TIME FOR McCAIN TO LANCE THE HAGEE BOIL

Right-Wing Nut House ^ | March 01, 2008 | by Rick Moran

[jdm]

John McCain is in a minor dust-up at the moment over the endorsement of notorious anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-gay bigot John Hagee. Not only did McCain appear onstage with the clownish hater, but he actually had this to say about his endorsement:

And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee’s spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don’t have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.

This is the kind of “spiritual leadership” offered by Hagee:

Towelheads are coming! “Islam in general—those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews.”

New Orleans is Sodom! “I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.”

I’ll get you, Potter! “As millions of people anticipate the release of the latest Harry Potter book and film, we’re reminded once again of Satan’s ongoing attempt to deceive and destroy. The whole purpose of the Potter books is to desensitize readers and introduce them to the occult.”

And the above does not include some of the most nauseating, bigoted, anti-Catholic statements ever uttered in modern America:

“Anti-Semitism in Christianity began with the statements of the early church fathers, including Eusebius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine, Origen, Justin, and Jerome …. This poisonous stream of venom came from the mouths of spiritual leaders to virtually illiterate congregants, sitting benignly in their pews, listening to their pastors. They labeled the Jews as ‘the Christ killers, plague carriers, demons, children of the devil, bloodthirsty pagans who look for an innocent child during the Easter week to drink his blood, money hungry Shylocks, who are deceitful as Judas was relentless.’”

· “The Roman Catholic Church, which was supposed to carry the light of the gospel, plunged the world into the Dark Ages…. The Crusaders were a motley mob of thieves, rapists, robbers, and murderers whose sins had been forgiven by the pope in advance of the Crusade ….The brutal truth is that the Crusades were military campaigns of the Roman Catholic Church to gain control of Jerusalem from the Muslims and to punish the Jews as the alleged Christ killers on the road to and from Jerusalem.”

· “The Spanish Inquisition was perhaps the most cynical plot in the black history of Catholicism, aimed at expropriating the property of wealthy Jews and converts in Spain for the benefit of the royal court and the Roman Catholic Church.”

· “Adolf Hitler attended a Catholic school as a child and heard all the fiery anti-Semitic rantings from Chrysostom to Martin Luther. When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him. Pope Pius XII, called by historians ‘Hitler’s Pope,’ joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background for the bloodthirsty cry, ‘Pereat Judea’.... In all of his [Hitler’s] years of absolute brutality, he was never denounced or even scolded by Pope Pius XII or any Catholic leader in the world. To those Christians who believe that Jewish hearts will be warmed by the sight of the cross, please be informed—to them it’s an electric chair.”

How this man has amassed the influence and power he has is frankly beyond my comprehension. To realize that still, in this day and age, there is the kind of virulent anti-Catholic bigotry that animated so much of American history by coloring our attitudes toward newcomers from Ireland, Italy, and Slavic countries is depressing in the extreme. To the ignorant followers and believers in this man and what he teaches, I have nothing but contempt.

The question is, why doesn’t John McCain share that feeling of disgust? He has issued a milquetoast disclaimer that he doesn’t hold with all of Hagee’s beliefs. In fact, since his warm acceptance of Hagee’s endorsement, McCain has done nothing but try and backtrack, tripping over himself as he does:

McCain was pressed on the issue Friday morning in Round Rock, Texas. Hagee “supports what I stand for and believe in,” McCain said.

“When he endorses me, that does not mean that I endorse everything that he stands for and believes in,” McCain said. “I don’t have to agree with everyone who endorses my campaign.”

He added that he was “proud” of Hagee’s spiritual leadership of his congregation at the 17,000-member Cornerstone Church.

Doesn’t McCain realize that Hagee’s “spiritual leadership” includes filling the heads of the faithful with hate filled rants against Muslims, gays, Catholics, and others? How can a presidential candidate who says he wants to change the quality of dialogue in this country accept the endorsement of this bigot?

McCain is no stranger to controversies like this. In the 2000 campaign, he spoke at the notorious Bob Jones University where interracial dating was against school policy.

(As an aside, why aren’t these people read out of the conservative movement the same way the Birchers and other extremists were kicked out by Buckley and others in the 1950’s?)

Simply saying you don’t agree with everything Hagee says isn’t good enough. There are some endorsements that should be rejected out of hand. Saying “I reject John Hagee’s endorsement and all the bigoted statements he has made…” would be political suicide with a segment of evangelicals but might be the start of sweeping these extremists out of the party.

Obama’s endorsement by the notorious racist Louis Farrakhan (whose entire religion – the Nation of “Islam” – is geared toward spreading hate of the white man) should have been similarly rejected by the candidate. Instead, he merely “denounced” the racist, saying that it was the same as rejecting Farrakhan:

I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought,” Obama said. “And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”

Pressed if he specifically rejected the endorsement, Obama said, “I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy” and that he didn’t “see a difference between ‘denouncing’ and ‘rejecting.’”

Pure political sophistry. Of course there’s a difference between “renouncing” and “rejecting.” But Obama dare not do the latter for the same basic reason McCain won’t “reject” Hagee’s endorsement: fear of offending millions of African Americans who see Farrakhan as an important spiritual leader.

There are differences, however, between Obama and McCain’s attitudes toward these problematic endorsements. Obama has spoken out against Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic, anti-white statements even before the Nation of “Islam” minister endorsed him. Also, he didn’t appear on stage with him nor has he ever praised him for his “spiritual leadership.”

The extremists in both parties should be marginalized by denouncing them and rejecting any association – however tangential – between the haters and the candidates. The fact that the candidate might lose their votes (or the votes of the ignorant masses who are either unaware or oblivious to the hatred spewed by the haters they follow) should not be a calculation in the campaign. They should all be consigned to the outer darkness of American politics so that even their endorsement will draw little notice. Perhaps then, at least some of the people that follow these haters will wake up and realize who they have placed their faith in and reassess their own support.

But in order to have that happy event occur, both candidates need to go all the way and not use weasel words in denouncing what the haters believe and rejecting out of hand any hint of support they might bring to the campaign. Anything less will perpetrate the illusion that the Hagees and Farrakhans of the world matter in American politics and that people actually care who they endorse for president.

I refuse to accept the argument “I can’t control who supports me.” This is stating the obvious and is therefore irrelevant. The candidate might not be able to control who comes out in favor of his candidacy. But he can damn sure tell the haters to take a hike and peddle their endorsement somewhere else. That would take true political courage – something both men brag that they have to no end.

Not wanting to offend the ignorant crowds that lap up the hatred spewed by Hagee and Farrakhan by rejecting their endorsement just doesn’t cut it as an explanation. For McCain especially, it becomes paramount for him to make a definitive, declarative, clear statement on Hagee where the candidate leaves no doubt that not only does he find the statements of Hagee troublesome but the man himself as well. No weasel words about Hagee’s “spiritual leadership.” Obama should do the same with Farrakhan.

Until our national leaders actually start leading the fight against bigotry and hate, both will continue to fester just below the surface of our politics. But for two men who claim to be “uniters” and possessed with uncommon political courage, their statements regarding the most problematic of their supporters leave much to be desired.

[Jorge]

It was this author who used the term "towelheads" not Haggee. This author has revealed both his racism and his own bigotry.

I didn't read it that way.
The author was simply characterizing Hagee's statements.

One can disagree on whether it was accurate or not, but I wouldn't conclude it makes the author a bigot.

[Eva]

The difference is that Hagee isn’t particularly dangerous, Farrakhan is very dangerous and so are is followers. Hagee, as far out as his ideas are, they don’t promote hate of individuals, only hate of institutions. It’s a hate the sin, love the sinner kind of thing. Farrakhan is a hate whitey kind of guy.

[ex-snook]

"Let’s be fair here. While Hagee obviously has problems, the Catholic church is not a sacred cow (no pun intended); the intent of some of his crticisms has merit, and are worthy of historical and theological debate."

Ok let's be fair. Theological debate is one thing but this isn't that. Jesus didn't say to Peter on you I will build the whore of Babylon.

[Jorge]

Pure political sophistry. Of course there’s a difference between “renouncing” and “rejecting.” But Obama dare not do the latter...

The author is splitting hairs and he is uninformed on this.

First of all you wouldn't renounce something you don't FIRST reject.

Secondly Obama did go on to say in the deabate that he BOTH renounces and rejects Farrakhan.

[highlander_UW]

I didn't read it that way. The author was simply characterizing Hagee's statements.

I can't see how that is even close to accurate, however. The author used what can be reasonably accepted as an offensive, racist term (towelhead). Haggee did nothing of the sort, this is what Haggee apparently stated... “Islam in general—those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews.”

That is an accurate statement that can be supported by both Islamic "scriptures" as well as actual behavior of koranic following muslims.

So the author has used a racist term and tried to put it in the mouth of Haggee...that is both dishonest, and I believe, reveals his own bigotry.

[FNU LNU]

“Hagee....one of the few clear thinkers in America.
You may not like what he says....but you’ll never catch him in a lie...”

So, which one of these is not telling the truth?

Hagee (In Defense of Israel, p. 125) – “One of those deadly New Testament myths is that the Jews killed Jesus, yet no justification can be found in the New Testament to support this lie.”

Peter, on Pentecost: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know; him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay”

Paul: I Thes. 2.14-15 – “For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and pleased not God, and are contrary to all men.”

Thanks for reading, and considering.

[gscc]

The author has a list of historical fact regarding the Catholic Church including early Church fathers anti-Semitic statements, the Pope’s Crusade and his pre-forgiveness of the Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition and the Church’s inactions with regard to Hitler’s Holocaust - none of these can be refuted and all are historical fact. If it upsets you that discomforting history is being dredged up by Hagee - too bad.

[gscc]

Christ died for the sins of mankind - mankind each and everyone of us drove those nails into His body. The Jews might have condemned Him, the Romans might have crucified Him, however the sins of mankind drove the nails.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

What if John Fitzgerald Kennedy had been John Pious Kennedy?

I know one thing for sure. By contrast the only things censored in those days by the "mainstream" were of the nature of Elvis' hips, warnings of Communists infiltrators and influence, and of course Nervous Norvus' record Transfusion. The "religious right" censored the movie "The French Line" (a tiny bit of skin just below the belly button was exposed).

The debate over a middle name (!) would have occurred without making the ones asking the questions the issue.

Nevertheless Kennedy, like Romney and the issue of the Mormon Church, openly addressed the subject -- contrast that to the Obamabatty left.

[ex-snook]

"If it upsets you that discomforting history is being dredged up by Hagee - too bad."

Take a course in reading comprehension and go back and read what I posted.

[Uri’el-2012]

Yah'shua ( which means YHvH is become my salvation )
died for all would accept His blood sacrifice for their salvation.

ergo : Those who wish to receive salvation through His
blood sacrifice are the ones who put Him to death.

If you reject being part of the blood sacrifice of Yah'shua
then you can not have your sins forgiven by His blood sacrifice.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Jorge]

...that is both dishonest, and I believe, reveals his own bigotry.

I said NO.

[Mrs.Z]

<”outright anti-Catholicism.”>

Hagee in unapologetically pro-Israel.

Looking at the position of the Catholic church, he has to come down on them because of many of the church’s anti-Israel, anti-semitic stances.

(Of note, I believe this pope is much much better in that regard.)

[highlander_UW]

I said NO.

LOL, well, whatever you say...but simply stating an emphatic "NO" does not address the facts I presented. But I can see that discussion is pointless...I hope you have a great life.

[Jorge]

...I hope you have a great life.

Thank you. You too.

[trisham]

Hagee is a jackass. I’d say I’m disappointed in McCain, but..

[highlander_UW]

Thank you. You too.

Thanks! And I did mean that sincerely, not sarcastically...(just to make sure I was clear).

[FNU LNU]

You don’t address the issue I did. Hagee says it’s a lie to say that the Jews killed Jesus. Both Peter and Paul said they did. One can’t believe both Hagee and Peter and Paul on this issue.

Take your pick, but we can’t have both.

[FNU LNU]

“If you reject being part of the blood sacrifice of Yah’shua”

This is a complete change of subject. Address the one I addressed. Hagee says it’s a lie to say that the Jews killed Jesus. Both Peter and Paul said they did. If one rejects Hagee’s false statement, he’s not rejecting Christ’s sacrifice.

[gscc]

My criticism stands - no course in comprehension needed. Hagee stated historical fact - if he was making false statements to discredit the Catholic Church I could see your point - he is not.