Maureen Dowd Uses Inflammatory Anti Muslim Rhetoric To Attack Catholics And Rick Santorum In New York Times

I recall about 4 years ago a good and entertaining article at Slate called the What's Huck Hiding?
Searching for the lost Huckabee tapes. Huckabee and his friends were very wise to perhaps not make those tapes that available.

Non Christians cannot grasp the concept of fired up Christians talking to other Christians. The fact that Huckabee did not run the State of Arkansas as his little Theocratic nation would not matter.

They can't grasp that a person can have some personal religious beliefs and convictions ,and they they know would be improper to use in Governing!! Now this is no big deal for us Deep South Catholic, Protestants, and Pentecostals. We get this. Other places do not it appears. Like Huckabee it appears Santorum has the same problem. Unlike Huckabee the recordings have been found.

Which brings us to Santorum , Catholics, and the respected mainstream media.

Now I guess Maureen Dowd and her slams at Catholicism in the New York Times are so boring now no one even links it. I did not realize she wrote on matters Catholicism related till I saw this post Some In Mainstream Media In Full Anti-Catholic Meltdown Mode at American Catholic.

I have noted with some alarm that supposed tolerant anti bigoted Progressive and liberals are using Islamic terms in a misleading and inflammatory way against the Catholic Church on the HHS birth control mandate. I am not alone in this concern. See via Mirrors of Justice Sharia and claims of conscience.

Today latest entry in the Progressive ranks is Rick’s Religious Fanaticism.

Now Dowd does call label him Pope, Bishop, Father, Deacon etc as relation to his Catholic Faith. She does not call him "Pastor" or "Preacher" Rick. But calls him REPEATLY Mullah Rick. In fact she calls him a small town Mullah.

What is a Mullah?

Mullah ( ملا) is generally used to refer to a Muslim man, educated in Islamic theology and sacred law. The title, given to some Islamic clergy, is derived from the Arabic word مَوْلَى mawlā , meaning "vicar", "master" and "guardian". In large parts of the Muslim world, particularly Iran, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Central Asia, Somalia and South Asia, it is the name commonly given to local Islamic clerics or mosque leaders.[1]
The title has also been used in some Sefardic Jewish communities to refer to the community's leadership, especially religious leadership.[2]
It is primarily understood in the Muslim world as a term of respect for an educated man.

Mullah to say the least in the USA does not elicit good feelings. Mainly because through the media we often see only Mullahs doing bad things. It's like the term Sharia Law that is often misunderstood and used often incorrectly. Again it does not elicit good feeling because only the bad situations are conveyed.

Now in some ways I am not feeling too bad for Santorum here. I think he indulges a little too much in this too. But that is beyond the point ,and it's evident not the purpose of Dowd's piece .

Dowd realizes the context her readers will hear Mullah as. In fact that context just jumps off the page. That is FOREIGN, FANATICAL , UN AMERICAN , and YOU JUST CAN'T TRUST THOSE FOLKS.

It is indeed interesting that we see in Dowd's minds ,and those of her very progressive readership. While they might rightly call out some conservative folks for preying on some unfounded fears about the majority of American Muslims they seem to have the same fears. Perhaps they are not so tolerant and open minded as they think they are.

Regardless I find this rhetoric distasteful ,and I really wonder when anyone in the liberal community or media watchdogs will start calling this out.

I share the concerns of Catholic Law Prof and religious liberty defender at his post on a related subject at Tweet of the day when he said :

..I fear, though, that it is a harbinger of sincere arguments to come, as reasonable, right-thinking folks are asked to line up in either the Enlightenment camp or the Theocracy camp. Nuance may be in short supply.

In this case I find little nuance at all.