Cross-talking pundits:
In this debate between Shmuley Boteach and William Donohue, I’d say that neither comes off too well, but, in my opinion, Donohue – while there are certain points he makes with which I absolutely take issue – generally makes sense while Boteach seems way, way off the mark – and intentionally offensive to boot.
I think the issue is one of secularists vs religious America, not Jews vs Catholics. Hollywood certainly has a disproportionate number of secularist Jews in positions of influence, but I think promoting the idea that they “control” the agenda may be overstated and dangerous.
OTOH, Donohue does not seem to have launched his attack specifically against Jews, which is how it was portrayed, as much as against secular forces in Hollywood – including lapsed Catholics.
Thoughts?
I think the most dangerous thing about this sort of ordeal is that people genuinely believe that “the issue” is “secularists vs. religious America” or “Jews vs. Catholics.” “The issue” (as silly as it is to think that there is *one* issue) is, of course, those who (intentionally or unintentionally) oppose freedom and are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States of America and those who don’t and are not. The Constitution of the United States of America is manifestly opposed to *both* secularists and what this poster terms “religious America” (I’m assuming he actually means “politico-religious right-wing” when he says that).
To come back to the post—what, precisely, did you find “way, way off the mark” about what Boteach had to say?
“The Constitution of the United States of America is manifestly opposed to *both* secularists and what this poster terms �religious America� (I�m assuming he actually means �politico-religious right-wing� when he says that).”
Vanity – what on earth does that mean?!? Do you have a different Constitution on your desk than I do?
And, by the way – no, I did not mean the “politico-religious right-wing.”