McCain, Hagee, Obama, Farrakhan, etc.
So — following up on this MOJ post — I think that John Hagee is loathesome. (How could a Roman Catholic not?) And, I blogged here at Vox Nova a few months ago about the “troubling” fact that Gov. Huckabee (who, at the time, many Catholics seemed to find attractive) had no problem hanging out with Hagee, whom I called a “virulent and ignorant anti-Catholic polemicist” (which he is) who needs to get the word about “Catholics and Evangelicals Together.” So, I certainly would rather Sen. McCain steer clear of him, too.
That said, two thoughts. First, let’s be real: No one is going to insist that Sen. Obama disavow or condemn all of his prominent supporters — I’m sure there are many — who believe that the Catholic Church is a force for evil and / or a den of lunatics. So, the “McCain must disavow” business seems a bit opportunistic. (Again, I think he should distance himself from Hagee.) Everyone knows that McCain is not anti-Catholic (just like everyone knows that Obama does not hate Jews).
Next, no one should demand that candidates disavow supporters who believe that the Catholic Church’s teachings are false. After all, this is what non-Catholics believe. If they didn’t, one assumes they would be Catholics. To me, Hagee’s anti-Catholic views are not (given that he is a Protestant minister) as objectionable as the anti-Semitic and other racialist views of, say, Louis Farrakhan. (My understanding is that there is nothing about being a Muslim that requires one to be a racialist or to traffic in anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.)
Comments are closed.
This post requires a lot of explaining.
Hagee doesn’t just believe that the Catholic Church is “wrong”; he believes that it is evil and that it must be “overthrown.”
Rick: while I can accept your broader point that holding each candidate to the anti-Catholic (or other biased views) of every member of their legion of supporters is an impossible standard, I cannot accept your second point: that Farrakhan is more offensive than Hagee. Hagee believes, in a distorted (and in my view, evil) reading of the OT that thr secular state of Israel holds dominion over the entire region that is now Israel and Palestine, and that the Palestinians have no rights whatsoever. In his view, the mere creation of a Palestinian state will lead to a bloodbath against America and Israel by terrorisst sanctioned by God. This seems far mroe offensive than Farrakhan’s pathetic random outbursts of anti-semitism.
What about the anti-Catholicism? There was much furore in the Catholic blogosphere last year when one of Edwards’ bloggers made some extremely offensive anti-Catholic remarks. My thought then was that one should vote for a person based on their policies, but that Edwards’ refusal to disassociate himself from this person was a major black mark against him. And, again, what Amanda Marcotte said was no less offensive that Hagee’s comments on the Catholic church.
I agree that McCain ought to distance himself from Hagee (as Huckabee should have), however equating racism to Anti-Catholicism or Christian Zionism is ridiculous. Believing the Jewish people have an inherent right to all of the Palestinian region is not the same as hatred for the non-Jewish inhabitants.
Remarks by your supporters are also not the same thing as remarks by SOMEONE YOU EMPLOY.
God Bless,
Matt
Gerald — McCain offers the chance for American people to find the true hero within, to express within their communities the full wellspring of . . .ah, heck, it’s too hard to write that kind of thing even as a spoof.
MM — Has McCain hired Hagee specifically to represent him on the web?
Stop trying to split hairs, Sbuck. Bigotry is bigotry. Can you imagine if Obama actively solicited Farrakhan’s vote, claimed that he was “very honored” to receive it even if he did not support all the latter’s views? Why is the accursed media holding them to a different standard here?
This post is pathetic.
What are you calling “bigotry” here? Disagreeing with the Catholic Church?
Farrakhan is a total red herring. Obama has nothing to do with him. Farrakhan said, unsolicited, that he supported Obama.
McCain SOUGHT OUT Hagee’s support. McCain APPEARED IN PUBLIC WITH HIM.
Also, and much more importantly, Farrakhan’s views have essentially no public support. He is essentially, at this point, insignificant–however loathsome.
Now, most people may not agree with Hagee, but his views have immense significance, because they support–indeed, were developed IN ORDER to support, a WAR POLICY that is the current policy of the United States.
Farrakhan’s policies are not and will not be carried out in the US.
Hagee’s war policy has been, to a significant degree, carried out. Of course he wants much more war, and McCain may not follow his various plots and fantasies to the letter.
But there IS a significant convergence between Hagee’s fantasies and McCain’s future plans–because McCain, too, is advancing a policy of WAR.
McCain’s policy is deadly and evil.
And, oh yes, anti-Catholic–though it is much more anti-Arab. And since it is the lives and deaths of Arabs that are at stake, that is much more important.
“ah, heck, it’s too hard to write that kind of thing even as a spoof.”
I’m sure it is. McCain seems not to be very inspiring.
“What are you calling “bigotry” here? Disagreeing with the Catholic Church?
Bigotry here means much more than disagreement with the Catholic Church.
Bigotry means:
“obstinate and unreasoning
attachment of one’s own belief and opinions, with
narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them”
To clarify my post above–
MM mentioned Hagee’s maniacal demented hatred of Palestinians and other Arabs. He has spun this out into a series of bestselling books about how US war on Arabs is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, and how the Bible demands further mass killing of Arabs by the US and Israel.
Very good point, G Alkon.
We must also remember Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan, and pointed out his fundamental disagreements with him.
Well, it’s not anything about McCain’s lack of inspirational ability; I find it impossible to write in that kind of language about anyone.
“I find it impossible to write in that kind of language about anyone.”
So we have radically different perceptions and skills.
What am I calling bigotry, Sbuck? How about this:
There is a “clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.” John Hagee, Jerusalem Countdown, p. 78.
Radically different perceptions, yes, but it doesn’t take any particular “skill,” other than sheer imagination, to come up with hymns of praise about a politician.
MM — Hagee is certainly overstating his case there, but I don’t know if it’s because of actual bigotry or just ignorance (Hagee doesn’t seem like the sharpest tool in the shed, if you know what I mean).
Is it “bigotry” to call Hagee a “bigot” for his religious beliefs? Try to answer that without violating the “what’s sauce for the goose” principle.
“Radically different perceptions, yes, but it doesn’t take any particular “skill,” other than sheer imagination, to come up with hymns of praise about a politician.”
It takes intelligence, perception, judgment, imagination, and skills to see and describe qualities in a person, be they a politician or not. Judging what from you have said about Hagee, it appears you have an elementary difficulty seeing the qualities of others.
Well, Gerald, given your hyperinflated and rationally indefensible* statements about Obama, you’re not exactly in a position to be suggesting that anyone else has an “elementary difficulty seeing the qualities of others.”
* If you were capable of any rational defense of your pro-Obama rhetoric, you wouldn’t be reduced to sputtering “Oh, so you want to move to Canada,” as soon as someone disagreed.
Sbuck
of course one can say one is a bigot for having sick religious beliefs
many beliefs that people call “religious” are sick
“i can believe this without criticism because it’s a religious belief”
that’s one of the oldest and emptiest canards in the book
Stuart: he is “overstating his case”, when he says Hitler and the Church conspired to kill Jews? Excuse me? In that case, Farrakhan must also be “overstating his case” no?
Your comment on understatement qualifies you for award for understatement.
That should read “Your comment on overstatement qualifies you for an award for understatement”.
Yes, Hagee is a bigot and it is loathesome that McCain sought his endorsement.
But how does this work with the endorsements sought by Democratic candidates – whom many here are always telling us we should vote for – by those who promote and profit from the killing of innocent unborn children?
Are you screaming at Obama to disavow the enthusiastic thumbs ups he receieves from NARAL and NOW, and other abortion groups? ANd give back the money they support him with?
Can we be equally as outraged at that?
Gerald says my post “requires explaining.” Actually, what cries out for “explaining” is the tone and content of this unusually (even for this blog) snarky, nasty comment-thread.
For those who cannot or will not read: *nothing* in my post was a defense of Hagee, or a defense of McCain’s (so far) refusal to disavow him. My point — again, one that would have been obvious to those who can read — was that this whole “disavow the nasty folks who endorse you!” thing is probably not the most productive path to follow. And, to say that Hagee’s “anti-Catholic views” are not as objectionable as Farrakhan’s racialism and anti-Semitism (they are not, in my view) is *not* to say that *only* his anti-Catholic views are objectionable. Many of his other views strike me as crazy and offensive.
OK, MM — you’re right on that one. (I do find it interesting that some of the people (not necessarily here) who are pointing the finger at Hagee are the same people who lap it up when Daniel Goldhagen makes the same argument in a more academic fashion.)
“McCain seems not to be very inspiring.”
Please. Even Obama sycophancy must have its limits.
I’m definitely no fan of John McCain, but anyone who has bothered to crack open Faith of My Fathers knows that McCain has an inspiring story. (And, by comparison, Obama has done exactly WHAT in his life that is so “inspirational” other than say nice flowery things that tickle the ear?)
And even disagreeing as I do with some of his policy prescriptions, I can recognize that McCain’s call (going on now for 8 years) for Americans to “serv[e] a cause greater than themselves” is an inspirational call to set aside partisan differences and personal gain to serve a higher calling.
rgarnett,
Your post is intellectually sloppy at best. Obama did not seek out and on a public stage embrace Farrakhan’s approval, as McCain did Hagee and his endorsement. Obama “denounced and rejected” Farrakhan’s approval, whereas McCain has refused to do so with Hagee’s endorsement.
In these instance, Obama has shown himself as a man of principle. McCain has not.
And please do not derail this discussion by injecting the separate issue of Obama’s pro-choice politics.
“hyperinflated and rationally indefensible”
You think my statements about Obama — or JFK, for that matter — are “hyperinflated and rationally indefensible.” You have made yourself clear. But it matters little to me what you think. I disagree with you, as do many, many others.
Don’t confuse your opinion with a standard of judgment. It is not.
“To me, Hagee’s anti-Catholic views are not (given that he is a Protestant minister) as objectionable as the anti-Semitic and other racialist views of, say, Louis Farrakhan.”
What makes Hagee less objectionable than Farrakhan?
The Huffington Post reports:
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the most prominent Catholic serving in the U.S. government, called on Sen. John McCain to reject the endorsement of Texas televangelist John Hagee, who has labeled the Catholic church “the great whore,” a “false cult system,” and linked it to Hitler’s Nazi movement.
“That behavior is outside the circle of civilized debate in our democracy,” Pelosi said during a Thursday conference call. “I certainly think John McCain should reject his endorsement and I’m sure it won’t be long before he does.”
Senator McCain stood on the podium with Pastor Hagee last week and said he was “proud” to be endorsed by him.
I know you disagree with me, Gerald. That’s obvious. It’s just that you’ve never been able to say why. For example, how exactly will Obama “tame” our “souls,” or “summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths,” as you have claimed? I keep asking, and you keep coming up emptyhanded.
But hey, if you really think that Obama has all this magical power to create a better America just with his speeches, and if you really mean it when you have denied that “policy” has beneficial effects, then boy do I have a deal for you: Let McCain be President, but try to get Obama appointed as head of the Department of Education or something. After all, if policy doesn’t matter, then why should you care whether Obama gets to have the presidential veto, the power to propose bills, etc.? In fact, from your perspective, it would be better if he weren’t distracted by all of that irrelevant policy business; instead, he could go around making inspiring speeches and changing the country’s soul that way. How about it?
“It’s just that you’ve never been able to say why.”
I said long ago the conversation was over. I never explained why it was over. I just said it was over. You take that to mean I can’t explain myself. Believe what you want. It matters not to me.
The reason for this is I don’t appreciate the tone of the exchange. I’m not alone in this. Others have made similar comments.
As for policy, it has failed Americans, especially in regards its ability to address social issues. Most serious people consider this to be obvious. Most are interested in finding ways to address this shortcoming.
I said long ago the conversation was over. I never explained why it was over. I just said it was over. You take that to mean I can’t explain myself.
If you had said the “conversation was over” at the first sign of disagreement, that would be one thing. It would indicate that you simply didn’t want to discuss your beliefs, although you might still have rational arguments left in reserve. But you said that only after 1) repeatedly refusing to offer any rational explanation for how Obama might have such mystical powers, and 2) repeatedly relying on irrelevant strawmen instead.*
So yes, fleeing the scene once you’ve run out of fallacious arguments is evidence that, in fact, you do NOT have any rational arguments left in reserve.
* Such as the ludicrous accusation that if I don’t buy your wild rhetorical claims, it can only be because I want to move to Canada if Obama is elected. Wrong — if Obama is elected, then despite all my disagreements with Obama, I’d be proud to live in a country that would finally elect a black man.
I can see, Gerald, that you’re cut out of the same cloth as Henry — if I want a rational argument from your point of view, I have to provide it myself.
So you said that Obama would call forth spiritual forces from the American people, etc., etc. In response, I basically said, “Are you kidding? What the **** are you talking about?”
At that point, you could have done one of two things that would have been honorable. First, you could have said, “Gee, sorry, I must have been drunk when I wrote that. What I really meant was that Obama gives inspiring speeches, and that some fraction of the American people might be inspired by his words to think more often about the common good than in the past; at least that’s how I feel when I hear him speak.” I would then have said, “Oh, I see; well, that might turn out to be the case, but the phenomenon of which you speak is so faddish that it might be worth waiting a bit to see what happens.”
Second, you could have said, “No, I really meant every word I said, and here’s a rational explanation of exactly what my abstract terms meant: ______________, and here’s a rational explanation of how Obama could perform the miracles that I have already attributed to him: ____________________.” I leave blanks here, because I can’t even imagine how there could be a rational defense for the language that you used. But maybe you could have come up with such an explanation, if you had tried.
Instead, you chose to offer only arguments that were as childish and unreasoned as your original rhetoric. I.e., you said that my only problem was that I didn’t “like” Obama (not true), that I would want to move to another country if he were elected (also not true), that I was a “fundamentalist” (absurdly untrue), etc., etc.
Nancy Pelosi??? Now that’s the pot calling the kettle black. She’s the most unCatholic and ANTI-Catholic member of the US Congress in years. She defended the grotesque and blasphemous depiction of the Last Supper, and the murder of countless unborn. And she is invoked as some sort of “prominent” Catholic?
God Bless,
Matt
Stuart,
You are being ignored. Don’t you get it. LOL.
Once again, fleeing the scene after running out of fallacious arguments isn’t a point of distinction.
But none of this is surprising. You’ve made it clear, both in conversations about JFK and about Obama, that you value those politicians’ rhetoric far above anything that they actually did (and you’ve made it clear that you’re not “inspired” by McCain’s record of real-world heroism). So it’s no surprise that you would put such a high premium on coming up with your own flowery rhetoric, and wouldn’t care whether it actually means anything.
Yes, Stuart, I do value the ability of a leader — JFK, Reagan, Obama — to inspire a nation. Inspirational leadership serves as a catalyst for individual participation in community life. Policy cannot elicit such dynamics. If nothing else, inspiration, language, and leadership instill in the body politic a sense of purpose that transcends self-interest (i.e., the common good). It helps move the nation away from the drudgery of the autonomous individual.
And yes, social policy has been a dismal failure in the US for over a half century. No one questions this. Beyond that, most of the intractable social problems facing the nation — homelessness, substance abuse, violence, poverty, disparities — cannot be alleviated by policy initiatives because there is a spiritual dimension to each of these problems. Policy, no matter how it is formulated, cannot address spiritual dynamics. It’s primary emphasis is on the distribution of goods and services which are targeted to isolated segments of the population.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has not had a coherent foreign policy. At the most, we have been pursuing interests. Little attention has been placed on national purpose. The real challenge ahead is to cement our relations with populations. We need to inspire people everywhere to common purposes — the dignity of the human person, freedom, and human solidarity. But such efforts have been eclipsed by a crude exercise of economic and military power.
As for John McCain, I do admire his heroism in Vietnam. This is beyond question. But I’m not moved by his candidacy, even though I may agree with him on major policy issues.
McCain had a terrible experience in Vietnam.
I wish he didn’t have to suffer the way he did.
But what did he do that was heroic?
Placing himself at risk of becoming a POW while in a war for his country is I believe what people interpret as heroism. That the risk materialized would tend to establish that the risk wasn’t frivolous.
John McCain was offered an early release due to his father’s status as an admiral. McCain in compliance with US policy refused to accept release until it was his turn by the order of capture. Given the conditions in the Hanoi Hilton (a darn sight worse thant G’itmo)…That IS heroic.
God Bless,
Matt
“John McCain was offered an early release due to his father’s status as an admiral.”
John McCain’s father was more than a mere admiral. His father was the Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Command (Pacific Fleet) from 1968-1972.
Gerald,
thanks for clarifying.
Matt
Your welcome, Matt.
Alkon — you’re questioning whether it’s heroic to stand up under torture?
Gerald — thanks for that. I do agree that Obama has the ability to be inspirational, and that this could have good effects outside the realm of policy (although that would be very difficult to quantify). I’m perplexed, however, as to why you would think that he needs to be President in order to accomplish that goal — he could easily be an inspirational speaker in any number of roles other than President, so why does he need to be in that policy-making role?
I have been out of town But I totally agree with this post. Hagee’s odd views are bush league compared to the real anto Catholisim we see inm the secular media
FOr all the people tha want to make a issue of this I think they then to come up with the rules. Catholics in the pro life movement associate and work with some raving anti Catholics. I guess I need to know if I should diassociate mydelf from then
I have stated thi sbefore but I am tad dismayed that we have gone from
Anti Catholics not voting for Catholics to anti Cathoolics(inviting Catholics to their Churches and assoicating with them in political matters ) to NOW going those people are off limits. That last development is troublesome. In many of these chruhces the antoi Catholic theology is truly a sideline and one finds more of the have nots than the haves. I am not sure it does Catholcism or the public good to make lepers out of fellow Americans
Stuart,
To my way of thinking, the presidency is the voice and conscience of the nation, especially in this Information Age. Thus it is more than a policy-directed institution. In its most general sense, the presidency embodies the potential to set a national tone. But in so doing, it exercises a capacity to call forth ennobling qualities from individuals, qualities whose impact enriches individual actions. To the extent that this dynamic unfolds in the life of the community, it serves the common good.
Above you spoke to McCain’s being heroic in the face of torture. He was. What does this mean? Well, at least in part, it means certain heroic, or noble, qualities came into play in his life. He engaged the challenges he faced using these heroic qualities. What are these qualities? Well, we could speak of courage, and fortitude — alluding to the moral virtues — but we could also point to other qualities, including personal sacrifice — or even the love of others. This is the taming of the soul of which I speak.
McCain’s actions signify that heroic qualities can enhance a person just as their absence can diminish a person. When anti-heroic qualities such as cowardice or intemperance are present — or when a person succumbs to the hedonistic inclination to avoid pain at all costs — the life of the individual and community looses its moral vigor. Its spirit is diminished.
The president has the capacity to inspire heroic qualities in the life of Americans. Such qualities could serve to improve our educational system, they could heighten our sense of civic responsibility, they might introduce a greater sense of caring in our relations with one another. Heck, they might even improve our legal and medical institutions. Well, maybe! The point is that when heroic qualities are asked of a people, it can be expected that the life of the community will improve, even if marginally. But — and this is critical — it will improve at a level apart from direct government intervention. Through inspirational leadership, the community can be more richly endowed with heroic qualities precisely because individuals are called upon to exercise those qualities in their relations with one another. Thus begins the work of the civilizing virtues.
FDR and JFK inspired a generation of individuals in multiple ways, e.g., involvement in civic activities, service in the Peace Corp, and the like. To my mind, Reagan greatly inspired those behind the Iron Curtain to take risks on behalf of freedom. For the most part, however, there has been too little of such leadership and too much reliance upon government intervention to do the things that only individuals can do. By inspiring citizens to take responsibility for the life of the community, the nation’s leadership can, I believe, unleash a dynamic among individuals that can improve the life of us all and do so in countless ways.
This is how I see it. By reclaiming the power to inspire heroic, or noble, acts — a power intrinsic to the presidency — the people can reclaim the power to improve the quality of their individual lives. But in doing so they will have also improved the life of the entire community without having to resort to direct government intervention.
OK, I see more clearly what you’re saying now. I think perhaps I’m just not used to your way of putting things.
That said, it still seems a bit overly optimistic to me.
“That said, it still seems a bit overly optimistic to me.”
Stuart, this is where the theological virtue of Hope come into play. It widens the parameters of our world-view and enhances not only the expectations we have for the future but our obligations to actively pursue those expectations.
I agree it may appear overly optimistic. But the parameters themselves are true and if we struggle to achieve common purposes there is a realistic prospect that we can achieve some measure of success over time.
Through like efforts, heroic qualities can be made incarnate in the life of the community. Not an easy task, to be sure. But one that is a bit more than “dreamy and fuzzy.”
I’d suggest that if one wants to radically improve our society, hope is more properly aimed at God than at Obama or any other single human being.
Stuart,
I agree in part. We do tend to think of Hope as between the Person and God. But, in truth, Hope is much broader in its reach. A person with Hope has acquired a new dimension to their life, not only in terms of their relation to God, but in terms of every act they perform. Their intellectual horizons are expanded (Philosophy), their moral horizons are expanded (Ethics). the vistas of practical possibility are expanded (Politics), and their creative possibilities are expanded (Art).
Indeed, in Thomistic ethics, the theological virtues (Faith, Hope, and Charity) add a new dimension to the Person and thus to Practical Reason. It is not merely the Moral Virtues that are at work in practical decisions. It is also the Theological Virtues.
This is one of the many ways in which St. Thomas’s ethics is distinguished from Aristotle. And because Politics is a branch of Ethics, what is true in Ethics also applies to Politics.
Thus, the burden for change does not rest on Obama, McCain, or any other leader. The only thing leaders can do is inspire and serve as a catalyst for change. So the question arises: Do they have the capacity to act as a catalyst? But the actual burden for bringing about change rests with the person who is called upon to participate more fully in the life of the community. How each person thinks and acts rests with their decision.
One can thus see the principle of subsidiarity at work in its most authentic sense.
Thus, I’m not trying to make any leader to be superhuman. Rather, what I am saying is that there are potentialities hidden within the human person that are latent until awakened. Once awakened, new possibilities for human betterment are available to be realized. Great leaders will awaken those possibilities. And once awakened, it is through the collective actions of millions — in the pursuit of the common good — that political transformation will take place.
And yes … this leadership dynamic can awaken evil impulses as well! I am not incognizant of that possibility. Everything is a struggle. But aim of the struggle is to bring “heroic virtues” into the life of the community. Our challenge is to make sure that happens.
Once again, thanks for the explanation.
I still feel that what you’re saying is way too abstract and unquantifiable for my tastes. But if that’s your cup of tea, so be it. I apologize for being too harsh or derisive in various previous comments; to be sure, I was very much rubbed the wrong way by dismissive accusations that I wanted to move to Canada, or the like; but then I probably rubbed you the wrong way first.
Stuart,
Thanks. As the people of the street say: “We’re cool!”
Let me add one more comment.
The need to “quantify” is one of the great strengths of social science methodology. But it is also one of its greatest weaknesses. The causes of human behavior are always “qualitative” in nature. They are not “quantitative.” Nor can quality be reduced to quantity. They are essentially distinct.
Social science treats only of correlations. These are described quantitatively. Social science does not treat of Causes. Causes are qualitative in nature (e.g., anger).
Correlations are mere associations. Causes bring something into being. Correlations and causes are radically different, yet there is a tendency to confuse them (i.e., pour them together as one).
The need to “quantify” has had a deadening impact on public policy. It is not possible to quantify “quality.” Yet, the richness of human relations and human acts is always about “quality,” e.g., (love, hate, aloneness, anger, respect, etc.)
Since the language of public policy is the language of the social sciences, we tend to speak about human problems in a way that is abstract and disengaged from the life of the person — where causes are located. The upshot is we fail to grasp the dynamics of causation as it is embedded in behavioral problems. We perceive Associations (Correlations), but fail to grasp Causes.
There is a great need to beyond the strangle-hold of this “quantifiable calculus” in public policy and discover a new logic that will enable us to speak in “qualitative terms” about the causal dynamics of human problems, both abstractly (principles) and concretely (acts). Only by focusing on the “qualitative” can we begin to explore the root causes of human behavior. Only then can we begin to effectively address the challenge of behavioral dysfunctions, including homelessness, substance abuse, youth violence.
In public policy today we have an incongruity between means and ends. It is for this reason that I find policy to be an ineffective tool.