Randall Terry, Larry David, and Pig Wrasslin'

Let's stipulate right up front that one person's idea of a political stunt is another person's shrewd idea about getting out a message. And that it's possible for one thing to be both.

Randall Terry, an anti-abortion activist of long standing, came up with a doozy pegged to last week's Halloween celebrations: A "contest" for videos showing the burning of a picture of Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid "if they don't repent of making us pay for child killing in the health care bill."

Get the new
PD toolbar!

Terry, a figure whose tactics have marginalized him even on his side of the argument , is no dummy and knows how to stage a potentially effective stunt. He posted his challenge on YouTube to create what he called "Burn In Hell" videos. The mildly amusing instructions even show the best and easiest way to set up a giant picture for burning without having if fall over too soon. (News you can use: Cardboard tubes from wrapping paper help brace the back.)

I had not heard about Terry's idea until I got an e-mail. No, not from Terry or his backers. Here's what I got:

WASHINGTON, DC – Reverend Jim Wallis, President and founder of Sojourners, the largest network of progressive Christians in the nation, today released the following statement raising grave concerns about Randall Terry's (Operation Rescue founder) "Burn in Hell" contest including the declaration that fellow Americans will "burn in hell."

"Such an offensive stunt that fans the flames of division and hate is not in accordance with the Scriptures that tell us to love kindness and walk humbly with our God. We are experiencing a moment in our history of great debate about the direction of our nation. People of faith must be about the business of creating safe public space that supports a moral and civil dialogue and seeks to bring us together to find common ground or at least to model a more civil tone when we disagree with one another. "

"Driving anger, fueling hate, and even encouraging a spirit of violence by burning effigies of photographs of political leaders on YouTube is simply not in keeping with the spirit of Christ much less declaring fellow Americans will "burn in hell." This simply lacks the compassion and humility that Christians ought to be noted for and is not the best way to sharing the love of Christ, that we, as believers, are called to embody."

And here is where we get to pig wrasslin'. You've surely heard the saying: "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it." (Often attributed without a shred of evidence to Abe Lincoln.)

The whole point of the Terry idea was to get attention. But was there a scintilla of a chance that it would change minds or affect the substance of the eternal American debate about abortion?

So why did Wallis feel compelled to respond? It's not as if his comment would be any more likely to change minds or affect the discussion than Terry's stunt. And it had what I assume was the unintended consequence of actually letting more people know about the "Burn in Hell" idea.

One of the contact names atop the Wallis news release was Burns Strider. I first met Burns last year, when he was the religion guy, more or less, for the Hillary Clinton campaign. We had several interesting conversations over the course of the year, and I respect his knowledge and his sense of political strategy.

So I asked him: What was the point of Wallis's statement about Terry? His reply was succinct:

"Something as heinous as the stunts and statements of Terry deserve a response."

Which sounds like high principle. Except for the practical matter of the Internet. Someone who sets himself in a serious fashion to issue a reaction to any "stunt or statement" out there that he considers heinous would not sleep. Ever.

I suggest that Wallis comes across as a bit sanctimonious – using a shotgun to shoot at a fly. Terry surely smiled if he heard about Wallis' comment. And do you imagine that Wallis' disapproval will make Terry less likely to plan another, similar stunt?

Me, neither.

Which brings me to Larry David, and my own willingness to break my own admonition and occasionally wrassle with a porker.

Also in my e-box last week arrived news that Bill Donohue, the head of the Catholic League, had found something worthy of an objection. Like Terry's stunt and the subsequent reactions, this is per se about as surprising as sunrise; Donohue has a professional hair trigger for anything he thinks has the slightest anti-Catholic cast. Sometimes, he's right.

This time, however...

Curb Your Enthusiasm, a long running HBO comedy, recently featured an episode where a character named Larry David accidentally splashes his urine on a painting of Jesus and chooses not to clean it. Others see the splashed liquid, assume the source is miraculous, and the plot goes on from there.

Here's part of Donohue's reaction:

"Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on last night's episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," the HBO show where Larry David plays himself..."

"Was Larry David always this crude? Would he think it comedic if someone urinated on a picture of his mother? This might be fun to watch, but since HBO only likes to dump on Catholics (it was just a couple of weeks ago that Sarah Silverman insulted Catholics on "Real Time with Bill Maher"), and David is Jewish, we'll never know."

Two points:

"Larry David" is a fictional character on the show. Yes, he is played by the actor/writer named Larry David. But the show isn't a documentary. And the character is not, in many ways, particularly admirable.

If the writers of Superman were to have him whiz on a religious painting, we could be sure they were trying to say something negative about the painting. Superman is a hero.

If "Larry David" does something offensive, it may well be that the character is the actual butt of the joke. And if Larry David, the writer, thought he could get laughs consistent with the character and the story line by having "Larry David" pee on his "mom" – much less her photo -- I betcha he'd not hesitate a for a moment.

Irreverent? Of course. Anti-Catholic? A stretch.

And secondly, what is it with Donohue and Jews? For a person who holds himself out as an arbiter of the offensive, he has a habit of leaning into territory that a reasonable person might think is anti-Semitic.

Here's an oldie but goodie, from his appearance on MSNBC's Scarborough Country back in December of 2004. He was talking about the movie "The Passion of the Christ":

"Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the messiah. "

"Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes."

The ubiquitous Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was also on that show. How did he react to Donohue? I commend the entire transcript to your attention. But here's a nugget.

"I have got to tell you that Bill Donahue, who I otherwise love and so respect, ought to be ashamed of himself, the way he's spoken about secular Jews hating Christians. That is a bunch of crap, OK?"

Which in a scatological sense brings us back to the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode. And me back to pig wrasslin'.

Would Donohue be troubled by my critique of his critique? Not likely. Have I actually served his cause by telling you about it? Probably.

So I'll admit it: Sometimes both sides enjoy the wrassle. And each side may have different ideas about which one is the pig.


Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!