Friday, October 21, 2005


Republican leader tied to controversial religious group
During last year's Monmouth County Freeholder race, Republicans had a bone to pick with Democrats after a derogatory comment about women made by one of the Democrat candidates years earlier, was made public.
This is really lengthy; read more here.

And then this lib clown's response is priceless:

At 4:32 PM, The Big Professor said...
Attacking a man because of his religious beliefs. Wow. That's pretty low.

Ms. Corley, you may feel that you are serving the cause of progressivism with your article, but trust me you're not. You are playing right into the hands of the right wingers who paint all of us with the same broad brush of atheism and overall anti-religion.So what if this man belongs to some little known Roman Catholic splinter group. So what!
Were he Amish would you have written the same story? Or a Chassidic Jew? Both sects, one ostensibly Christian like the so-called People of Hope, the other Jewish, advocate similar views of male dominance, close-knit communities, etc. Are they cults? And how about Islam, arguably a cult in anyone's book. Had he been Daniyullah al-Galiq instead of Dan Gallic would you still have run this piece? And would he have met with your approval were he, say, a Unitarian Universalist or atheist?
What would you propose be done, Ms. Corley? Ban cults? Can't ban them outright, but if their activities cross the line of illegality, Law Enforcement will step in. Ban religions that border on cultishness? Where do you draw that line? Find the People of Hope compound and have federal agents lay siege to it, then torch it like Waco and incinerate all occupants, men, women and children? Or, like in pre-revolutionary times, establish a religious test for potential officeholders? Expand that to political party staffers? What?
I am not familiar with your newspaper, but it seems that this editor of yours harbors a hateful grudge against the Republicans of your area. Fine. Take this as advice from one progressive to another that attacking your opponents' religious belief system or lack thereof is just dirty pool.
Finally, you contradict yourself. While castigating Gallic for suppressing women, you also castigate him for promoting this Amy Handlin, who would appear to be rather progressive, at least as Republicans go. From what I've read she would appear to be more of a Rockefeller than a Goldwater Republican; and if at 23 you don't know who they were, Google their names or ask your editor. So is he pro-woman or anti-woman? Which is he? You can't have it both ways.

So "La Journalista" has to explain herself to the big, liberal professor:

At 6:29 PM, Jackie Corley said...
Well, that's a mouthful.

The stories I was told by the former members of the group I spoke to were quite troublesome, in my opinion. And, in fact, I kept out most of the more shocking details out of print.
And no, I'm not a "liberal atheist." I was raised Catholic.
Our paper isn't anti-Republican. In fact, I did what I consider a non-controversial and friendly background piece on Sean Kean and Steve Corodemus last week, and I will be writing a non-controversial background piece on Lillian Burry next week.
I respect most of the Republican and Democrat leaders I come across.
It's not my place to dictate what should be done with "cults" or alleged "cults." It is only my place as a reporter to inform.
When a religious belief system becomes the backbone of a party instead of guiding that party's sensibilities, as the Founding Fathers intended, the public has every right to know and can assess the information as they see fit.
Of course, if you don't care for the information our newspaper is putting out to the public you can use the power of the purse and proudly snap yours shut and not purchase it.
My best,Jackie Corley


At 2:43 AM, Jackie Corley woke up and said...
More importantly, I think any group or organization that seems to espouse the subjugation of women should not be free from criticism simply because the group or organization is religious in nature.

As campaign manager for Ms. Handlin and Mr. Clifton, Mr. Gallic very effectively made use of Mr. Morlino's "women should be muzzled" comment.
The following is his statement to a local newspaper, The Independent:
"Gallic said the information used in the mailed fliers and newspaper advertisements was taken from official minutes of the meeting at which Morlino made the remark. He defended using the remark and said it was a 'peek at his [Morlino’s] soul.'
"Gallic said the fact that Morlino made the remark because he was angered by the heckling he was receiving from two women attending the meeting was telling and 'not a trivial point.'
"'It was not all that long ago that women were not allowed to own property, let alone vote,' Gallic said, adding that Morlino’s remark 'goes back to a very deep-seated belief in some people that women can’t handle public affairs.'"

And then Honest Abe said:



Jackie Corley said...

Aw shucks, thanks for linkage.

Jackie Corley said...

And this part's great: "At 2:43 AM, Jackie Corley woke up and said..."

Anyway, thanks for the chuckle. I should laugh at myself more frequently than I do.