A Roman Catholic Reader In Illinois Asks Why VDARE.COM Posted Peter Gadiel`s "Rant"; Gadiel Replies
April 18, 2008, 05:00 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.

04/17/08 - A California Lawyer Says Political Pundits "Fail To Grasp The Obvious" About Barack Obama

From: Dennis Nicholl (e-mail him)

Re: An Open Letter To Pope Benedict XVI On the Occasion Of His U. S. Visit

What were you thinking when you posted Gadiel's attack?

Of course, VDARE.COM hedged by pointing out in its preface to Gadiel's column that the site is not anti-Catholic.

Interesting that Gadiel singles out the Pope Benedict for the ongoing immigration fiasco. He doesn't mention that we have had 43 years of Protestant presidents since the Immigration Act of 1965. 

I have news for Gadiel. The Pope has no clout in America. If he did would there abortion, homosexual marriages, secularization of Christmas and Catholic bashing in Hollywood

What would Gadiel have the Pope do about immigration? Imagine the ridicule he would face if he appeared anti-immigration.

VDARE.COM should not allow a hack like Gadiel to take gratuitous cheap shots at the Pope by calling him "Benny", telling him to drink responsibly (what does that mean?) and, of course, mentioning pedophile priests while supposedly discussing immigration?

Gadiel has it out for the Pope yet he mentions Robert Mapplethorpe without comment. 

And when, may I ask, was the last time VDARE.COM ridiculed Judaism?

Your site is measured by the quality of the material you post. The less of Gadiel, the better off VDARE.COM will be. 

Peter Gadiel replies: My archive has numerous columns criticizing President Bush repeatedly—and quite sarcastically—for his refusal to enforce immigration law.

I addressed my mocking missive to the Pope because he is in the U.S. now lobbying Bush. As a participant in the rough and tumble of politics, the Pope and his followers must accept that he will be subject to criticism.

As to Mapplethorpe, Nicholl entirely missed the thrust of my comment. Mapplethorpe's celebration of perversion is to me offensive. I didn't think it was necessary to spell that out.

Although I am not a Catholic, I am far from anti-Catholic. I admire many Catholics. However, when I see hypocrisy, even on the part of the Pope, I will not keep silent.

James Fulford writes: Mr. Nicholl writes "When, may I ask, was the last time VDARE.COM ridiculed Judaism?" It is not our policy to ridicule anyone's sincerely held religious beliefs. We leave that up to professional comedians like, for example, Sarah Silverman.  

Since peoples' religious belief affects their attitude towards public policy, many of our writers do discuss Jews and Judaism, to the point where there have been several complaints about it (The SPLC, for example, seems to be trying to get Professor Kevin MacDonald fired from his job.)

.Of course, we've also been critical of Lutherans, Hindus, Methodists, and the Yezidis of Iraq, who worship the Peacock Angel. When we've got through with them, we start on what President Bush thinks of as the Religion of Peace. We really are non-denominationally offensive, and Mr. Nicholl's implication of a surrender to political correctness is as unfair as the parallel imputations of anti-Semitism we receive from the SPLC.