics are so very oppressed, and about how some sort of vague, nebulous anti-Catholic forces are out to get him and to eradicate Catholicism from American culture.

One has to laugh at all of this. It's so ridiculous, delusional, baseless, and full of self-pity that there's often no other possible reaction Jesse Galef, of the Secular Coalition for America, recently recounted one such experience. Representing the American Humanist Association, during last year's holiday season, he appeared with Donohue on Fox News, and, in the course of their discussion, Donohue compared Galef (and, by implication, secular humanists in general) to a cannibal. No, really. He did. As Galef says
in his account, it's almost impossible to do anything but laugh when faced with such ludicrousness.

But, unfortunately, Donohue's nonsensical temper tantrums are not only funny. They're also often hateful and dangerously dismissive of the First Amendment. Donohue has positioned himself as the voice of American Catholicism and he both courts and manufactures controversy in order to get attention and to further his agenda. When the news programs give him the attention he so desires, his tactic is to shout as loudly as possible, throwing around wild, unsubstantiated accusations. And because producers of news programs know that controversy sells and that guests, like Donohue, who shout over everyone else, attempting to drown out rather than deal with the opposition's arguments, bring higher ratings than calm, reasoned discussion, they're often willing to give him a platform.

Donohue seems to have somehow fooled his supporters (and some in the media) into believing that the Catholic Church deserves special privileges and that it is entitled to break the law when it comes to issues regarding the separation of church and state. In each of his press appearances, he asserts, subtly or more overtly, that Catholicism should never be criticized, that it is beyond reproach, and that anyone who dares to question or criticize the Church is an anti-Catholic bigot (or even a Nazi!) Yet Donohue never provides any concrete, objective evidence in support of these assertions; instead, he just assumes that his claims are self-evidently true.

He is also notorious for interpreting legal actions and decisions that defend and uphold the religious clauses of the First Amendment, and the actions of individuals or organizations who want to prevent violations of these clauses and to keep religion from having undue influence in the secular world, as being anti-Christian and/or anti-Catholic. Time and time again, he baselessly asserts that Catholics are victimized when the religious clauses are upheld and defended.

This angry paranoia seems to come both from his conviction that secular society is out to destroy Catholicism, and from his misguided belief that America is somehow a "Christian Nation" built on Judeo-Christian principles. Taken in combination, these beliefs lead to Donohue's attempts to reframe the important issue of upholding and maintaining the wall of separation into a war between secular society and Catholicism.

This is the subject of his new book, Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America. On the Catholic League's website, he's posted a video in which he discusses the book. In it, in his typical blustering, sneering, angry manner, he loudly proclaims that there's a “culture war” going on, and that this war is between “cultural nihilists” and “men and women of faith.” He cites attempts to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance as one example of this “war.”

Yet Donohue fails to provide any evidence, even of the most general or vague kind, in support of his assertions that non-religious individuals and groups are trying to "destroy" religion or culture, or that “under God” should be kept in the Pledge of Allegiance, or that society should display any more respect for religion than it does for any other cultural institution. It's clear that, in Donohue's mind, this is a “Christian nation,” which, he believes, makes his baseless assertions self-evident. In fact, he seems to find it preposterous that anyone would even ask for evidence. These unsupported assertions make for a weak rhetorical style, replete with huge, gaping holes containing no evidence whatsoever, places where an opponent can easily jump in and correctly point out that his arguments are extremely tenuous and are based on unsupported assumptions.

But Donohue doesn't care and will not listen. No, to him, the very fact that an opponent could even think of criticizing his arguments shows that they're virulently anti-Catholic and that they're on some sort of nefarious “secular mission” to destroy him and the Church. Thus, he shouts at them in an attempt to drown them out, employing his rhetorical tool of choice: a combination of whininess and self-righteous anger, the expression of which frequently also involves personal attacks on his opponent. You see, in Bill Donohue's world, it's his brand of Catholicism versus everyone and everything else. And, if you don't agree with him, and if you don't blindly accept his arguments, then you're anti-Catholic, you're out to destroy the Church, and you're an immoral person.

His video also brings up the manufactured controversy of the “War on Christmas", asserting that Christmas has fallen victim to “multicultural sabotage.” Donohue sneeringly mentions the ACLU and “their merry band of lawyers” who are, he says, “trying to silence 'Silent Night' every Christmas so that nobody can sing it in the classroom.” He then implores to his audience: “People, we've got our hands full. We have the secular saboteurs out there using their nihilistic agenda to rip at the culture and our religion. And, of course, we have the traditionalists who are fighting back.”

This "War on Christmas" nonsense isn't something that Donohue invented, but, during each holiday season, he's fond of shouting about it, and news programs are all-too-willing to give him an outlet for his paranoid ranting. Once again, he's trying to turn legitimate legal fights that are waged in an attempt to uphold and protect the First Amendment and to prevent religion from influencing governmental institutions into some sort of anti-Catholic conspiracy theory involving the organizations that are dedicated to upholding civil rights. Donohue wants to reframe the debate into one in which those who are defending the Constitution are somehow “villains” and in which he and his Church are somehow both the victim and the hero, oppressed but willing to do whatever it takes to fight back against this imaginary oppression. In this reframing, he conveniently neglects to mention the fact that many of the issues under debate are indeed blatant violations of the Establishment Clause, because, to him, that's of no consequence. From Donohue's perspective, America's supposed “Christian heritage” justifies violations of the religious clauses as long as those violations benefit Catholicism.

Donohue wants Catholicism to be a major and an influential part of public discourse, yet he believes that it is off-limits to criticism of any sort. You can't have it both ways, though. If you want to insert religion into the public sphere, and if you want to support and encourage unconstitutional acts and laws that allow religion undeserved and illegal presence and influence in government, then you must be willing to face any and all criticism that comes your way. You cannot force Catholicism into every area of public discourse and then act outraged at even the gentlest of criticisms. It doesn't work that way. Being open to questioning, judgment, criticism, and even ridicule is the cost of admission into public discourse. Catholicism isn't exempt from that, and Donohue must not be allowed to assume and assert that it is without facing vigorous challenge.

When the news programs come calling, asking him to discuss his “controversial” new book (as “controversy,” however manufactured, equals ratings), he'll get to shout his unfounded claims about the “dangerous” “secular saboteurs” who are trying to "destroy" this “Christian nation” through both their “immoral” behavior and their efforts to protect the First Amendment. And the moment anyone questions him, or asks for justification or actual evidence for any of his assertions, he'll simply start shouting louder, drowning them out and rudely chastising them for daring to question his claims. Because, in Donohue's world, to question his assertions is to attack Catholicism and, in this case, he's framed it so that this questioning also constitutes an attack on America and on America's heritage. Thus, in Donohue's mind, anyone who objects to his baseless rantings is both anti-Catholic and anti-American.

It takes someone with a very large ego and an equally large sense of entitlement to not only fail to provide actual, objective examples in support of his assertions, but to also believe that his assertions are somehow self-evident, and that anyone who dares ask for evidence is attacking both him and his religion.

Donohue's so-called "cultural nihilists," those are working hard to protect this nation's secular heritage, to uphold the wall of separation, and to prevent religion from having undue influence in the public sphere, are the ones who are ensuring the survival of this country and the values on which it was founded. No matter how vociferously he'd deny even the slightest suggestion of it, Donohue and the Catholic League are the only saboteurs here. They display this when they disrespect the First Amendment, when they force their religion into the public sphere and try to force it into government (but will not accept any questioning or criticism of it), and when, rather than engaging in rational and reasonable debate with their critics, they instead choose to dismissively label them as hateful or bigoted.

If there's a “culture war” going on, it's being waged by those, like Donohue, who would have their religion trample democratic and individual rights and who will use almost any tactic they deem necessary in order to do so. Donohue asserts that “secularists” are waging a war on the Church and on his “traditional values,” and refuses to listen to even the mildest of critics, yet he somehow finds it acceptable to viciously attack individuals and groups, and even to downplay the realities of clergy sexual abuse.

In 2006, when Representative Mark Foley was accused of sending sexually overt e-mails and text messages to male Congressional pages and interns, Foley's lawyer claimed that Foley had been the victim of clergy sexual abuse between the ages of 13 and 15. In response to this, Donohue said:

As for the alleged abuse, it's time to ask some tough questions. First, there is a huge difference between being groped and being raped, so which was it Mr. Foley? Second, why didn't you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?
 

Donohue, as this statement makes perfectly clear, thinks it's acceptable to blame a child for being allegedly sexually molested and to assert that the child "allow[ed]" it to happen. Of course there are different degrees of abuse, and of course no victim of alleged clergy sexual abuse should be able to use the abuse they suffered as a child in an attempt to justify or excuse their own abuse of others. Yet it is never, ever, in any decent culture, in any sort of culture that Donohue claims to want to uphold and defend, acceptable to claim that a child is to blame for alleged sexual abuse. Never.

However, Donohue will not permit or respond to any criticism or questioning of any of his statements and claims, even when they are as hateful and as disgusting as this one. If he is allowed to continue controlling the terms of debate and if he is permitted to spew whatever nonsensical vitriol he likes, without providing any evidence in support of it, then we are condoning, sanctioning, and even encouraging Donohue's sense of entitlement, his bigotry, and his attempts to block dissent and free speech.

News programs must stop giving Donohue so much airtime and must not allow him to simply shout down his opponents. He's pushing a “culture war” in order to promote his book. The more the news programs let him get away with his particularly vicious brand of unchecked bullying, the more he'll whine, the louder he'll shout, and, unfortunately, the more people may be influenced by his message.

He's going to keep manufacturing controversy, of course. He's going to continue disrespecting the First Amendment's religious clauses. And he's going to keep throwing temper tantrums whenever anyone dares to question or criticize him or his religion.

But we mustn't let him win.

When someone presents both their persona and their religion as unassailable and beyond reproach,
just daring to speak out against them, and daring to question them, is a brave, important, and powerful thing to do. Donohue's attitudes and antics are in flagrant violation of the values he purports to hold and claims to want to “defend.” Speak out against him and don't let him control the terms and rules of the debate.

Because if anyone is attempting to sabotage what is decent and honorable in this culture, it's Bill Donohue.