On McCain and Hagee
Given the level of interest here at Vox Nova regarding Rev. John Hagee’s controversial endorsement of Senator John McCain, I thought I would republish a post of mine from Southern Appeal and RedState here at Vox Nova, which y’all can read below the fold.
I am not going to mince words. I don’t care for John Hagee, the senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. I realize this may offend some evangelical readers, but that’s certainly not my intent; and I hope they will, at the very least, understand why a faithful Catholic might take offense at someone referring to his beloved Church as “the Great Whore,” an “apostate church,” the “anti-Christ,” and a “false cult system” (see also, this video of Hagee spewing his anti-Catholic nonsense).
So, needless to say, I wasn’t exactly thrilled when Senator John McCain, who I strongly support, announced that he was “very honored” by Hagee’s endorsement. It disturbed me greatly when Governor Huckabee associated himself with Hagee by speaking to his Church, and it bothered me as much, if not more, when McCain publicly embraced this joker.
That having been said, let’s consider the facts. Senator McCain strongly repudiated Hagee’s anti-Catholic views, not once, but twice:
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.
Now, that may not be good enough for the dems, but I think it is a damn fine statement by the good senator–certainly much more forceful than Governor Huckabee’s comments when he was confronted about Hagee’s views.
To be sure, I would rather McCain completely disassociate himself from Hagee, but his failure to do so (no doubt as a matter of political prudence) is not nearly enough for me to sit out an election that may, among other things, decide who gets to fill as many as three Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years. I mean, seriously, do the dems really believe that faithful Catholics are just going to sit on the sidelines this November because one of McCain’s high-profile supporters is a bigoted twit? Do they honestly think that this sort of thing matters more than Senator Obama’s unwillingness to support legislation designed to provide basic medical care to babies who survive botched abortions?
The bottom line is this: On the non-negotiable teachings of the Catholic Church, Senator McCain is the clear choice for faithful Catholics (even with his deeply troubling support of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research). And no amount of jeering by dems over Hagee’s endorsement of McCain is going to change this fact. Besides, I would think Obama and Clinton supporters have plenty of other things to be concerned about.
Trackbacks
- Southern Appeal » Peering into the demented mind of the America-hating left
- Vox Nova’s First Anniversary « Vox Nova
Comments are closed.
How can he be the choice on non-negotiable teachings when he holds one of them to be negotiable? Your wouldn’t be proposing proportionalism, would you?
You are also missing the broader point of the Hagee endorsement– his racist and anti–Semitic (broadly defined) views on Israel and the Middle East. What if Obama had sought out Farrakhan’s endorsement, while claiming that — while he utterly opposed the anti-Jewish stuff— Farrakhan is being taken out of context, and anyway he supports us on the following issues… blah blah blah.
Now, I would say this would be the end of Obama’s campaign. And yet Hagee says things that are at least–if not more– offensive, and he gets a pass. Why?
McCain is wrong on ESCR, but he is right on every other important life issue. He is also right on judges. In contrast, both dem candidates worship at the altar of abortion rights. They are firmly in the back pocket of Murder, Inc.
McCain is at least willing to consider that he is wrong on ESCR, and by all accounts he is starting to come around.
Thankfully, the latest scientic developments may just end up rendering the entire ESCR debate moot;; and I pray that is what will ultimately happen.
MM-
What about Obama’s buddy, Bill Ayers?
You know, the guy who bombed the Pentagon?
MM-
And I suppose you find McCain’s decision to seek out Hagee’s endorsement of greater concern than Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive legislation?
How someone’s policies suggest the willful engagement for an unjust world war which threatens every man, woman and child on the earth can be seen as a “pro life” candidate is beyond me.
One could also question the wisdom of disengaging from a conflict when many military leaders believe such a withdrawal will result in destabilization of the entire Middle East, and possibly genocide.
MM and Henry – you want to play guilt by association games, stretching the meanings of racist and anti-semitic? Obama is SIGNIFICANTLY closer to Jeremiah Wright than McCain is to Hagee – at 33 years old, he named his autobiography after the man who baptized his family, the man whose organization he has given (it now appears) at least 45,000 dollars.
Now that the media appears to be no longer as in love with Obama as they were a year ago, we’ll see a lot more of what non-lazy independent journalists like Steve Sailer – http://isteve.blogspot.com/search/label/Obama – have been digging up for some time now.
Obama has several very problematic close associates. He is *shock* a self-absorbed Chicago pol with dirty friends. (There have been many before him, there will be many after him.) Combine this with Obama’s existence in the back pocket of the abortion lobby, and McCain smells like a rose.
We are not talking about disengaging, we are talking about McCain “bomb Iran” widening the scope to a major world war which will increase terrorist response against the US and will probably bring nuclear terrorism into play. This is not just a mild thing. Yes, he might have voted against partial birth abortions — but his policies might favor aborting the world!
You simply misunderstand Barack Obama and are most likely dispositionally incapable of seeing what he appeals to in America.
This foretells the GOP decimation that will occur in November.
Hagee looks forward with excitement to the apocalypse.
Much of his “ministry” is focused on the correlation between US war policy and the end of the world.
This man confuses human violence with divine justice.
This man hates human life.
Does he want to stop abortions so we can have more living bodies around to provide fuel for the final spectacle of incineration?
You are making a mockery of the very idea of “pro-life” and turning the abortion cataclysm into a sick joke by suggesting that Hagee somehow has anything to say about abortion, life, humanity, or anything else.
Hagee is anti-human and anti-Christ.
——-
Note well: I said nothing here for or against Obama.
A black American preacher says “God-damn America.”
He has no military at his disposal, advocates no violence, is not calling for any nation-state to drop bombs on America.
He calls for God to judge and damn America. Why would a black man say that?
Can you think of any reasons why a not-insane black man might say that?
I don’t say that I endorse his rhetoric. But when a black man talks about God damning the nation whose prosperity is based upon the enslavement and murder of blacks, I don’t find that particularly surprising. Nor is it _entirely_ unreasonable. In the end I may disapprove–though I am not sure it is my place to do so.
Now, compare:
A white American says, in so many words, Islam is aligned with the “culture of death.” He says, more or less, “God-damn the Arabs.”
This white American “man” (“pastor,” “Christian leader,” ha ha ha) has developed a deep hatred of Islam. Why?
Furthermore, this white American “religious personage” is, more or less explicitly, calling for continued violence, enacted by US armies, against Muslims.
Who is more insane? Who is more violent?
“Right on judges”. What does that mean? That’s a purely subjective statement.
G Alkon says it very clearly. Tell me, Jonathan, how Wright’s rhetoric even comes close to the evil vitriol of Hagee and Parsley. Where are the threats of violence?
This evangelical Christian is not at all disgusted by your repugnance to Hagee. Nevermind the mindnumbing fallacy of his theology and exegesis, the guy is practically licking his chops hoping an apocalyptic war will wipe out a billion Arabs, Russians, and Chinese.
I don’t defend Obama’s pastor, but head-2-head John Hagee probably has a more dangerous racist ideology than Jeremiah Wright does.
I kinda get the opposition to McCain by some here on Vox Nova. Yes, he’s not the ideal candidate – especially when it comes to issues like embryonic stem cell research. Yet what I don’t (and can’t) get is the same people going to bat for Obama. It makes no sense, and I thought this was a blog of reason.
Now listen to the remarks of Obama’s pastor of 20 years, his mentor, and the coiner of “audacity of hope”.
Controversial Video of Obama’s Radical Pastor
Mind you, that doesn’t compare with the animosity he holds for unborn children.
God Bless,
Matt
I don’t understand the controversy over Obama’s pastor… …he speaks the truth…
I think many Christians has fused nationalism with their Christian faith… …we should be the party of Jesus, not the party of Republicans, Democrats or American nationalists…
I watched the video… …and while the rhetoric was inflammatory, Wright spoke the truth…
* …black people have been oppressed in America, their churches burned, and for even a 100 years after civil war times, a “terrorist” campaign was waged against them, primarily in the South, but not limited to that region, where executing their Constitutional right meant they would be met with a lynching party…
* …still there is racism in existence and blacks suffer from affliction of poverty and great disparity in wealth…
* …the U.S., while not as ghastly as the Roman empire, still is an empire that has supported and propped up dictators, and has been more concerned with commerce than spiritual interests…
* …dropping of the atomic bomb on civilian target was a heinous war crime…
AFA abortion issue, that many make a litmus test of – just consider that under Democratic rule, there are less abortions (or abortion rate decreases by larger margin). Under Republicans it goes up (or in recent times, rate has been stagnant). In countries where abortion is illegal (like in Latin America), abortion rates are 3X+ more than they are in U.S.. In W. Europe, where abortion is open and legal, abortion rate is 2-3X less than that of the U.S.. Writing as someone who is pro-life, I must acknowledge though that there are more factors at play here… …
A culture of life means more than just a litmus test on abortion — what about support of torture and defending the indefensible sin of a fraudulent illegal, immoral invasion of a country that posed no threat to the U.S. based on what we now know (according to Colin Powell, Pentagon insiders, intelligence whistleblowers, Downing Street Memos, other official and 3rd party reports) based on deceptions if not outright lies. And the judges that the likes of Bush/McCain pick are those that side with wealth and power over the poor — sorry, but that just not the Jesus (or the old testament prophets) that I study…
Sweet Lord. Did Daily Kos link to us?
Get used to it, Feddie.
We’re going to hear why Obama “apart from the life issues” is allegedly a “Catholic natural” from now until election day and probably thereafter as long as he’s in the national spotlight. Every unsavory association and provocative comment about using his “bully pulpit” to push some agenda item antithetical to Catholics will be played down as insignificant, while McCain will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb and any mis-step or ill-conceived statement will be magnified into a crime against humanity.
McCain deserves to be taken to task over his Hagee hypocrisy and his unsavory jokes about bombing other nations, but no more so than Obama for a variety of matters including but not limited to vowing to Planned Parenthood that he “will not yield” on abortion.
I’m still waiting to hear what is wrong with this pastor, Wright. I confess I have never heard or read anything be wrote or said until yesterday. But there is nothing that bad in what I have seen. Am I missing something? Is he really as bad as the bloodthirsty cabal of Hagee and Parsley? Please enlighten me.
Naum,
First of all, the argument that abortion rate decline has either reversed or stagnated under Bush has been refuted.
Second, Europe actually has much more restrictive abortion laws in almost every nation than we do in the US. So sure, let’s take them as a model for starters.
On the question of Pastor Wright, however, I think there is definately something to be concerned about for non-nationalists. We have since MLK had a wonderful goal of a colorblind society — a goal which many have seen Obama himself as a step towards. And yet, Pastor Wright does not seem to seek a colorblind society. He seems, instead, interested in increasing racial grievance in the hope that it can now be a tool for gain for the African American community.
He has sought to define theology itself as being divided by color. The sermons of his that I’ve read suggest a desire to insist that the worst excesses of racism from the first half of this century are still with us. Now, it’s true that some racism is still with us, but it’s also true that it does not flow only one way.
Growing up in Los Angeles, and being around for the Rodney King riots, I saw both sides of this. On the one hand, we had white police officers using excessive force on a black suspect. On the other, one could watch on TV as black crowds of rioters pulled a number of innocent motorists from their vehicles and beat them nearly to death simply because they were white.
Pastor Wright feeds those kind of racist flames with his rhetoric. It is something which should not be acceptable in our society, and it’s disturbing that a presidential candidate chooses to associate himself so closely with it.
Um, the difference is McCain is “proud” to have endorsements from the likes of Hagee, Parsley, Robertson and other extremists that openly advocate violence against the innocent (dropping of bombs on women + children) or those they’ve convicted in their own mental star chamber (like foreign state leaders they don’t agree with, meanwhile they have no problem being chummy with those barbaric dictators that fatten their bank accounts)…
Pastor Wright has done no such thing, and merely spoke the truth…
For the record, I am neither ‘D’ nor ‘R’, and regardless of who wins the oval office, Jesus will still be my president…
Regarding abortion, no those numbers have not been “refuted”, the research shows otherwise no matter if people see what they want to see. Lowering abortion rates has more to do with taking care of young mothers and the availability of living wage jobs…
The statement that “Pastor Wright feeds those kind of racist flames with his rhetoric” is the same stuff said about MLK in the 60s… …an absurd canard that someone that believes in non-violence, by speaking the truth, is inciting racist acts of violence strikes me as racist in itself…
I think it would be helpful if perhaps the good posters are Vox Nova could come up with guidelines of whom Catholics and Catholic Politicians can associate with in the political realm especially if we disagree with their theology.
Sadly in some states it appears that Catholics will not be able to give the time of day or work with a lot of people on common causes because their Theology is not very poro Rome to say the least
Naum,
On the race question: If you can’t see how trying to develop a completely separate “black theology” and constantly digging up and exaggerating racial grievances is divisive, then there’s probably not any point in discussing the topic further.
However, on the abortion question, I think it’s important to examine the facts. Not to toot my own horn, but yes, the claim that abortion decline has stagnated during the current administration is false. The percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion has declined faster in every presidency since 1979. The only reason why the abortion rate (number of abortions per 1000 women 15-44) appeared to decline faster under Clinton is because the conception rate dropped significantly during the 90s.
And although poverty declined during much of Clinton’s presidency and has risen slightly during most of Bush’s (though the average poverty rate under Bush is lower than the average under Clinton) the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion has decreased faster under Bush than under Clinton. One may make whatever one wants of the causality involved, but let’s be clear on the facts.
“constantly digging up and exaggerating racial grievances”
Astounding.
“Get along, get along little black boy. You are only always causing your own trouble. Sing, with the band, I say sing, AND cheerily. “God bless America, land…”"
Which American history books have you read?
Hey, you folks want to defend Pastor Wright’s comments as justified or as no big deal, that’s fine with me.
Somehow, I don’t think such comments will sell among a big chunk of the folks Obama needs to win over in order to win a general election. African-Americans and “enlightened” white left-liberals doesn’t quite cut it as a winning coalition.
Case in point: Over lunchtime just a little while ago, my wife’s best friend was visiting us. She is a white, blue-collar Catholic working mom struggling to make ends meet. She’s exactly the sort of voter Obama needs to win over in order to form a winning coalition.
While she was here, the news program kept playing Pastor Wright’s “God damn America” remarks. She didn’t seem too thrilled to know that this is the church that Obama has chosen to associate himself with.
Historically justified or not, if Obama is going to appeal to such voters as a post-partisan post-racial candidate, such comments are going to have to be condemned by Obama.
Mark D.
Huh?
You tell me: Is it accurate to talk at this time about the “White America” of the “US of KKK A” the way Pastor Wright does?
Yes, this country has an appauling history in regards to race — as do most countries fortunate enough to have an ethnically mixed population. Being of Mexican background, I can tell yo stories about when my grandfather was growing up and there were separate public schools for white kids and hispanic in the New Mexico mining town where he grew up. He spent 30 years in the Navy, but was never given the chance to become a petty officer because he was of Mexican extraction. But that was 40+ years ago. Do I have any business talking about how I am disadvantaged as a result? Hell no.
We should never deny that our nation has a troubled racial history, but that doesn’t mean that it is helpful at this time in our nation to wallow in the wrongs of the past. We should not have “black theology” and “white theology” but rather just “theology”.
And frankly, we’ve reached a point where our patterns of discrimination in this country do not center around race, they center around wealth and class. Who is likely to be held back more by prejudice in this day and age: Internationally raised and Harvard educated Obama, or some poor “white trash” man from West Virginia?
Maybe this is just me growing up on the West Coast where nearly every kid I knew in school was “mixed race”, but so far as I can see it, Pastor Wright is mostly fighting a one sided battle — trying to fan hatred of a “white America” in a country which is mostly post-racial.
…in a country which is mostly post-racial.”
Again, astounding. And I am white trash from PA.
The only reason why the abortion rate (number of abortions per 1000 women 15-44) appeared to decline faster under Clinton is because the conception rate dropped significantly during the 90s.
Darwin — is that why the abortion ratio didn’t drop under Clinton as fast as the abortion rate? Indeed, I can’t eyeball it, but it looks like the abortion ratio may have dropped at a slightly higher rate under Bush than under Clinton. The ratio would be more important for judging the effects of poverty, wouldn’t it? The ratio is what reflects the question, “Given that a woman became pregnant, how likely is it that she chose abortion?” Whereas the rate is just the percentage of women who got abortions (ignoring how many became pregnant in the first place).
So if the national poverty rate is what supposedly drives the decision whether to get an abortion once you’re pregnant, that should affect the abortion ratio more than anything. Right?
Cry me a river about your grandfather, as my Italian grandparents had the same story.
But nothing of that approaches system, institutionalized slaver; the Post-Bellum South; Jim Crow laws; lynchings; the ugly, ugly South that needed the national armed forces to open its institutions up to AA as late as the 60s, the more sly black racism in the Northeast that I see every day in PGH or Cleveland, cities I travel back and forth between weekly; inquitable sentencing (particulary the death penalty) for the same crimes), etc.
“Internationally raised”… Give me a break. His white single mother and grandparents struggled and he payed for his education with a boatload of student loans as you and I probably did.
We should never deny that our nation has a troubled racial history, but that doesn’t mean that it is helpful at this time in our nation to wallow in the wrongs of the past. We should not have “black theology” and “white theology” but rather just “theology”.
We certainly do need black theology. We need it, not to “wallow in the past,” but to fight injustice in the present.
And frankly, we’ve reached a point where our patterns of discrimination in this country do not center around race, they center around wealth and class.
Baloney.
…in a country which is mostly post-racial.
You’re living in denial.
So if the national poverty rate is what supposedly drives the decision whether to get an abortion once you’re pregnant, that should affect the abortion ratio more than anything. Right?
Well, it’s not necessarily as simple as that.
From what I’ve been able to make out thus far, the conception rate seems to go down significantly during periods of increased poverty. If we take that to mean that fewer people choose to get pregnant during periods of economic uncertainty, that it would mean that a higher percentage of pregnancies are “unwanted” during such periods.
Looking only at periods of increasing poverty, the abortion ratio tends to go up a little while the abortion rate continues down. That’s because during these 2-3 year economic downturns people conceive dramatically less.
However, at the macro level, I think the ratio is a pretty clear indicator of the decreasing tendency to abort on the part of pregnant women, and if you average out the annual decreases by administration, you find that the average annual decrease has gone up with each subsequent administration.
Mark & Michael,
I’m not sure there’s any point in taking it further. All we’re serving to underscore here is the tendency of the left towards identity politics and the tendency of the right away from it.
“You’re living in denial.”
Actually, he’s living in Austin. Common mistake. :)
The black church is the greatest and only Christian institution in American history.
It is a miracle of divine provenance.
It embodies inconceivable human resilience and creativity.
It is, bar none, the most powerful witness to the truth of Christ in modern world history.
The United Church of Christ is a mainline black Protestant church. You should not presume to judge it, regardless of what its pastor does or does not say.
The greatest witnesses to the truth of Christ and of Catholic faith are those native populations who were brutalized by Europeans, but who managed to preserve their dignity–their belief in their being loved by God–by grasping the truth of European religion, even as the Europeans themselves desecrated and abandoned it.
Catholic faith claims that all religious impulses find their thorough articulation in the living image and word — the body and blood — of Jesus.
There is no greater witness to this Catholic faith than the black and Latin American churches.
The idea that there is some problem with Barack Obama’s membership in the United Church of Christ is singularly repulsive. This sort of talk is grotesque proof that the very idea of “post-racial America” is itself racist.
I concur in many, many ways.
Which other was so ‘forced’ to identify with the Suffering Servant of Is. and nevertheless so gloriously witnessed to divine love in is utter and complete vulnerability?
The black church is the greatest and only Christian institution in American history.
Alkon — I dearly love and admire the black church, but you need to turn down your exaggeration meter a notch (or several). Whatever you dislike is a servant of Satan; whatever you like is the greatest institution in history.
The United Church of Christ is a mainline black Protestant church.
No, it’s not. Obama’s particular church is predominantly black, but the UCC as a whole is 95% white.
You may be getting the UCC confused with the AME. Other black churches include National Baptists, the Greater Emanuel Apostolic Church (which is where TD Jakes came from), and others. A lot of Pentecostals and Missionary Baptist churches are black, although many whites belong to those denominations as well.
But definitely not the UCC — you probably can’t find a denomination that has fewer black people. Maybe Unitarians. In fact, Southern Baptists (a denomination that was founded in support of slavery!!) are 20 percent black, which means that they have about 4 times as many black people as the UCC, percentage wise. See http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life/stories/faith/02/23/0223baptists.html
Sorry, that should have said that the Southern Baptists are 20 percent black, Hispanic, or Asian. But if the SBC has approx. one million black members (as claimed), and the denomination as a whole is 16 million, that’s a little over percent — which means that the percentage of black Southern Baptists is higher than the percentage of all minorities together in the UCC.
Missing number: A little over 6 percent of Southern Baptists are black. That’s not 20 percent, to be sure, but it’s still striking. The SBC has certainly made some progress over the past few decades.
So just to make sure that I’m understanding all this:
1) It betokens ethnic equality to suggest that we should not question or analyze anything said by people of certain skin colors the way we would the statements of others within our own ethnicity.
2) In order to overcome injustice we should not have a single theology because Christ knows neither rich nor poor, neither Jew nor Greek, neither black nor white — but rather we should have a balkanized patchwork of theologies for each ethnic group.
St. Martin de Porres, pray for us… We need it.
Darwin–
You’re not understanding all this.
—
It is no exaggeration to say that Hagee is a servant of the devil.
He worships weaponry and blood.
I’m with Darwin on this one. The refusal to criticize and rush to excuse people based on their race is a refusal to respect the intellectual integrity of another human being. It smacks more of racism than anything DarwinCatholic has said.
No other ethnic group in the U.S. has experienced the same level of abuse and hatred as African Americans have. I am inclined to be sympathetic even to statements as offensive as Pastor Wright’s. Nevertheless, it is not productive to deny that they are offensive.
I don’t really imput blame to Pastor Wright for his views; his grievances are likely legitimate given his experiences. However, the type of rhetoric he uses is unconstructive, and certainly will not help heal the racial divide in this country. It is disappointing that a national politican would have such a person in a public role in their campaign.
And, of course, McCain’s courting of Hagee who is as offensvie for different reasons is disappointing as well. There is not a clear Catholic candidate here.
MM,
I’m still waiting to hear what is wrong with this pastor, Wright. I confess I have never heard or read anything be wrote or said until yesterday. But there is nothing that bad in what I have seen. Am I missing something? Is he really as bad as the bloodthirsty cabal of Hagee and Parsley? Please enlighten me.
I trust you clicked the link and watched the vile racist hatred spewed from his lips? Far worse than anything from Hagee and Parsley.
Speaking of Bloodthirsty – here is the latest refusal by Obama and Clinton to consider providing any sort of assistance to the child in the womb:
Obama/Clinton oppose healthcare for unborn children and their mothers, McCain supports it
The same evil pair support funding for abortion on demand, how ironic. Good old Deathocrat Party…
God Bless,
Matt
BlackAdder,
THAT was funny. I appreciate your wit very much.
Fascinating, this blog still has not had an equivalent thread to this one on Obama the death lover’s long association with the racist Jeremiah Wright. I thought surely there would be pretense of objectivity… apparently not.
God Bless,
Matt