Bill Barr versus his critics is basically conventional 1980s-era religious conservatism against 2004-era liberal theocracy panic (he’s in … Opus Dei!), with a few updated referents to make it all seem mildly novel.
— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) January 15, 2020
Since I am not living in Washington, D.C., during this current acid-bath of an era (thank you, Jesus), I no longer get to hang out every now and then with former GetReligionista Mollie Hemingway. I wish I could, though. She’s a witty riot of a conversationalist and it doesn’t matter if she’s surrounded by packs of liberals or conservatives (or both).
We probably wouldn’t talk about politics, since I’m still enforcing my policy that Donald Trump’s face is not allowed to appear on the television in my sports-and-movie cave. (I’m bracing myself for Hillary Clinton’s comeback, when I can renew her ban.) We could talk about journalism, of course, since we both enjoy the work of reporters who quote lots of on-the-record sources (as in the “Justice on Trial” book that MZ wrote with Carrie Severino).
I am sure that we would discuss mainstream media coverage of religion news, since that’s a topic she frequently raises in her work with Howard Kurtz on the MediaBuzz show. (Why does that have to air on Sunday mornings?)
That brings me to that very MZ blast the other day about that piece in The New Yorker that ran with this headline: “William Barr, Trump’s Sword and Shield.” This feature by David Rohde — with a big dose of paranoia about conservative Catholics — served as a reminder that there are dangerous religious believers in the world other than white evangelicals.
Here’s MZ:
… (In) the second paragraph, Rohde writes about a speech Barr recently gave at the University of Notre Dame. Barr asserted that declining religious influence in American life has left the country more vulnerable to government dependency. He also noted that some of the left’s secularists are not particularly tolerant.
For Rohde, the speech was “a catalogue of grievances accumulated since the Reagan era, when Barr first enlisted in the culture wars. It included a series of contentious claims. He argued, for example, that the Founders of the United States saw religion as essential to democracy. ‘In the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people — a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order,’ he said.”
Of course, there is nothing contentious about the claim that the Founders saw religion as essential to maintaining the republic. You can read the full speech here (in so doing, you might note that every word of Rohde’s characterization is wrong or misleading). Barr follows up that line by immediately quoting Founding Father, statesman, attorney, writer, second President and first Vice President of the United States John Adams:
“As John Adams put it, ‘We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.’ “
Here is a key chunk of that New Yorker piece.
You just have to love that skateboard reference, along with the liberal use of “scare quotes” around phrases such as “mercy and justice.”
First a confession: I used to visit the Catholic Information Center bookstore all the time. It’s a great place to shop for G.K. Chesterton and copies of hard-to-find classic movies, like this favorite of mine: “The Detective,” starring Sir Alec Guinness (a convert — uh-oh — to Catholicism).
Now, back to conspiracy theories via The New Yorker:
Three blocks from the White House, on K Street, is a storefront with signs in its windows advertising “solidarity” and “mercy and justice.” The building houses the Catholic Information Center, a bookstore and a chapel where federal workers and tourists can attend morning and evening services. On a recent weekday afternoon, a sign announced an upcoming debate between conservative writers, called “Nationalism: Vice or Virtue?” A skateboard with an image of the Virgin Mary hung not far away, in the hope of attracting a younger crowd.
Led by a member of the archconservative group Opus Dei, the center is a hub for Washington’s influential conservatives. … The center’s board of directors remains a nexus of politically connected Catholics. Pat Cipollone and Barr have both served on the board, as has Leonard Leo, the executive vice-president of the Federalist Society. Asked about Barr’s role, the center’s chief operating officer, Mitch Boersma, confirmed that he had served as a board member from 2014 to 2017 but said, “We don’t have anything to add.”
After Bill Clinton took office, in 1993, Barr stepped away from government work and continued promoting his version of an ideal society through various religious organizations. He served on the boards of groups whose charitable work is widely praised, such as the Knights of Columbus and the New York Archdiocese’s Inner-City Scholarship Fund. For years, Barr has paid the tuition of eighteen students a year at a parochial school in New York.
Oh my. Barr pays the tuition bills for inner-city kids to attend a parochial school?
If any of them are girls, that’s step one to “The Handmaid’s Tale.” If there are no girls in that list, then this is another example of conservative Catholic sexism.
But there is a big Opus Dei question looming in the darkness surrounding this Barr piece: Is he or isn’t he?
Sohrab Ahmari of The New York Post went there:
As far as Barr-Opus Dei conspiracy theories go, Rohde’s was relatively mild. The Guardian in October mentioned Barr’s connection to the CIC, which it said is “staffed by priests from the secretive, ultra-orthodox Catholic sect Opus Dei.” The same month, The Nation’s Joan Walsh sounded the alarm about Barr’s links to “extremist Catholic institutions,” while an article on the liberal Web site Alternet speculated that Barr may be an Opus Dei member. The group, it said, had taught Barr to “put away his scruples.”
This is egregious nonsense. For starters, Barr isn’t, in fact, a member, as the organization was forced to clarify in November, breaking its usual policy of not identifying members or non-members.
Yes, I’d love to discuss all of this with Hemingway. Good times.
ybvdadminuser
