John McCain’s Dangerous Friends
Remember McCain’s flirtation with Hagee? His attempt to distance himself from the anti-Catholic remarks of the man whose endorsement he sought was enough to satisfy Bill Donohue, who claimed the matter closed. But McCain himself seems more equivocal:
”Well, obviously I repudiate any comments that are anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, racist, any other… And I condemn them and I condemn those words that Pastor Hagee apparently — that Pastor Hagee wrote. I will say that he said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position. I hope that maybe you’d give him a chance to respond….I will say, I’d like to say on his behalf, he’s been a very strong supporter of the state of Israel and when we were doing the No Surrender tour, he came and spoke on behalf of not surrendering in Iraq.”
In other words, let’s just ignore the anti-Catholic stuff, Hagee is on the right side when it comes to Israel and middle eastern wars. Remember, Hagee is the man who believes God supports the right of the secular state of Israel to occupy all of Palestine, so much so that he is willing to unleash terror on those who give support to a Palestinian state (see Henry’s post for his own words). It goes without saying that this deranged and dangerous. It scares me greatly that a presidential candidate is associating himself with such a position, however tangentially.
But McCain certainly knows how to find them. He has courted another “Christian” leader, a man called Rod Parsley, who has the following to say:
“I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.”
And here it is again– the dark side of American exceptionalism, the Calvinist-Gnostic theology that divides the world into light and darkness, with America on the right side. If Hagee scares me, this guy terrifies me. And McCain is appearing on stage with him. That is most terrifying of all.
Trackbacks
- Southern Appeal » Peering into the demented mind of the America-hating left
- What’s Wrong with Wright? « Vox Nova
Comments are closed.
Hmm.. No mention of Obama’s Church, or their “lifetime achievement” award for Farrakhan, their racist goals, his connection to terror supporters, and the Weathermen.
And people wonder why this blog is criticized.
Every major candidate for president has “scary friends” – every one, without exception. It’s called coalition building, and it’s necessary in a democracy.
I’ll tell you who scares me – the abortion lobby, led by Planned Parenthood. And they have no two bigger friends in Congress than Obama and Clinton. Hagee and Parsley are harmless compared to those merchants of infanticide.
You think Hagee is bad. Have you heard of McCain’s OH “spiritual advisor”
Rev. Parsley, from his Columbus, OH World Harvest Church
From MotherJones.com
“And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.
In a chapter titled “Islam: The Deception of Allah,” Parsley warns there is a “war between Islam and Christian civilization.” He continues:
I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.
Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: “It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America.” He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: “We find now we have no choice. The time has come.” And he has bad news: “We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment.”
Parsley claims that Islam is an “anti-Christ religion” predicated on “deception.” The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, “received revelations from demons and not from the true God.” And he emphasizes this point: “Allah was a demon spirit.” Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion:
There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call “extremists” are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.
The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion “inspired” the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans “have become Muslim” and that there are “some 1,209 mosques” in America. Islam, he declares, is a “faith that fully intends to conquer the world” through violence. The United States, he insists, “has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam,” but “history is crashing in upon us.”
At the end of his chapter on Islam, Parsley asks, “Are we a Christian nation? I say yes.” Without specifying what actions should be taken to eradicate the religion, he essentially calls for a new crusade.
Parsley, who refers to himself as a “Christocrat,” is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley’s church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.
Why would McCain court Parsley? He has long had trouble figuring out how to deal with Christian fundamentalists, an important bloc for the Republican Party. During his 2000 presidential bid, he referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as “agents of intolerance.” But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House run, McCain repudiated that remark. More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church “the great whore” and a “false cult system.” After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee’s support, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee praised Hagee’s spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that “when [Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for or believes in.” After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain backed off slightly, saying, “I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.” But McCain did not renounce Hagee’s endorsement.”
Wake up, Republican Catholics. Or, at least, be willing to sacrifice your sons and daughters or sneak them off to Canada!
hmm.. Parsley is about 95% right…
Have any of you read the history of Islam and what it has done to Christians?
Jeez, even songwriters get it right:
“Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it’s Turkish delight on a moonlit night
…
So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can’t go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks
Yes, the act of being in politics will attract “scary friends” but McCain seems to go out of his way to seek them out (Obama repudiated Farrakhan). The implication is that he likes their foreign policy positions, and that is terrifying.
Teutonic Tim,
If you are between 18-45, why don’t you have the courage of your convictions, face the ‘crisis of cataclysmic proportions’ by enlisting, and specifically request to go to the heart of the ‘battle, now inIraq?
Otherwise, your cheerleading for war on the blogosphere in the guise of an ‘orthodox’ Catholic seems inconsequential and makes me unable to take anything you say very seriously.
You missed this McCain quote re: Hagee, MM:
“We’ve had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics. I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it. And we can’t have that in this campaign. We’re trying to unite the country. We’re uniting the country, not dividing it.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-07-mccain-hagee_N.htm
Feddie,
McCain did not yet repudiate Hagee’s world view as the latter calls for a showdown in the Middle East, in order to expedite the Second Coming.
I somehow think this is not Catholics mean whenever we recite, “Thy Kingdom Come.”
“Otherwise, your cheerleading for war on the blogosphere in the guise of an ‘orthodox’ Catholic seems inconsequential and makes me unable to take anything you say very seriously.”
You people are something else…
Mark-
I don’t expect a non-Catholic politician to submit to every teaching of my Church, or to renounce every odd theological view held by his supporters.
What I do demand is that he renounce anti-Catholic statements.
Odd theological position??? Feddie, have you watched the news lately? This is not some inconsequential oddity these days.
Which general just gor fired because of his calling an Iran invasion insane?
PAY ATTENTION!!! 2 and 2 DOES NOT EQUAL FIVE!!!!!
Why don’t Catholic bishops lend their support to a presidential candidate? Why don’t presidential candidates petition Catholic bishops for support? Could it have something to do with the separation of church and state?
I’m certain McCain believes in the separation of church and state? But what does he mean by it?
It seems to me the Republican Party has been increasingly fragmented over the last 25 years by its growing association with religious fundamentalism (the Gingrich era). Even Bush’s disastrous foreign and economic policies have not been as great a cause for concern as his willingness to effect a blending of church and state interests. (I do not mean to diminish the disastrous impact of his foreign and economic policies by this statement). The Republican Party needs a new center of gravity.
Rod is one of those “send me money and you will make it rich” kind of preachers. I actually think Hagee is more dangerous because he doesn’t do the “prosperity gospel” charades; more people will listen to him.
But one should be concerned as to where McCain is looking for support (instead of people just happening to support him). The difference is big. When McCain looks for an endorsement, it gives credibility to those who he seeks it out from. But the reverse certainly is not true (otherwise, a lot of bloggers would suddenly become credible). And the kind of people McCain is approaching certainly goes along with his “bomb Iran” sentiments and it seems it is for reasons like that (and not his social policies) which gets them to endorse him.
McCain did not yet repudiate Hagee’s world view as the latter calls for a showdown in the Middle East, in order to expedite the Second Coming.
Do you have a citation for this? Preferably something in Hagee’s own words. I’m familiar with the belief that there will be a showdown in the Middle East before Christ’s return, but not with the belief that we ought to “expedite” it.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=130785
http://www.theocracywatch.org/middle_east2.htm
Are both good discussions on the relationship between Christian Zionism and desires for apocalyptic finality…
Couple more on Hagee
http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell73.html
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/05/john-hagee/ (I am trying to listen to the mp3 now so don’t know how good it is)
Obviously, I dislike Hagee for his anti-Catholic sentiments along with a whole lot of his other theological outlook. Though not needing to see the world broken up, like an action movie, into “forces of good” and “forces of evil”, I suspect that he also has some basically good and well inentioned things to say and that many of his supporters are not raving maniacs but rather people trying their best to love God and do the right thing in the world.
Honestly, though, is it worth playing the “look who supports this guy” game?
Yes, there are a fair share of wacko religious groups that support McCain — in part thats simply because serious church-goers trend heavily towards the GOP. But the Democrats have their share as well. I suspect that the texts and videos of sermons delivered at Obama’s church in Chicago will not be made a huge campaign issue simply because doing so would be seen as borderline racist, but the stuff that he has been willingly associated himself with on Sundays for twenty years is actually pretty scarry, especially for someone who is allegedly going to be a uniter rather than a divider.
And then there’s the whole catalog of non-religious groups and movements that live on each side of the political spectrum. Much thought I dislike Hagee, I don’t see why I’d be expected to dislike him more than Act Up, NOW, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, the “Brights”, NARAL, Greenpeace, zero population growth enthusiasts, and fans of penny dictators like Chavez and Castro.
Honestly, with only two political parties, one kind of has to assume that there will be some thoroughly dislikeable folks on both sides. But does it really help to profile all of them as if they represented the center of gravity, or is it just a way to indulge one’s dislike?
Nothing to be compared to the racism and sexism now clearly exposed in the Democratic party. Hagee is small fries compared to the exploding Democratic hypocrisy.
DarwinCatholic,
Hagee is profiled here by MM to promote Democrats.
Here for your reading about Obama’s pastor:
Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor says blacks should not sing “God Bless America” but “God damn America.”
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south side, has a long history of what even Obama’s campaign aides concede is “inflammatory rhetoric,” including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”
In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” He said Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with,” telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.
Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright’s sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.
Sen. Obama told the New York Times he was not at the church on the day of Rev. Wright’s 9/11 sermon. “The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” Obama said in a recent interview. “It sounds like he was trying to be provocative,” Obama told the paper.
Rev. Wright, who announced his retirement last month, has built a large and loyal following at his church with his mesmerizing sermons, mixing traditional spiritual content and his views on contemporary issues.
“I wouldn’t call it radical. I call it being black in America,” said one congregation member outside the church last Sunday.
“He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive,” said another member of the congregation.
Rev. Wright, who declined to be interviewed by ABC News, is considered one of the country’s 10 most influential black pastors, according to members of the Obama campaign.
Obama has praised at least one aspect of Rev. Wright’s approach, referring to his “social gospel” and his focus on Africa,” and I agree with him on that.”
Sen. Obama declined to comment on Rev. Wright’s denunciations of the United States, but a campaign religious adviser, Shaun Casey, appearing on “Good Morning America” Thursday, said Obama “had repudiated” those comments.
In a statement to ABCNews.com, Obama’s press spokesman Bill Burton said, “Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn’t detract from Sen. Obama’s affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done.”
Two points.
First, I think it is a mistake– as McCain is clearly trying to do– to draw a fine line between Hagee’s anti-Catholicism and the rest of his awful dispensationalist theology (John Nelson Darby has a lot to answer for).
Second, again, this does beyond simply having “wacky” supporters. People like Hagee and Parlsey are dangerous, and under an evil influence. Doesn’t it scare you that McCain not only refuses to repudiate these views, but actively courts these people?
I don’t see much difference between this, and a neo-nazi preaching a war against the Jews and all that entails (if you replace “Islam” with “Jews” above in Parsley’s speech above, I’m pretty sure you would get a good approximation of an Adolf Hitler screed). And yet, while the latter is clearly beyond the bounds of what is acceptable, the former does not seem to be. Why? My theory is that the media, completely ignorant on all things related to religion, believes that Hagee-Parsley are voicing aspects of the Christian faith, when in fact, the opposite is the case. That is why authentic Christians have a duty to stand up to this nonsense, and to do so vociferously.
Phillip: what are you trying to show here? Thank you for printing to words of Rev. Wright, for I see little offensive here– except to an American nationalist. But from a Christian point of view, the only fault would be if he claimed that 9/11 was God’s judgment for all the wrongs fo America. But I’m not sure (solely from what you print above), that that’s what he meant. He seems to making the common sense point that terrorism againt America is the result of a backlash. And it is great tha he mentions the nuclear bombings of Japan, one of the great sin’s in America’s history.
So, then: how does this compare to a couple of bloodthirsty loons who want to turn middle east into a bloodbath? Is Wright advocating violence? Not from the above. Of course, what really offends people is his attack on American policies, which really shows how far the so-called Christian right in this country has become associated with secular nationalism.
MM,
That’s your problem.
“Doesn’t it scare you that McCain not only refuses to repudiate these views, but actively courts these people?”
One could ask the same question of you re: Obama’s many evil supporters.
But, as I see it, America’s actions have been justified. Think of the sin of slavery imported to the American colonies from Europe. Think of the blood of Americans shed to eliminate that European/Muslim sin from our country. Think of the sins of Islamic Jihad that spread through my ancestor’s Spanish lands. Think of the sin of Adam and Eve that left original sin in everyone. America has been right in doing what it has. At least according to MM’s and Obama’s pastor’s logic.
And let’s not forget the rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor, the invasion of China, etc. by Japan. Certainly that can justify any of our actions. Right MM.
Great line:
“_____ is small fries compared to ______ the Democrat hypocrite.”
If I had a dollar for every time…
If I had a nickel for every post like this one on Vox Nova.
Has anyone considered that a) all these wackos are crazy, and their shades of craziness are comparable, and b) the politicians involved are playing their game, i.e. McCain is not unfolding his Christian Zionist timetable for the battle of Armageddon, but simply knows who he has to shake hands with to get the votes of the base who will put him in office. Obama is not waiting to get into power to “damn” and destroy America from within for its past sins against African Americans, but simply knows who he has to shake hands with to get the votes of the base who will put him in office. Isn’t that a frighteningly likely possibility?
Honestly, while these nut-jobs scare me, I don’t think the reality of campaigning is nearly as exciting as all this.
Pax Christi,
Let me tell you some tough talk, my friends….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCISY40qns
At times, being “scared” by the odder members of the opposition is simply a political ritual of tribalism. (See, all the members of the tribe I oppose are cruel and hold evil beliefs.)
There are also, however, interesting patterns. For instance, in general the left end f the spectrum is more likely to revile groups within the country, while the right end of the spectrum is more likely to revile groups in other cultures.
So for instance, if Obama becomes president, I would expect to see much more sympathy for militant elements in foreign cultures, but probably a recurrance of the “enemy at home” fears around militias and religious wackos which characterized the Clinton administration.
Those on the right are more likely to blame Palestinians for celebrating the slaughter of Jewish seminarians, and side with Israel in general. Those on the left are more likely to be responsible for another Branch Davidian or Ruby Ridge type fiasco at home.
Phil:
I read this site mainly for a dose of erudite dishonesty. It’s a self-imposed penance for my many sins, like wearing a hair shirt.
Only, I wish they could shorten their prevarications to 50 words or less; and omit the buzz words that are of use only to other intellectual snobs.
I also comment here to try to get my daily “annoy a liberal” quota.
T.
PS: Maybe it’s not dishonesty. Maybe it’s that they actually believe the incessant lies in the NYT, etc. and the garbage rump bolshevist professors told them.
PPS: Mark D: I thought better of you: the chickenhawk non-argument. My! My!
Phillip: again, why are you casting this issue in terms of the US? Why are you– in a blog dedicated to teachings of the unversal Church– continuing to defend a man-made creation, a nation state, a product of the Enlightenment? I do not see “America” as good or wvil because I do not believe “America” is a person. Its leadership has, in the past, done gravely evil things: slavery, manifest destiny, the use of nuclear weapons. Its people often continue to act as a closed-minded empire that simply cannot see the other’s point of view. And of course there are millions of good and decent people who happen to live within its borders. But instead of opposing all evil, no matter its source, you seem more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the leaders of this country. The Church on the other hand, stresses the one-ness of the whole human race.
T. Shaw: please define what you mean by “liberal”, since you like annoying them so much. I suspect you are using tha term in its current American, flawed, usage– this is meaningless in Catholic circles. So please, try to get beyind your secular ideology.
Let me point out everybody here is an orthodox Catholic, and probably more in line with Church teachings than many on the cafeteria right, who (along with some on the left) claim the right to interpret the faith in a personal manner.
MM,
Not putting things in terms of the US. Just using your failed logic. Obama’s hate filled minister justifies 9/11 because of past offenses by American persons. You accept the “backlash”. Just look at what American’s in the past have done as “backlash.” Its your logic. Its failed. And you’re right not to accept it. Glad I had a hand in opening your mind a little.
And while the Church stresses the one-ness of the human race, it also teaches patriotism as a virtue. This is not to deny that wrongs have been done and that there are not things that need correcting now. But it does make one balk at saying 9/11 as a “backlash” is a reasonable thing to say.
Phillip:
You are confused. What do you mean by “justify 9/11″? It is two very different things to claim: (i) the policies of the United States led directly to the hatred that took the form of terrorism; (ii) the United States somehow deserved be to attacked. Point (i) is rational common sense, which is why the Church talks about tackling the root causes of terrorism. Point (ii) is a grave evil, supposing a God who condones the murder of innocents. From what I gather, Obama’s preacher (just like Ron Paul) is making point (i). On the other hand, people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson made the second poing after 9/11. This needs to be distinguished.
Yes and they were wrong as you are.
But you know, maybe you are right. Maybe the root cause of America’s nuclear attack on Japan was its bombing of Pearl Harbor, invasion of China etc. Just making a point on why it happened.
Phillip:
You assume that prior to Pearl Harbor the USA was just sitting around minding its own business and a totally neutral nation. The majority of US citizens wanted to be neutral in this conflict between pre-existing empires (England & France) and wanna be empires (Germany & Japan); however, U.S. leaders were quite vocal in their support of the UK and providing them with substantial aid (lend lease) in its attempt to defend its empire in the middle and Far East from Germany and Japan.
Phillip, do you think that the US has the right to attack Syria or Iran if it can be shown that they are providing aid to insurgents in Iraq?
Sure it can, given MM’s logic and that of Obama’s church.
The double standard is absurd.
Muslims Against Sharia call on Senators McCain and Obama to cut all ties with their racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic supporters.
McCain: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccains-spiritual-guide-destroy-islam.html
Obama: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/03/racist-congregation-cheering-racist.html