Kristen Walker Hatten

Louis C.K. and the death of the modern gentleman

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten

October 3, 2012 ( - Who doesn’t love Louis C.K.?

The FX show of which he is the writer, director, editor, and star, “Louie,” is critically acclaimed and frequently appears on top-ten lists and “best ofs.” C.K. has been nominated twice for an Emmy for his performance, and he won the Emmy for Best Comedy Writing this year. I know a few young men who idolize C.K. and record every episode of his show, watching them over and over.

Louis C.K. and his character, Louie, have entered pop culture as a kind of everyman anti-hero. He is positively dripping with post-modernity: bitter, sarcastic, and adorably self-loathing, yet bewildered by his inability to relate to other people or attract a woman.

I have watched two or three episodes of the show, which is autobiographical in that it’s about a 40-something New York comedian named Louie who is divorced with two daughters and lives in a crappy apartment.

Gone are the days in which popular media shows us man as he ought to be. Instead we are shown, for our own good, man as he “really is,” except if a man I met in real life said anything half as despicable as what Louis C.K. says, he would get face smacked like a cad in an old black-and-white movie. And he would deserve it.

In March, Louis C.K. was slated to headline the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner, but he ended up bowing out due to public backlash, fueled by Fox News correspondent Greta Van Susteren’s promise to boycott the dinner if C.K. hosted.

Why did she – and many others – threaten a boycott? Because Louis C.K., every young liberal male’s hero, referred to Sarah Palin’s ”f**king retard-making c**t” during an appearance on the Opie and Anthony radio show. During that same exchange, he added thoughtfully, “I hate her more than anybody.” He also tweeted the following to @SarahPalinUSA: “kudos to your dirty hole, you f**king ja**off c**t-face jazzy wondergirl.”

Rush Limbaugh suggested that wanting people to pay for you to have sex (i.e., provide free birth control) might make you a slut, and everybody shouted for his immediate censure, termination, and in some cases probably beheading. He had to publicly apologize, and President Obama called the object of his scorn to ask her how she was holding up.

Bill Maher and Louis C.K. called Sarah Palin a c-word and refused to apologize, and they got nominated for Emmys and invited to host things. And I doubt the president called Sarah Palin to see if she was okay.

Go into your local hipster watering hole and bring up Louis C.K. Watch young men line up with their Stella Artois glasses to praise his holy name. I have a close male relative who hero-worships the guy, and he is not the only one in his peer group. Louis C.K. is so “real,” so “honest,” so “smart.”

Google “Louis C.K. Sarah Palin” and try to count the number of publications, bloggers, and commentators who cannot write about the c-word incident (or his disgusting drunk tweets) without smirking or outright guffawing at C.K.’s comments.

This is America. Louis C.K. can say what he wants. But the fact that he chooses to say this, and that young men continue to look up to him and praise him, is troubling, to say the least.

I have said before that abortion does not exist in a vacuum. I have pointed out that misogynists like Hugh Hefner and Tucker Max are champions for abortion and birth control because it lets them use women’s bodies while not having to be held accountable for the natural outcomes of that usage. Louis C.K. hates not only Sarah Palin, but everything that comes out of her, including her “retard” baby, of which he said, “Stick your t*t in its mouth and shut up.”

He has also compared Palin to Hitler, which leads me to believe he does not have a particularly sophisticated grasp of politics or history. (It always makes me chuckle when conservative Christians are compared to Hitler, considering Hitler was neither a conservative nor a Christian, but rather an atheist socialist like many of the politicians these same people idolize.)

It’s bad enough to say horrifying things about a woman and her baby with Down syndrome. It’s even worse to do it publicly and then refuse to apologize for it.

You can believe this guy is funny, but it’s sort of hard to deny he’s a misogynist if you listen to his stand-up. It’s not all Sarah Palin-related vitriol. He really doesn’t like women. Listen to this tidbit:

A man will cut your arm off and throw it in a river, but he’ll leave you as a human being intact. He won’t f**k with who you are. Women are non-violent but they will s**t inside of your heart.

Louis C.K. is smart (to a point) and funny. I love comedy, and I admit I see the humor in some of what he says. But I don’t watch his show or listen to his stand-up because he disgusts me. He trashes religion, fears and loathes women, and is just generally dark, bitter, and hateful.

And he is a modern-day hero.

He’s a hero because he seems smart, espousing the kinds of ideas that sound intelligent to someone with only surface-level knowledge of religion, politics, and history. He says evolution is obvious and Christianity is stupid; he’s so über-sophisticated that he can call his young daughter an “a**hole” and make it funny. He’s sarcastic and death-obsessed, and he has all the right opinions about Republicans. He must be smart.

His opinions reflect those of too many young people who regurgitate what they hear in the media. And unfortunately, he and others like him add misogyny to the mix. A generation of young men has been sucked in by this garbage, believing that you no longer have to be respectful of women as long as you are “real” and “honest.” To many young men today, being a gentleman means offering to pay for the abortion.

Only those who harbor deep hatred and contempt for women need to be dishonest and “fake” to be respectful.

A culture corrupted by abandonment of traditional morality and an embrace of radical feminism has led to this: men are now told to treat women like “equals,” but because of the inescapable, natural fact that we are not the same as men, treating us the same as men doesn’t work. It leads to unhappy women and, as a result, confusion and anger on the part of men, as evidenced by Louis C.K.’s obvious bewilderment at the hurt done to him by women, which is reflected in his stand-up and in the desperate, sad, “single-and-looking” title character of “Louie.”

I have a fiancé. He is almost the same age as Louis, but he was raised in the South. Never in a million years would he ever call me – or any woman, no matter how much she “deserved” it – a name half as foul as what Louis C.K. called Sarah Palin on the radio. There was a time when virtually no man would do that, and certainly not where any woman could hear it.

There was also a time when other men would shun and possibly roundhouse punch any man who said that about a respectable woman and her disabled child. Apparently those times are gone, because dudes on the internet can’t get enough of it.

If these are the heroes we’re offering to young men, this generation is doomed.

Reprinted with permission from

Share this article

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve

Today’s chuckle: Rubio, Fiorina and Carson pardon a Thanksgiving turkey

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

A little bit of humour now and then is a good thing.

Happy Thanksgiving to all our American readers.

Share this article

Featured Image
Building of the European Court of Human Rights.
Lianne Laurence


BREAKING: Europe’s top human rights court slaps down German ban on pro-life leafletting

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

STRASBOURG, France, November 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that a German regional court violated a pro-life activist’s freedom of expression when it barred him from leafleting in front of an abortion center.

It further ruled the German court’s order that Klaus Gunter Annen not list the names of two abortion doctors on his website likewise violated the 64-year-old pro-life advocate’s right to freedom of expression.

The court’s November 26 decision is “a real moral victory,” says Gregor Puppinck, director of the Strasbourg-based European Center for Law and Justice, which intervened in Annen’s case. “It really upholds the freedom of speech for pro-life activists in Europe.”

Annen, a father of two from Weinam, a mid-sized city in the Rhine-Neckar triangle, has appealed to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights at least two times before, Puppinck told LifeSiteNews.

“This is the first time he made it,” he said, noting that this time around, Annen had support from the ECLJ and Alliance Defense Fund and the German Pro-life Federation (BVL). “I think he got more support, better arguments and so I think this helped.”

The court also ordered the German government to pay Annen costs of 13,696.87 EUR, or 14,530 USD.

Annen started distributing pamphlets outside a German abortion center ten years ago, ECLJ stated in a press release.

His leaflets contained the names and addresses of the two abortionists at the center, declared they were doing “unlawful abortions,” and stated in smaller print that, “the abortions were allowed by the German legislators and were not subject to criminal liability.”

Annen’s leaflets also stated that, “The murder of human beings in Auschwitz was unlawful, but the morally degraded NS State allowed the murder of innocent people and did not make it subject to criminal liability.” They referred to Annen’s website,, which listed a number of abortionists, including the two at the site he was leafleting.

In 2007, a German regional court barred Annen from pamphleteering in the vicinity of the abortion center, and ordered him to drop the name of the two abortion doctors from his website.

But the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that the German courts had "failed to strike a fair balance between [Annen’s] right to freedom of expression and the doctor’s personality rights.”

The Court stated that, “there can be no doubt as to the acute sensitivity of the moral and ethical issues raised by the question of abortion or as to the importance of the public interest at stake.”

That means, stated ECLJ, that “freedom of expression in regard to abortion shall enjoy a full protection.”

ECLJ stated that the court noted Annen’s leaflets “made clear that the abortions performed in the clinic were not subject to criminal liability. Therefore, the statement that ‘unlawful abortions’ were being performed in the clinic was correct from a legal point of view.”

As for the Holocaust reference, the court stated that, “the applicant did not – at least not explicitly – equate abortion with the Holocaust.”  Rather, the reference was “a way of creating awareness of the more general fact that law might diverge from morality.”

The November 26 decision “is a quite good level of protection of freedom of speech for pro-life people,” observed Puppinck.

First, the European Court of Human Rights has permitted leafleting “in the direct proximate vicinity of the clinic, so there is no issue of zoning,” he told LifeSiteNews. “And second, the leaflets were mentioning the names of the doctors, and moreover, were mentioning the issue of the Holocaust, which made them quite strong leaflets.”

“And the court protected that.”

Annen has persevered in his pro-life awareness campaign through the years despite the restraints on his freedom.

“He did continue, and he did adapt,” Puppinck told LifeSiteNews. “He kept his freedom of speech as much as he could, but he continued to be sanctioned by the German authorities, and each time he went to the court of human rights. And this time, he won.”

ECLJ’s statement notes that “any party” has three months to appeal the November 26 decision.

However, as it stands, the European Court of Human Rights’s ruling affects “all the national courts,” noted Puppinck, and these will now “have to protect freedom of speech, recognize the freedom of speech for pro-lifers.”

“In the past, the courts have not always been very supportive of the freedom of speech of pro-life,” he said, so the ruling is “significant.”

As for Annen’s pro-life ministry, Pubbinck added: “He can continue to go and do, and I’m sure that he does, because he always did.”  

Share this article

Featured Image
A vibrant church in Africa. Pierre-Yves Babelon /
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, ,

‘Soft racism’: German Bishops’ website attributes African Catholics’ strong faith to simplemindedness

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

GERMANY, November 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) --  The only reason the Catholic Church is growing in Africa is because the people have a “rather low level” of education and accept “simple answers to difficult questions” involving marriage and sexuality, posited an article on the official website of the German Bishops' Conference posted yesterday. The article targeted particularly Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, the Vatican's prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and ardent defender of Catholic tradition.

First Things blogger Leroy Huizenga, who translated a portion of the article, criticized the article's view as “soft racism.”

In his article, titled “The Romantic, Poor Church,” editor Björn Odendahl writes: 

So also in Africa. Of course the Church is growing there. It grows because the people are socially dependent and often have nothing else but their faith. It grows because the educational situation there is on average at a rather low level and the people accept simple answers to difficult questions (of faith) [sic]. Answers like those that Cardinal Sarah of Guinea provides. And even the growing number of priests is a result not only of missionary power but also a result of the fact that the priesthood is one of the few possibilities for social security on the dark continent.

Huizenga said that such an article has no place on a bishops’ conference website. 

“We all know that the German Bishops' Conference is one of the most progressive in the world. But it nevertheless beggars belief that such a statement would appear on the Conference's official website, with its lazy slander of African Christians and priests as poor and uneducated (Odendahl might as well have added ‘easy to command’) and its gratuitous swipe at Cardinal Sarah,” he wrote. 

“Natürlich progressives could never be guilty of such a sin and crime, but these words sure do suggest soft racism, the racism of elite white Western paternalism,” he added. 

African prelates have gained a solid reputation for being strong defenders of Catholic sexual morality because of their unwavering orthodox input into the recently concluded Synod on the Family in Rome. 

At one point during the Synod, Cardinal Robert Sarah urged Catholic leaders to recognize as the greatest modern enemies of the family what he called the twin “demonic” “apocalyptic beasts” of “the idolatry of Western freedom” and “Islamic fundamentalism.”

STORY: Cardinal Danneels warns African bishops to avoid ‘triumphalism’

“What Nazi-Fascism and Communism were in the 20th century, Western homosexual and abortion ideologies and Islamic fanaticism are today,” he said during his speech at the Synod last month. 

But African prelates’ adherence to orthodoxy has earned them enemies, especially from the camp of Western prelates bent on forming the Catholic Church in their own image and likeness, not according to Scripture, tradition, and the teaching magisterium of the Church. 

During last year’s Synod, German Cardinal Walter Kasper went as far as stating that the voice of African Catholics in the area of Church teaching on homosexuality should simply be dismissed.

African cardinals “should not tell us too much what we have to do,” he said in an October 2014 interview with ZENIT, adding that African countries are "very different, especially about gays.” 

Earlier this month Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, instead of praising Africa for its vibrant and flourishing Catholicism, said that African prelates will one day have to look to Europe to get what he called “useful tips” on how to deal with “secularization” and “individualism.” 

The statement was criticized by one pro-family advocate as “patronizing of the worst kind” in light of the facts that numerous European churches are practically empty, vocations to the priesthood and religious life are stagnant, and the Catholic faith in Europe, especially in Belgium, is overall in decline.

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook