The whole Marcotte controversy got me thinking about the specter of anti-Catholic bigotry. Some of those charging discrimination weren't credible, but others were, and I was struck by the repetition of the point that, had the same comments been levied against Blacks, the outcome would have been very different.
Well, yeah. I don't know exactly how you quantify this, but the rules for satirizing or making light of dominant groups are in fact different than the rules for speaking about oft-marginalized minorities. And they should be. With over 50 million adherents, Catholics are the single largest religious denomination in this country. The last two Supreme Court Justices and the most recent Democratic nominee for President were Catholic. The standings of Catholics in society are not so precarious that broad social stigma must be applied so their culture is treated with a protective reverence.
That, of course, is not to condone bigotry, but then, bigotry was never part of the conversation. Amanda's most inflammatory comment -- "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?" -- was indeed offensive, but it was not bigoted. The sexualization of the virgin birth was a rhetorical flourish atop a post about birth control. It was not about the characters of Catholics.
So the question at hand isn't whether group hatred can be condoned (it cannot, of course), but whether, for some reason, Catholicism should be protected against irreverent, and even over-the-top, rhetoric. That is a protection our society affords to certain groups -- no white man can put on blackface and make jokes about rappers, though black men can put on white face and makes jokes about crackers. Dominant majorities are often strong enough to withstand parody, irreverence, and even attack on their traditions without requiring additional protection, while the same treatment, if deployed against weakened minorities, could enhance ongoing discrimination or cement negative stereotypes believed by the majority. So disrespecting the eucharist isn't my style, but it doesn't concern me in quite the fashion mocking the Black work ethic would.
Update: I worry this comes off too flip. I think mocking religion is often the wrong thing to do. It is offensive, and rude, and tends to muddle your point. But when it comes to dominant groups, I'm not convinced it's dangerous, and while the same approach to a minority may fall under the enahanced definition of bigotry we've created to protect those subgroups, the same approach to whites, or Christians, or men, may not.
Update The Second: Mike MeGinnis makes some good points here. I tend to think the level of choice inherent in religious practice is a bit overblown (for most, it's tribal and hereditary, which is, at best, quasi-rational) and possibly beside the point (nothing about being Catholic strikes me as inherently worthy of hatred). But it is a useful distinction insofar as the elements of Catholicism Amanda is attacking -- mainly, it's patriarchal, regressive social attitudes -- are just that, attitudes, and therefore totally open to challenge. Amanda would have no problem with Catholicism if its adherents weren't trying to deny her, an atheist, access to contraceptives and reproductive choice.
