that this is a purely political movement. I heard Bill Donohue on the Colbert Report spouting similar nonsense about how those on the left are the enemies of Catholics, and the religious right are their friends. While it's undeniable that many on the left have their disagreements with the Church, and some have made what could be called disrespectful jokes about Catholics in general, and conservative groups like the Catholic League in particular, I'm not aware of leftists wishing physical harm on Catholics. Conservative Evangelicals on the other hand, have made it very clear that unless Catholics convert, they will, (and deserve to), spend eternity suffering unspeakable torment in the fires of Hell. Therefore, since the only thing these groups have in common is right-wing politics, one must conclude that this is an entirely political movement, and has nothing at all to do with religion, despite their claims to the contrary. If it was about religion, you wouldn't be friends with people who want you to burn in Hell. And that goes for the Evangelicals too.

by Dave on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 03:01:10 PM EST

For him to say that anti-Catholicism is greater on the Left is simply hogwash. I have been in parts of this country where I witnessed the same regressive types of "conservative" folks who hated Blacks and Jews emote a very similar dislike for Catholics.  That is just buying into a framework without thinking.

by Frank Cocozzelli on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 07:35:28 PM EST

Michelle for responding to the Steinfels review.

My background is Southern Baptist so I am predisposed to agree with how very informed Baptists like Walter Shurden and Bruce Prescott have responded to your book.

Knowing very little about Catholics and their historical and cultural background, I was just intrigued and puzzled about how a Catholic writing in a progressive magazine responded so differently. I just (mistakenly) assumed Steinfels was thoroughly progressive.

I think Steinfels does have some good insights but they seem to be aimed at larger issues of our collective dialogue about religion and politics, instead of the more detailed subject matter of your book. If he had been more focused on this subject matter perhaps his review would had been more balanced and fair.

As for Bob Jones University, perhaps Steinfels is impressed with their museum which "houses one of the most important collections of religious art in America" according to their website.

by Carlos on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 08:05:54 PM EST

A lot of books and a few films regarding the intersection of right-wing politics and religion have come out recently -- which I think is great.

But what I've noticed in the right-wing responses to these books and films is the way each of their respective reviewers dismiss the work at hand by claiming that the author or filmmakers only focused on the words and deeds of a small group, and from which they inappropriately paint a negative picture of the larger group.

I've noticed this with the reviews of Goldberg, Sandler, the "Jesus Camp" duo, Lerner, Phillips, Rudin just to name a few. But I'm thinking, OK, reviewer, let's say your right, the authors and filmmakers only focus on smallish groups that by themselves can't be used to make sweeping generalizations. But let's lump all the shenanigans covered in these books and films together. Can't I then draw some wider and deeper conclusions, conclusions that paint a negative picture?

by alex kanakis on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 09:03:40 PM EST