Some Nerve: NYT Finally Covers March for Life, Only to Bury It Under Story Chiding Marchers for Not Being Anti-Gun
Every January tens of thousands of people participate in the March for Life in Washington at the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. And for five years in a row the New York Times failed to run a single story on the march in its print edition (it marked the 2011 march with a couple of photos on page 12).
This year, the 40th anniversary of the March, the Times broke its streak with a so-so 815-word story by Ashley Parker that made the bottom of the front of the paper's National section, on page 9.
Some Nerve: NYT Finally Covers March for Life, Only to Bury It Under Story Chiding Marchers for Not Being Anti-Gun
Every January tens of thousands of people participate in the March for Life in Washington at the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. And for five years in a row the New York Times failed to run a single story on the march in its print edition (it marked the 2011 march with a couple of photos on page 12).
This year, the 40th anniversary of the March, the Times broke its streak with a so-so 815-word story by Ashley Parker that made the bottom of the front of the paper's National section, on page 9.
What made the top of page 9? Here the Times showed some nerve, as religion reporter Laurie Goodstein's used some liberal Catholic activists to chide pro-lifers supporters for not also being anti-gun It's almost as if the paper acknowledged the march so as to be able to criticize it.
Liberal Media Cheer on Pro-Gay Discrimination
The week of June 16-June 24, 2012 has been designated by the homosexual community as Gay Pride Week, during which LGBT people take pride in their triumphs over “violence and discrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgendered individuals.”
Funny, but they’re not making much noise about using government to discriminate in favor of their lifestyle. One Canadian activist even declared: “We’ll only take away charitable status from the buildings where the priests live and where the people pray.”
In America, state and local governments have attacked Christian businesses and religious institutions that refuse to sanction homosexual activity, fining businesses that refuse to photograph lesbian “commitment ceremonies” and host “gay wedding” receptions. Abroad, local, state, and national governments have actively silenced opponents of “gay rights” and pushed churches to officiate at gay marriages. These forms of government discrimination have met with media approval.
Liberals decry discrimination, real or perceived, against homosexuals; ABC even set up a sting operation on camera in order to “expose” anti-gay prejudice. But they have no problem with government discrimination in favor of the gay agenda, complaining that “needy children” will suffer because the Church refuses to cave into the government on the issue of gay adoption and that a Christian business refusing to host a lesbian wedding reception was “poisoned by homophobia.”
The self-proclaimed opponents of bigotry on the left have no problem with discrimination they happen to agree with.
Punishing Opponents of Gay Marriage
Governments in America are forcing Christian-run businesses to actively accommodate gay couples and promote gay causes, or face fines or prosecution. The National Review’s Ian Tuttle recently provided a good overview of the numerous examples of pro-gay discrimination in America.
In New Mexico, a photography studio was sued by a lesbian couple, because its owner refused to photograph their “commitment ceremony.” Studio owner Elaine Huguenin, cited her Christian faith as the reason she wouldn’t do the job.
In a May 31, 2012, decision, Judge Tim Garcia, writing for the New Mexico Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the lesbian couple, arguing that the court “requires Elane Photography merely to offer its photography services without discrimination against any member of a protected class.” Since Garcia ruled that “Sexual orientation, however, is protected,” the photography studio was fined more than $6,500.
Libertarian magazine Reason, which supports gay marriage, asked the obvious question: why force someone who opposes your lifestyle to photograph you in the first place?
The answer seems to be that gay activists seek to force Christian companies to actively support their lifestyle. The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) of Lexington. Ky., filed a discrimination complaint in March 2012 against a Christian T-shirt manufacturer, called Hands On, for refusing to print apparel for an upcoming LGBT pride festival. The owner of the company justified his decision by citing its religious beliefs, declaring in an op-ed: “I decided to pass on the opportunity because, as a Christian owner, I cannot in good conscience endorse groups or events that run counter to my convictions”
Hands On found another company that promised to do the same work for the same price; this gesture did not pacify the GLSO.
The ACLU sued a Vermont inn owned by a Catholic couple, because the inn refused to host a lesbian couple’s wedding in 2011. The owners declared on their Facebook page: “The Wildflower Inn is a small family owned and operated country inn. We are a devout practicing Catholic family who believes in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians.”Such instances of pro-gay (or anti-Christian) coercion have been celebrated by the left. Think Progress slammed the Vermont inn, and inveighed that the T-shirt incident was “openly discriminating against gay people,” with the inflammatory title: “Kentucky T-shirt Controversy Reveals Conservative Intent to Discriminate and Stigmatize.” The Daily Kos complained that the Wildflower Inn was “poisoned by homophobia.”
One company that merely donated to Christian groups supporting traditional marriage sparked calls for boycotts. Chick-fil-A came under fire at numerous universities in March 2012 for donated money to Christian organizations that “have anti-gay agendas.” Northeastern University has barred the firm from its campus, declaring: “We are proud of the decision that affirms our university's commitment to be an inclusive, diverse community that is respectful of all.”
Respectful of all who agree with them, of course.
Gawker called for a boycott of the restaurant: “If you'd really like to support gays and lesbians in a world lousy with Chick-fil-As, how about this tactic instead: From now on, don't f*cking eat at Chick-fil-A if you are a person who believes gays are equal to you and deserving of equal treatment under the law. No equivocating and no buying back karma with pity donations to gay-rights groups. Simply avoid the chain for as long as it upholds its homophobic ties.”
Left-wing outlets have lazily equated sexual orientation with active support for the gay lifestyle. But the owners of the Wildfower Inn and Hands On have both made clear that they have served gay customers without incident.
It is clearly illegal and wrong to refuse services because someone “looks” gay or admits same-sex attraction. It is another matter entirely for owners to refuse services to a group that actively supports behavior that the owners consider to be morally reprehensible or sinful. The situation is analogous to a conservative-owned company refusing to print Black Panther T-shirts – the company would be “discriminating” on the basis of politics, not of race.
Targeting Catholic Charities
Pro-gay discrimination has not been limited to government targeting of individual businesses; the Catholic Church has also been forced to discontinue charitable work, rather than be forced to approve the gay lifestyle.
The Catholic Church provides charitable services to poor, disabled, and disadvantaged individuals, which governments, private donations, and Catholic dioceses combine to fund.
In multiple instances, state and local governments have mandated that adoption agencies consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive partners, and refused to grant exemptions to this policy for religious-affiliated charities. Because the Catholic Church refuses to alter its stance on homosexual activities, governments have discontinued funding church-affiliated charities, in several cases forcing those charities to close.
The church believes that homosexual behavior is sinful; by considering homosexual couples as potential adoptive partners, it would be endorsing relationships it considers to be inherently wrong.
Rather than violate its doctrines, the Catholic Church has shut down social services on numerous occasions, most recently in Illinois in 2011. Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times reported on the controversy: “Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.”
In 2006, the Church shut down adoption services in Boston rather than “comply with a state law requiring no discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who seek to adopt.”
In 2010, Washington, D.C., Catholic Charities also shut down its adoption program, because, as the gay newspaper Washington Blade reported, “Catholic Charities, the charitable arm of the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, announced this week that it has ended its city contract to provide foster care and adoption services for D.C. residents, saying it could not comply with rules requiring that it place children with same-sex couples.”
DC Catholic Charities was also forced to restructure its health benefits system; it dropped coverage for spouses of employees, rather than be forced to offer “benefits to same-sex partners of its workers.”
The left cheered on efforts to defund Catholic Charities. The far left Daily Kos uncorked one of its typical unhinged rants, demanding a stop to “government funding of Catholic plutocrats.” E.J. Graff of the American Prospect wrote that “The bishops are making a ruckus because the "don't ask, don't tell" era of child placement has come to an end. Who suffers? Needy children.”
Warning Signs Abroad
Governments abroad are further along in silencing and undercutting opponents of the gay agenda.
Canada has proven especially intolerant of opposition to homosexuals. In a June 5, 2012, National Review article, Michael Coren explained that “definitive figures are almost impossible to state, but it’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage.” He quoted one activist, who declared: “We’ll only take away charitable status from the buildings where the priests live and where the people pray.”
Conservative writer Mark Steyn has also observed the coercive tendencies of the Canadian authorities, writing: “The Rev. Stephen Boissoin was convicted of the heinous crime of writing a homophobic letter to his local newspaper and was sentenced by Lori Andreachuk, Alberta's "human rights" commissar, to a lifetime prohibition on uttering anything "disparaging" about homosexuality ever again in sermons, in newspapers, on radio-or in private emails. Note that legal concept: not "illegal" or "hateful," but merely “disparaging.”
This type of enforced tolerance is exemplified in Bill 13, an act passed in June 2012 by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which declares that “students need to be equipped with the knowledge, skills, attitude and values to engage the world and others critically, which means developing a critical consciousness that allows them to take action on making their schools and communities more equitable and inclusive for all people, including LGBTTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirited, intersex, queer and questioning) people.”
In practice, that means the forced establishment of Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs, even in Catholic schools. Canadian gay outlet Xtra! quoted GSA Coalition lawyer Doug Elliott: “If you’re not complying with the law, then we’re going to take you to court. It’s that simple.”
European governments too are aggressively abetting gay activists. In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron declared that the government should sanction gay marriages, and his ministers have gone farther, arguing that gay marriages could take place in churches. Religious leaders of theChurch of England have warned that the church could be forced to stop performing weddings on behalf of the state if gay marriage is legalized.
In Denmark, the government has gone farther, mandating that the state Church of Denmark allow same-sex weddings. (An annex to the bill says that pastors do not have to officiate at marriages, if they have personal objections to them. The bishop, however, must provide a replacement.)
The upshot is that progressive nations are effectively dividing churches by enforcing church-related weddings; progressive pastors will be placed in opposition to more traditional-minded pastors within churches.
Anti-Discriminating Discriminators
It is one thing for media outlets to argue that homosexuals should have the right to marry, or that those who oppose gay marriage are bigots. But it is quite another thing for governments to criminalize refusal to actively support a particular lifestyle one disagrees with, or to mandate support of a “protected class.”
NYT Puts Catholic Church on Defensive Again: ‘Lightning Rod for Criticism’
New York Times religion reporter Laurie Goodstein, in Atlanta to cover the annual meeting of Roman Catholic bishops, "Bishops Defend Fight Against Obama's Policy on Birth Control Coverage," portrayed the church as on the defensive over its fight for religious freedom, as did the story's text box ("Acknowledging criticism, even from some Catholics"). It was embellished with a photo not of the bishops but a small group of protesters in support of liberal nuns censored by the Vatican.
At least Goodstein didn't put the phrase "religious liberty" in scare quotes, as she did with "religious freedom" in a February article hostile to the church's opposition to Obama requiring religious institutions to provide birth control.
Ten years after a raging scandal forced the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to adopt a package of policies for combating sexual abuse, the prelates on Wednesday heard a generally positive assessment of their progress at their annual meeting, and turned their attention to their newest overriding concern: their campaign to protect religious liberty.
The bishops acknowledged that the effort had become a lightning rod for criticism that they had exaggerated the threat to freedom and aligned the church with the Republican Party in an election year. And they sought to debunk the notion that their campaign was fixated on their opposition to artificial birth control, saying that the Obama administration forced the issue by mandating that even Catholic institutions like hospitals and universities must provide insurance coverage for birth control and sterilization for their employees.
“It is not about parties, candidates or elections, as some others have suggested,” said Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, the chairman of the bishops’ religious freedom committee, who noted that the bishops have faced hostility “even from some Catholic commentators.”
“In the face of this resistance, it may be tempting to get discouraged, to second-guess the effort, to soft-pedal our message,” Archbishop Lori said. “But instead, these things should prompt us to do exactly the opposite, for they show us how very great is the need for our teaching, both in our culture and even in our own church.”
To add weight to the religious freedom campaign, the bishops scheduled two afternoon speakers on religious persecution abroad: “Our credibility demands it,” said Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the bishops’ conference. “As urgent as our fight is here, it pales with what our co-religionists throughout the world are going through.”
....
Bishops are meeting as the Catholic Church in the United States has been roiled by the Vatican’s censure of the nation’s largest organization of American nuns, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and a theologian, Sister Margaret A. Farley, who wrote a book about human sexuality.
Members of a coalition called Nun Justice protested Wednesday outside the hotel where the bishops are meeting. They delivered petitions asking the bishops to end the crackdown on the nuns’ group. The petition had 57,818 signatures, about one for every American nun.
No Good Deed: NY Times Slaps Cardinal Dolan For Actually Getting Rid of Abusive Priests
One frequent demand from Catholic Church abuse victims is that abusive clerics be laicized or removed from the priesthood as expeditiously and quickly as possible.
So if the Archdiocese of Milwaukee discovered a fast and economical way to make that happen, wouldn't that be a good thing for both victims and the Church? Not according to the New York Times' Laurie Goodstein.
In her latest Catholic Church-obsessed piece, Goodstein takes issue with the fact that New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan, when he was the Archbishop of Milwaukee a while back, approved a number of $20,000 settlements to rid the Church of abusive priests in a more time-efficient and expeditious manner – without long, drawn-out canonical or civil proceedings.
The agenda: Attack the Catholic Church
Goodstein characterizes these settlements as "payoffs to sexually abusive priests" in an attempt to somehow besmirch Cardinal Dolan. In fact, these were settlement payments designed to save the Church and everyone involved the legal expenses and distraction of engaging in the protracted proceedings necessary to rid the Church of abusive priests.
This isn't the first time that Goodstein, the Times' purported national religion reporter, has shilled for contingency lawyers and loud professional victims' groups, who wish to plant hit pieces on the Catholic Church in America's declining newspaper of record.
Just a couple months ago, Goodstein waxed sympathetic for the anti-Catholic group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) after its national director, David Clohessy, griped that he simply had to obey a court order and finally come clean about his unseemly contacts with contingency lawyers in Missouri. Goodstein crafted a wobbly piece with the predictable premise that the big, bad Catholic Church was bullying an innocent, little victims group.
SNAP-fail
In her new article, Goodstein uncritically quotes a letter from SNAP to the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. After hysterically labelling the settlements as "cash bonuses," the letter asks:
"In what other occupation, especially one working with families and operating schools and youth programs, is an employee given a cash bonus for raping and sexually assaulting children?"
Well, SNAP could have easily answered its own question.
Just a few months ago, the Los Angeles Unified School District paid $40,000 to a third-grade teacher accused of committing numerous lewd acts on children in exchange for him not appealing his firing.
Then there was the teacher in New York City who was accused of ogling eighth-grade girls and collected a whopping $100,049-a-year salary without setting foot in a classroom for over a decade.
In fact, such settlements happen in the education profession all the time.
SNAP's venom against the Catholic Church is now beyond the realm of reason or logic. The group endlessly gripes about abusive priests not being removed quickly enough. Then when the Church actually does something to correct this, SNAP complains.
An ongoing obsession
Even when the Catholic Church does something good in the handling of abusive priests, Goodstein and the Times somehow find a way to portray it as something sinister and unseemly.
Meanwhile, the Times continues its obsession with sex abuse in the Catholic Church from decades ago. Why?
As the Times itself summarily reported recently, just in the first three months alone of 2012 in New York City public schools, there were "248 complaints of sexual misconduct involving school employees, a 35 percent increase over the same period last year."
How about the Times finally digging a little deeper into this shocking story happening today right in its own backyard rather than attacking Cardinal Dolan for what he wisely did in Milwaukee years ago?
-- Dave Pierre is the creator and author of TheMediaReport.com, which analyzes the media's coverage of the Catholic Church abuse narrative. Dave is also the author of two books and is a contributing writer to NewsBusters.