On Brands: A Note to The Religious (and The Press)

If you don't use and defend a trademark or brand, you lose it.  In particular, you have to defend your brand against people using it to identify products and services that you don't provide and which may be far inferior to the products and services that you provide.  This is the fundamental problem that the mainstream religious face in the United States today:  they have not defended their brand, and they have lost it to the outrage pimps of Republican Fundamentalism like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and (most recently in the public eye) William Donohue. 

The most recent proof of this is the media omnipresence of outrage pimp and bigot William Donohue, head of the "Catholic League" bellowing that the writings of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan are "anti-Catholic".  Of course, it doesn't matter a whit to the nitwits in the media that Donohue doesn't officially represent any Catholic position, just like James Dobson doesn't officially represent any "Christian" denomination.  The nitwits in the media just saw the words "Catholic League" and heard the braying from Donohue and put him on TV.

So, Christians of all denominations (and most particularly in the instant case, Catholics both lay and priestly), you've lost your brand to outrage pimps like Donohue, Dobson, and Falwell.  Donohue, Dobson, and Falwell speak for you.  You may not like it.  You may say "no, that's not true", except when you say "well, they have a point, though I wish it wasn't them saying it".  It doesn't matter.  You lost your brand because you failed to police it aggressively.

You might be able to recover your brand, but it will take a lot of work and aggressive policing.  The Catholic hierarchy in particular has a very strong hand in this regard, precisely because Catholicism has a hierarchy.  If the Archbishop of New York were willing to stand up and say, without equivocation or he-has-a-pointing, "Bill Donohue does not speak for the Catholic Church," Bill Donohue would be done.

But until that happens, outrage pimp Bill Donohue is the public face of Catholicism in the United States, bigotry, anti-semitism and all.  Because, after all, he heads the Catholic League, and the Church would never let him have that name and speak for Catholics unless the Church agreed, would it?  I didn't think so.

[Sidebar for for the press:  look, you nitwits, I wish that religions would police the outrage pimps a bit more closely.  But they don't.  And until they do, please remember that any ass can slap some "Christian" branding onto their political agenda.  It's not like a franchise, where there's a contract and some rules.  Do some homework, and try to find someone whose statements might actually reflect the views of the majority of the denomination they purport to represent.  I know that's hard work, what with the reading of polling data and actual researching and all, but try to think of it as, I don't know... your job, you lazy gits.]

Another note to the religious.  I read religious people of all political stripes lamenting "the removal of religion from public life and the public square."  Let's assume for the moment that's not nearly as ahistorical as it is.  Let's assume that lament is not just revanchist nostalgia and that it's historically appropriate to inject a nice big dose of religion into public policy and politics.  Fine.

Here's the deal, though:  You don't get to drag your religion into the rough and tumble of politics and then howl "no fair, I'm offended" and run bawling to yer mommy when people treat your religion just like every other political position and mock the holy hell out of it, question its assumptions, and attack its validity and your sincerity.  If you don't like your religion being treated like "just politics", then get your religion out of politics.  Those are your choices. If you want religions to be a bigger part of the political debate, then you need to cowboy up and deal when religion is treated just like any other political position.

Otherwise, the rest of us will assume that you howling "no fair, I'm offended" is just another political tactic. and you're just another professional outrage pimp like Donohue, Dobson, and Falwell.  See above, under "you lost your brand."

Comments

[Devil's Advocate]

"outrage pimps". That's a good one!

[jack*]

I've struggled with the framing on this issue myself, and I think your concept of "defending the brand" is a great way to put it. It's entirely the responsibility of each religious community to define itself and denouce nutters who would debase their sect, and not everyone else's job to somehow be sensitive to what's considered mainstream for their particular creed.

There's also a IOKIYAR double-standard typically applied here. Conservatives and the religious constantly attack the most outspoken liberals or atheists as being both out of the mainstream and representative of the group (both usually false) while ignoring -- and expecting us to do likewise citing tolerance and free speech -- the most depraved statements of their media spokesmen. The Donohue/Marcotte case illustrates this very well.

[Chris Dashiell]

A very important point. Silence does equal complicity. And when you use "religion" as if it were a PAC, whining about religious bigotry when someone fights back is nothing but cowardice.