John McCain, Hagee and Catholics
by Mark Noonan on February 29th, 2008 at 11:46am
The story:
SAN ANTONIO — Senator John McCain got support on Wednesday from an important corner of evangelical Texas when the pastor of a San Antonio mega-church, Rev. John C. Hagee, endorsed Mr. McCain for president. Mr. Hagee, who argues that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive, biblically prophesized military strike against Iran that will lead to the second coming of Christ, praised Mr. McCain for his pro-Israel views.
The response:
Yesterday, Senator John McCain said he was “very honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement.” The Republican presidential hopeful also called Hagee “the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement,” citing the minister’s pro-Israel stance.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this today:
“There are plenty of staunch evangelical leaders who are pro-Israel, but are not anti-Catholic. John Hagee is not one of them. Indeed, for the past few decades, he has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’
Hagee, to put it mildly, is an unpleasant fellow - I went over to McCain’s website to see if there was more on this, and so far I haven’t even found it mentioned. I hope that Senator McCain will address this issue - but I am also quite confident, due to McCain’s past actions vis a vis Catholicism, that he doesn’t in any way, shape or form agree with Hagee’s views of the Catholic Church. My bet is that McCain was aware of Hagee’s staunchly pro-Israel stance, and that is what McCain was thinking of in obtaining this endorsement.
In general terms, I never engage in a fight with my brothers and sisters in Christ - and even though I view Hagee as terribly wrong, I won’t even fight him on this. I’ll pray he’ll allow God to enlighten him on the truth of these matters, but I see no profit in fighting a fellow Christian - however erring - when the whole of religion is under attack in our nation. I understand, and respect, Mr. Donohue’s position and agree that such things need to be brought up, and condemned, but in my view there is a need, also, for a careful understanding of the real stakes in 2008; Hagee’s influence is relatively small, and no matter how destructive he might be, he won’t do nearly the damage that a President Obama or a President Hillary will do.
UPDATE: Given that our lefties are trying very hard to pick a fight between McCain and Catholics over this, I think it worthwhile to bring up Catholics for McCain; there are quite a lot of my fellow Catholics who are enthusiastic backers of John McCain and this is a much stronger indicator of McCain’s views about Catholicism than the fact that the anti-Catholic Hagee endorsed him.
UPDATE: John McCain responds to the firestorm:
Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.
I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.
Of course, it would have been better if the endorsement had never happened - but it did happen, and one can’t undo the past; meanwhile, we don’t want to alienate those followers of Hagee who are sincere, if misguided, Christians who do want what is best for America and the world. This is the best way around it all - making lemonade out of the lemons, as it were.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
February 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Not only he is he mentioned on McCain’s site, there’s a video feed of him ranting about his God-Inspired-Foreign-Policy’ hosted in the multimedia section.
I have a certain amount of respect for McCain (especially for his behavior in Vietnam) and am also Catholic. I support Obama and frankly would like to see McCain lose this election as I think McCain is just TERRIBLE on forgeign policy. But even I am surprised he is happy to tag along with this wacko. Check out the video below, quite unbelievable:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=5ca47a36-c7d8-4cf4-8451-0390c4581916
February 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Mark,
Can you outline specifically what “damage” you think would be caused by Obama or Clinton in four years? I’m not baiting, but I am genuinely curious what sort of state you see the U.S. in at the end of 2012 if one of them were elected to office.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Glenn Greenwald at Salon has written a couple of good columns about this, one of them is here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/index.html
The gist of it is that he’s contrasting the treatment Obama got with Farrakhan versus what’s going on with Hagee. I think it’s a fair point, especially given that Obama quickly repudiated Farrakhan’s endorsement.
In contrast, according to quotes from McCain in Greenwald’s column -
February 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
A quote from Hagee below:
JH: “All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. 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.”
It gets even better:
” The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.
So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.”
February 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
From what I’ve read of Hagee the main reason he is so anti-Catholic is because of his pro-Israel stance. This is a man who basically says Hitler and the Catholic church were both in it together to kill the Jews.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Let’s be honest, this guy is a religious wacko on the same plane as the Taleban were religious wackos. The garbage that comes out of his mouth has nothing to do with Christianity or the message of The Gospels. He’s just a sick, bitter, twisted jerk who is high on the idolatory he receives from preaching at his ‘megachurch’ in Texas.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
The reason Hagee is pro-Israel is because he is a Biblical literality who thinks that Israel must be re-united and then destroyed in order to fulfill Biblical prohecies which will usher in the ‘end times’. Uhm… is this really the sort of thing John McCain bases his foreign policy on?
Genuinely scary.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
a pastor endorsing anyone 4 prez?
over the line 4 a tax-exempt.
the IRS should investigate.
oh yea, I’m a baptised, churched Christain.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
First Jesus Camp now this?
What has happened to republicans?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Mark I’m glad to see that you can see through this snake oil salesman even though the only reason is because he attacks Catholicism.
Think long and hard before you write off supporting a Democrat this year.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
There really should not be any problem when a Pastor endorses someone for President.
The Constitution states that “NO LAW” can prohibit the free excercise of religion.
Its not up to the IRS to determine what Christian Pastors do under the excercise of religion, to promote Christians, and Christian values, in the characture of a national leader. Certainly, if our representatives paid more attention to Christian values this nation would be far better off today than it is.
A law that punishes a Christian Church because its congregation ( of citizens) endorses an upright person for office is a violation of the Constitution.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Js-
He wants to play than he must pay. No more free rides for Mr. Hagee.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
JS - we have something called the seperation of Church and State in America. Churches are given very favourable status in that they are not taxed, this favoured status is intended to allow Churches to perform ‘good works’, not to get involved in the messy business of politics. This is a democracy, not a theocracy. It sounds to me like you’d be more at home living in Taleban-era Afghanistan, not the good ‘ol US of A.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
The man in question has not executed people for religious violations, like the Taliban.
And instead of McCain, do you think that Catholics should vote for either of the two advocated for child murder? Which by the way, how the church views abortion. Actually, it’s how I view it also.
You know liberals, I know you disagree. But think of it for just a second from my point of view. I think you advocate child murder. How could I possibly support you? Now, I know you disagree - but that doesn’t change my view.
None of you can pin a day and an hour to the time the fetus stops being part of the mothers body and becomes an individual. In fact, I’m sure most of you disagree. So - I say you MUST assume the fetus is an individual. Since you don’t, you’re willing to kill a PERSON for personal and socio-economic reasons. Ya see, in my view - thats bad.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
13. southerner | February 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
JS - we have something called the seperation of Church and State in America.
oooooo
Oh get real. The constitution doesnt use that phrase one time. The whole concept is nothing more than a convenient way to shut out the influence of the Church before the general public for corrupt politicians.
Besides that, the Government has “NO” business taxing religion. Taxation is law, and that is prohibited.
The entire issue is no better than a criminal conspiracy to extort the behavior of religious institutions through the tax system to silence them from opposing the corrupt acts that go on in our Government.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
“The man in question has not executed people for religious violations, like the Taliban.”
No but, he is in favor of a civilisational conflict between the Muslim world and America. He favors attacking Iran and feels we ought to back Israel in any and every attack the Israelis make against their neigbors. If his nutcase ideas became foreign policy hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east would die. It’s unlikely the conflict could be contained to the middle east though, such a path could well lead us to World War III. At that point this lunatic would get the Biblical apocalypse he explicitly lusts for.
But hey, he endorses John McCain so that makes him okay in your world-view right Kahn?
February 29th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
js - if you think there is nothing in the constitution about the speration of Chuch and state I suggest you review the document. Your posts read like they are written by a barely literate 14 year old with absolutely zero sense of the history of this nation.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Show me.
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I see where it says “NO LAW”, but please, feel free to take your time. Where exactly does it say separation of church and state?
February 29th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
17. southerner
Isnt it fun to run from the truth? You can call me all the names you want, but you wont be able to call me wrong.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Mark,
My hat is genuinely off to you for taking this issue on. Of course, it might have been difficult not to considering the circumstances. The whole thing is pretty embarrassing for Senator McCain and his “straight talk” theme.
I note your very genteel tolerance of Senator McCain’s grotesque hypocrisy and flip-flopping on this issue. Isn’t it funny how that works when the person engaging in the hypocrisy and flip-flopping is your own presumptive candidate, however reluctantly embraced? Yes, Senator McCain is not just proud, but “very proud” to have the support of John Hagee who says that your church is “the Great Whore”, an “apostate church”, “the anti-Christ” and a “false cult system”.
Yes, Senator McCain is “very proud” of the endorsement of an anti-Roman Catholic because apparently he didn’t mean it in 2000 when he said that such people were “agents of intolerance” and added, “The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are…(applause) they are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.” (emphasis added)
But, it’s perfectly okay, not shameful, for a presidential candidate to be “very proud” of a religious bigot’s endorsement of his candidacy so long as you can be personally sure the candidate doesn’t in any way, shape or form agree with” the bigot’s very public hatred for the Roman Catholic Church. So what’s wrong with Bill Donohue? Can’t he see the issues as clearly as you?
February 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Here’s another, California just signed SB 777 into law.
Bad news all over the place.
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
So Hagee the bigot supports McCain. Again, hope all you sheep who bought tickets very early on the McCain Express to Election Defeat are proud of yourselves.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
The first ammendment of the constitution of the United States isn’t a very long document js. Learn it, love it, live it:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
By the way, if you’re intersted in knowing where the phrase about the separation of Church and state first came from, it has a pretty good provenance. The phrase “building a wall of separation between church and state” was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
Jefferson was kind of involved in writing the constitution just in case you weren’t aware of that js.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
23. southerner
So you give up? Some book you claim that contains the phrase is not the Constitution. And Thomas Jefferson was only 1 signer to that document.
So, you said:
17. southerner | February 29th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
js - if you think there is nothing in the constitution about the speration of Chuch and state I suggest you review the document
And then you accused me of being illiterate.
You claimed that separation of Church and State was contained in the Constitution. I copied the 1st Amendment, and put it right in front of your eyes. The phase, obvously, does not appear one time. All of your double talke and BS will not change that fact.
So in essence, you come back grasping at that same possition. I suggest the only 14 year old illiterate here is you Southerner.
I am actually convinced of it right now.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Pastor Hagee was right when he said that ‘Katrina was an act of God and His righteous judgment.’
Only we’ve just seen the tip of the iceberg.
Our schools and government are becoming more corrupt by the day.
One of the worst mistakes this country made was when they allowed the ACLU to get started.
It’s really sad what is happening to America, folks.
Wait ’til the Democrat Presidency gains power and the sodomites start coming in your homes and arresting you for the simple reason that you’re a Christian!
Christians made a big mistake when they believed the lie of tolerance that the left started spreading.
Tolerance for deviant lifestyles has no place in our society!
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
There’s nothing like talking about the generality of the separation of church and state in order to avoid talking about Senator John McCain’s pandering to a group that he used to believe (at least he said he did) were “agents of intolerance”. That’s got to be a pretty uncomfortable topic.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
So, Jeremiah, are you anti-Catholic like the Rev. John Hagee or is he just right about some things and wrong about others? If he’s wrong about some things, how do you distinguish the difference?
February 29th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Actually its a far step from the concept of rights emanating from the laws of nature and of natures God when we actually forbid recognition of Christianity in our public schools and force the nomalization of deviant sexual behavior before children who dont even know what sex is for the most part.
Maybe we need another revolution.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“Pastor Hagee was right when he said that ‘Katrina was an act of God and His righteous judgment.’”
Really, I thought it was because of poor engineering combined with years of neglected levy’s ontop of two pretty much back to back hurricanes. And then to add insult to injury, the inablity of the US government to respond to a natural disaster and protect it’s citizens.
But yep, your right God’s judgment. Tomorrow I’m going to quit my job and build a boat. Sorry bro, theres only room for two of each animal, gotta draw the line somewhere you know…
If you look back into history and anyone arrests anyone for being a certain religion it will be someone of Jewish Faith. So I’m pretty sure your safe being a Christian and all… sheesh.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
js - the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” separates Church and state in the USA. It has been universally understood to do so since the first amendment of the constitution. If you can find a single serious historian or constitutional law professor or ANYBODY serious who thinks otherwise please let us know. The supreme court has ruled with singular consistency that the constitution explicity separates Church and State in the country you are lucky enough to live in. If you want to live in a theocracy I suggest you emigrate to any hellhole you like in the middle east. You sure don’t post like an American.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Diana,
That pastor Hagee is for “tolerance” is just one aspect of the big picture, although I disagree with him there. He is right in the fact that Katrina was an act of God. Everything that takes place under the Sun has a purpose and is part of God’s plan for America.
This reason I disagree with Pastor Hagee that we should be “tolerant” is it then gives the State power to do what they want, sodomites can live however they want, abortions on demand….and pretty soon before you know it, our freedoms are completely gone.
So, no I have to disagree with his statement that we are to be a “tolerant society”.
Go to onenewsnow.com and read the little preview to the right of your screen … it’s called … Speechless: Silencing the Christians.
It’s time for Christians to take action, or else lose their freedom and wind up imprisoned.
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Incase you view my last statement as anti-semantic. Know this, if Hitler did not lose the war I would be in a concentration camp because my grandmother was Jewish. Along with that I have family members who were survivors of Auschwitz. One even wrote a book on his experience.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
So Jeremiah, you’ve been brave enough to say you believe “Pastor Hagee was right when he said that ‘Katrina was an act of God and His righteous judgment.’”.
Interesting. Do you also think that September 11th was God’s righteous vengence against New York City for that liberal metropolis’ sindful ways? The terrorist A-holes who flew those planes into the towers certainly thought they were agents of God so at least you have that much in common with them.
Or perhaps you only believe that God vents His fury through natural acts such as earthquakes, hurricanes, etc? So, I guess you believe that all people who die in natural disasters deserve their fate because God is angry at them for some transgression or other.
What an evil-minded supersitious clown you are Jeremiah.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Mark, I’m just curious to know something. JS and Jeremiah are too of the most frequent posters on these boards on the right wing side. Do you support their views?
February 29th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
The Hagees, Roves, Limbaughs and Hannitys are not part of McCain’s world. But each time he tries to be their love child, he learns the hard way how detrimental they are to the American way of live and why he distanced himself from them in the first place. The straight talk express is in a perpetual skid.
I keep thinking there must be a reason the Huckster has not thrown in the towel.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Deleted - this blog won’t link directly to bigoted statements.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Deleted - this blog won’t link directly to bigoted statements.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Deleted - off topic
February 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Deleted - complains about comment policy.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Southerner,
That video is from September of last year. As I’ve said, McCain is probably keyed in on Hagee’s support for victory in Iraq and is likely unaware of Hagee’s views on the Catholic Church.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Diana,
I, however, am not as unmerciful as you are, it would seem - it was wrong for McCain to accept this endorsement and I hope that we soon will receive some clarification on the matter; but I’m not going to condemn a man who in his lifetime in politics has been a friend of Catholics and Judeo-Christian morality. No matter how hard you try to pick a fight here, you’re not going to get one from me.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“That video is from September of last year.”
What does that have to do with anything?
You’re assuming McCain’s ignorance of this man’s viewpoints based on … what, exactly? Because you guess that’s what it has to be?
The US Catholic League and Catholics United have both contacted McCain and asked him to reject Hagee’s endorsement, so it seems likely that even if he wasn’t aware when he made the remark about being “very proud,” he’s aware now. So how is this still acceptable to you?
February 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
30. southerner | February 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“js - the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” separates Church and state in the USA.”
No it does not. It tells congress that it can not make any law that respects an establishment of religion. It gives Congress ABSOLUTELY no authority to restrict relgion, IN ANY WAY.
Now, if you were actually educated, you would know that liberal activism on the judicial bench is why your are spouting off this way. The Supreme Court has violated the constitution by ruling for the “separation” of Church and State as you claim (and which does not, nor has it ever, existed in the US Constitution).
February 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“As I’ve said, McCain is probably keyed in on Hagee’s support for victory in Iraq and is likely unaware of Hagee’s views on the Catholic Church.”
Unaware of his views on the catholic Church… Southerner just proved with a quick youtube search appauling videos can be found about his views. So to say that neither McCain, or anyone of his advisors right now are unaware of Hagee’s views because it was last year really really qualifies him for a oval office. Afterall, if proper intell is not something required for a president to make decisions (sarcasim)
February 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
welll….
Ralph is running…wonder if this will help him?
February 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Mark, you’ve deleted (censored) two of my posts above which show video of Hagee spouting his anti-Catholic claptrap and then you delete my post complaining about the deletes. In the last case you say you’re doing this because I complain about something called your “comments policy”. I was not aware you HAD a comments policy. Where is it located on blogforvicotory.com? I’d hate to think you were just deleting people you don’t agree with.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Jeremiah,
I asked you if you agreed with John Hagee’s being anti-Catholic since you agreed with his assessment of Hurricane Katrina. In response, you rambled on at some lenght about his “tolerance” which wasn’t even a word that was in my comment. So, I repeat my question. Are you anti-Catholic like the Rev. John Hagee or is he just right about some things and wrong about others?
Mark,
The idea that Senator McCain was or is somehow oblivious to the fact that the Rev. John Hagee is anti-Catholic certainly doesn’t wash now, if it ever did. Even if he didn’t know, that’s why he has staff members to tell him that he’s about to embrace a religious bigot. If he were to come out today and say something along the lines of, “I failed to realize that the Reverend Hagee has condemned the Roman Catholic Church before I accepted his endorsement. Now that I am aware of his views I must reject his endorsement because his views bring shame on our faith, our party and our country”, then I think he could begin to put this behind him. Until then, he is clearly a hypocrite and a panderer-extraordinaire on this issue and there’s no way to put a good spin on it.
Since you don’t see that as a problem then clearly this is not about integrity or honesty, it’s only about Senator McCain being the presumptive Republican nominee. That’s fine. That’s politics, where people can sell their honesty and integrity for cheap. Senator McCain can pander to Catholic-haters and repudiate his own words on waterboarding (”It is torture”). The important fact is that he’s a Republican and it’s okay to pander if a Republican does it.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Diana,
I thought I made myself pretty clear on your question. To clarify…
Yes, I do disagree with his position of criticizing the Catholic church, and other areas I agree with him. But I’ll say this, I disagree with him more than I agree with him on many things…such as Once saved always saved…I disagree with that. Jesus is coming back to set up a kingdom on earth…I disagree with that. There also areas I disagree with the Catholic Church such as going before a priest to confess you sins, I disagree with that.
But of all the areas that I disagree with them, that doesn’t mean that I am “anti-Baptist” or “anti-Catholic” Does it?
Where I think America has failed, is when they decided that God no longer belongs in our schools and government: Here watch this video– The day God was kicked out of schools
I ordered a book yesterday called — The Christian Life and Character of the Civil institutions of the United States — You might have heard of it.
I encourage all Christian Conservatives to purchase it if you haven’t already.
You will be armed to fight the ACLU with that book.
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Mark-
“That video is from September of last year. As I’ve said, McCain is probably keyed in on Hagee’s support for victory in Iraq and is likely unaware of Hagee’s views on the Catholic Church.”
If that’s true and we give McCain a huge benefit of the doubt on this then that means he’s too stupid to be president. If McCain and his people can’t do adequate research on who the pal up too I would dare trust the man to know jack squat about foreign policy.
Look Mark, Hagee has been a well-known anti-catholic for years. In any event his anti- Catholicism is the least of his problems as far as I’m concerned. This man is a fanatic who wishes to bring about the “rapture” by instigating the Muslims into an all out Holy War with Israel. He pretends to favor Israel but in reality he views Jews as just pawns in this chess game to the end of days. He has said before that the Jews who haven’t accepted Christ will be consigned to the depths of hell. Now I know that may not bother the likes of Jeremiah, Js, Freedom1, and maybe even you but as time goes on and more about this man’s views come to light it’ll destroy McCain’s chances at becoming president. In that case I’d say…. keep it up. :-)
February 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
southerner - or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…
So, isn’t a pastor a person, a citizen, and entitled to worship as he pleases AND say what he wants? Who says it has to OR?
But I’m amazed that no liberals have a problem with the fact that a lot of us think you support organized murder. And I’m not even all that religious.
And doesn’t Louis Farrakhan advocate the same Christian/Muslim conflict. Certainly he has expressed extreme disdain for Jews. He support Obama. Same anger at Obama? Same outrage? What do you say, babykillers?
February 29th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Mark, in what sense was was my post (#38) above, ‘off topic’? It converned Hagee’s beliefs and his connections with John McCain. Why was it deleted?
February 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Kahn,
So, shorthand version of you is, “I think that Democrats are so bad that it doesn’t make any difference to me that my presumptive Republican candidate can be a complete hypocrite and panderer who will do and say anything, including saying that he is “very proud” of being endorsed by a religious bigot, so long as he is not a Democrat. Principles be damned as long as he has an ‘R’ after his name.” Short and to the point.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Kahn-
“But I’m amazed that no liberals have a problem with the fact that a lot of us think you support organized murder. And I’m not even all that religious.”
What fanatics think of us doesn’t affect us because they are irrational oweing to the fact that they are….fanatics.
“And doesn’t Louis Farrakhan advocate the same Christian/Muslim conflict. Certainly he has expressed extreme disdain for Jews. He support Obama. Same anger at Obama? Same outrage? What do you say, babykillers?”
Nice try slippery Pete but you already know that Obama doesn’t accept Farrakan’s endorsement. He has stated publicly that he repudiates them. Go try to float your “gems” in the toilet bowl where they belong.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Diana, I don’t think the endorsement is all that important. Clearly, just as you don’t think Farrakhan’s endorsement is all that important. Point?
Meanwhile - both Democrats advocate organized murder. AND, it is happening daily, not just some theory.
So why would I drop support of McCain? Do you agrtee to drop support of Obama because of the Farrakhan endorsement? Well? I haven’t even seen any of you respond to it at all.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Kahn,
I guess you haven’t been keeping up with the news (or many of the posts above). Obama rejected Farrakhan’s support quickly after it was offered. Also, Obama never had Farrakhan campaign for him or act as opening speaker at one of his events as McCain has done with Hagee:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=5ca47a36-c7d8-4cf4-8451-0390c4581916
Well done for completely missing the point once again Kahn
February 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I think it is just dandy for McCain to accept the endorsement, and I would like a picture of the two hugging.
Scratch that, too yucky.
Let’s just say I do not see how this helps the Republican candidate, so I am all for it.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Nietzsche - So I’m a fanatic now? What day and hour does the fetus change from being part of the mother to it’s own individual? Again, I’m not even that religious - you must be new here.
As to the Farrakhan endorsement, yes he rejected it after being pressured. It’s still there though. I wonder why ole Jew and white hating Louis Farrakhan endorsed him? Don’t you?
AGAIN - what do I care about the endorsement of one whacko? You don’t care when one endorses YOUR candidate. AND, your side advocates and practices organized murder.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Kahn,
Let’s try to lay things out nice and simply for you. Please follow along:
1. Under federal tax law, church officials can legally discuss politics, but they cannot endorse candidates or parties without risking their tax-exempt status. It is illegal for Hagee to endorse McCain. A pastor who endorsed Mike Huckabee is being investigated by the IRS.
2. As NiP already pointed out, Obama flatly rejected the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan. McCain has said, “[I]n no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.” Fine. Does he reject the endorsement? Nope.
And that’s why the outrage. That, and the hypocrisy of Mark attempting to dismiss this issue, when, if it were a Democrat, he’d be all over it for days.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Amanda,
1. So a religious person gives up the Constitution Right to free speech? You think that LAW squares withe CONSTITUTION? Really, you do? Because that looks like infringement on religion and speech from where I’m sitting. I’m not surprised that none of you are jumping up to decry this suppression of speech.
2. Obama “flatly rejected” Farrakhan’s” support when pressed by Russert and Clinton during the debate. Just to be clear. Right? He didn’t do it before. And he had to be pressed into doing it. At first he just said he decried Farrakahns anti-semitic remarks. (Apparently, he’s OK with the anti-Christian and anti-white remarks).
Yet that support is still there, isn’t it? Why does Farrakhan support Obama? WHY? It’s the same question you’re asking about McCain - so?
3. AND STILL - Both Democrats support organized murder and McCain does NOT. THAT trumps either of these stupid endorsements.
WHAT DAY AND HOUR DOES A FETUS BECOME A BABY? You don’t agree, and you don’t care. B-A-B-Y-K-I-L-L-E-R-S.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
kahn,
Do you think all abortion doctors are Democrats?
February 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Kahn,
I support a woman being able to do what she wants with her body. You support forced birth.
Call it what you want.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Senator Obama says that Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements are “unacceptable and reprehensible”.
What has Senator McCain said about John Hagee who says that the world’s largest Christian denomination is “the Great Whore”? Why, here’s what he said while standing next to John Hagee in front of the press and not in the imaginations of those who want to create a “tie” between Senator Obama and Louis Farrakhan:
That, my friends, is what you call hypocrisy. In 2000, a John Hagee would have been an example of the “agents of intolerance” that brought “shame” on the Republican Party and the country in the words of Senator McCain. Yesterday, he was “very proud” to have that agent’s support. There’s no way to dress this up. It’s rank hypocrisy and pandering. However, that doesn’t matter here. It’s okay if a Republican does it.
So, Kahn, you want to talk about abortion instead of political pandering. We get it.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Kahn,
Again, did Farrakhan campaign for Obama and introduce him at camapaign events as Hagee has done for McCain? No he did not, there was no reciprocal relationship between them as there is between McCain and Hagee, a man whose support McCain is “very proud” to have.
As for your ongoing abortion rants, the legality of abortions in the US is decided by the supreme court, not the executive (ever hear of Rov vs. Wade?). You really think McCain is going to do ANYTHING about banning abortion? What has the religious right’s poster child George W Bush done on this issue over the past 8 years? Answer: absolutely nothing. And McCain (in the highy unlikely event he was elected) would do nothing too. Why not? Because the great majority of Americans are in favor of keeping abotion legal, therefore it would be political suicide to try to turn Roe versus Wade around.
However it makes tremendous sense for McCain to take an anti-abortion stance as it gets credulous fools like you to vote for him.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The best Senator McCain can muster is to say that he doesn’t “agree” with everything John Hagee says. Pretty weak tea. However, saying that Hagee’s repeated public statements attacking the Catholic Church were “unacceptable and reprehensible” might cost him some evangelical Christian support. Can’t have that, now can we?
February 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
js, where in the Constitution does it say a woman cannot decide to have an abortion?
February 29th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
No matter how hard you try to pick a fight here, you’re not going to get one from me.
Which only serves to highlight your massive hypocrisy. You scream loudly at every tiny imagined slight of Catholicism by people you perceive as liberals. Furthermore, you demand that Obama utterly denounce Farrakhan (which he did) because he offered Obama (unwanted) support.
Yet here is John McCain being quite proud of receiving an endorsement from a man who in no uncertain terms outright hates your religion, calling it a cult and a “great whore,” and all you have to offer is some mealy-mouthed platitude about Hagee’s support of Israel? Do you seriously not see the staggering hypocrisy you’re displaying, or are you merely OK with your staggering hypocrisy?
February 29th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Kahn | February 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Amanda,
1. So a religious person gives up the Constitution Right to free speech? You think that LAW squares withe CONSTITUTION? Really, you do? Because that looks like infringement on religion and speech from where I’m sitting. I’m not surprised that none of you are jumping up to decry this suppression of speech.
If a church does not mind giving up its tax free status, then they can endorse all they want and campaingn all they want. Not all laws of this country are in the Constitution - you are just a little dim-witted here.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Jefferson was kind of involved in writing the constitution just in case you weren’t aware of that js.
Actually, Southerner, he kind of wasn’t.
The 55 delegates who drafted the Constitution included most of the outstanding leaders, or Founding Fathers, of the new nation. Thomas Jefferson, who was in France during the convention, characterized the delegates as an assembly of “demi-gods.”
February 29th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I guess if Senator McCain were to call John Hagee’s statements “unacceptable and reprehensible” it might be an example of being an “agent of intolerance” in a campaign-harming way. One can only wonder what other words and principles Senator McCain is ready to shove under the Straight Talk Express along the campaign trail. We know that his saying “it is torture” about waterboarding during a debate a few weeks ago means nothing now. What’s next?
February 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Retired Spook,
Nice catch on Jefferson, He was a great man. but he wasn’t able to be two places at once.
Mark,
Kudos for including this thread. It had to be a tough one. Perhaps next time Obama or Clinton picks up an endorsement from someone you don’t like, you will give him or her the same leeway.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Just remember folks, with John McCain taking foreign policy pointers from ‘pastor’ Hagee a vote for McCain is a vote for armageddon!
February 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
What’s even more embarrassing for all the attempt to dress up Senator McCain’s grotesque flip-flop on “agents of intolerance” is the fact that it seems, at least if Kahn is any indication, to be over abortion. That wouldn’t seem like much of a winner.
Under the best of circumstances, the possibility exists that a President McCain would have an opportunity or opportunities to nominate one or more justices to the Supreme Court which is the only influence he has over the issue. The possibility that he nominates someone does not mean they will be confirmed. The possibility that they get confirmed does not mean that the Court will hear any direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. The possibility that the Court hears such a case does not guarantee how such a new justice would vote on the particulars of the case heard. So, over that attenuated chain of possibilities, Senator McCain gets a pass for being willing to repudiate his own stated beliefs on a moment’s notice in order to accrue some perceived short-term political benefit. Who’s to say he won’t just dump his being pro-life if it suits the needs of the moment? After all, this is what he said in 1999:
Of course, he immediately turned around and repudiated his own statement then. Senator John McCain would seem to be most consistent in his inconsistency.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Jeremiah, just what is your obsession with sodomy?
You seem to live in dread that the “sodomites” are coming to get you.
Something you want to talk about?
February 29th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Diana,
Abortion is the one area where I oppose McCain, and Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.
It’s just a horrible set of circumstances no one to choose from. And you try to tell people who is best for the job, none of them understand, none of them are willing to make that decision that will change our Nation for the better.
Mike Huckabee is the only one who has the credentials for the job.
What’s wrong with people that they don’t want to listen???
What do you want America??? A cess-pit???
Is that it??? Well, you’re going to get it if you vote for the three leading candidates.
Sheesh! I don’t what you people do!! But if you had any brains you’d vote for Mike Huckabee. Period.
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
bongoman,
Yeah, you sodomite activists are a cancer on society.
That’s the problem I have with you.
It was wrong a hundred years ago … and so now it’s somehow “right”? A hundred years ago, you’d all be in prison, or hanging with a rope around your neck in a tree somewhere.
What happened to the law??? Ain’t no laws of morality anymore … that’s the problem with America.
I suggest people get up, pull their heads out of their behinds and get to work.
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Retired Spook, Nice catch on Jefferson, He was a great man. but he wasn’t able to be two places at once.
Thanks, Casper. It may have been 41 years ago that I minored in history, but I do remember some of it, plus Jefferson is one of my favorite historical figures. I had some teachers like you that made me read something besides the textbook, although, in my case they didn’t exactly have to twist my arm.
In all fairness, Southerner may have been thinking of the Declaration of Independence which Jefferson did author.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Amanda wrote: “Kahn, I support a woman being able to do what she wants with her body. You support forced birth. Call it what you want.”
Fair enough. On what day and at what hour of the pregnancy does the fetus stop being part of the womans body and start being and individual person?
Why can none of you answer that? Amanda, Sunny? Can you? I’ll bet you can’t even agree on a day - which means that one of you would think that the other supports murder.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Mike Huckabee is the only one who has the credentials for the job
So you say he is the “only one with the credentials” based on??????? Just the abortion issue? Nothing else?
So if a monkey got up there and pointed to a sign that said “I am against abortion”, then you would vote for him? Oh wait… I think that happened in 2000.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I stand corrected on Jefferson’s input into the constitution guys, I always thought he was involved. It seems pretty clear that his thinking was reflected in its framing though. Like I say, I stand corrected on that one
February 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
So - in summary, Obama rejects Farrakhan’s “anti-semitic” remarks. But is OK with his anti-Christian and anti-white remarks?
And also in summary, if an INDIVIDUAL in a church who happens to be in a position of power endorses a candidate, then the RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION should be taxed? And this is NOT a violation of free religion and free speech. Just want to get your definitions down.
So, you MUST agree then that if an INDIVIDUAL in a UNION who happens to be in a position of power endorses a candidate, then this UNION (which is in no way Constitutionally protected) should be taxed? And certainly this would be true if the UNION itself issued an endorsement.
And, you must agree that if a public action organization like the NAACP should be taxed if it endorses a candidate, right?
Cool - OK, I’m down with that. Thats called a rhetorical trap, by the way. Pretty good for a Neanderthal, eh?
February 29th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I guess it fits into the stifle speech I disagree with and tax everyone mentality.
And I guess, since you won’t pick a day, it would be OK to kill a baby as it is being born in a cab on the way to the hospital.
I mean, since YOU won’t say, I’ll just fill in my own definitions, OK?
February 29th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Kahn,
One again (for perhaps the fifth time) there is NO relationship between Obama and Farrakhan. Obama has rejected Farrakhan’s endorsement, period. McCain on the other hand has allowed this zionist Christian-taleban lunatic to introduce him at campaign events and is “honored” and “proud” to have his support. Still can’t see the difference? It really ain’t that complicated….
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=5ca47a36-c7d8-4cf4-8451-0390c4581916
February 29th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
southerner, oh no. I see the difference. But I disagree with the degrees you use.
First, Obama rejected Farrakhan’s anti-semitic remarks. He said nothing of Farrakhan’s anti-white and and Christian remarks. I think if you read the actual transcript of the debate the other night, you’ll see he had to be pushed into this rejection. But still, old reverend Louis F. likes Obama even if Obama rejects it. And that is in fact, a relationship.
Secondly, “zionist Christian-taleban lunatic”? Get a grip.
Thirdly, so you DO agree that Unions and Public Grassroots organizations like the NAACP, the Sierra Club, and others should ALL lose their tax-free status if they, or someone in authority in their organizations endorse a candidate?
I guess I believe in free speech more than you do. I don’t really care about this guy. I know McCain isn’t for organized murder and both Democrats are. And thats not just a “relationship”, thats what they themselves say. And that my friend, trumps the affects of an endorsement from a whacko. Get it?
I get your argument. Do you get mine?
February 29th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Gee whiz, what a friggin mess you get when you try to mix religion and politics!!!
Isn’t the political arena dirty enough without every religious zealot wanting to add his recipe of toxic beliefs to the brew?
Why Americans have this obsessive need to combine the two is hard to fathom.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Actually, I have a grip Kahn, a better one than you it seems. Are you aware of the following? I think it definitely qualifies pastor Hagee (CEO of Global Evangelism Television, for which he received $1.2 million in untaxed compensation in 2001 alone) as a Christian-taleban lunatic:
In early 2007, John McCain and John Hagee had an “extended breakfast” meeting at which they discussed American foreign policy in the Middle East, including Hagee’s idea that Iran needs to be bombed so that the wars of Armageddon can begin and Jesus can return to Earth. Hagee has been working on all the practical items necessary to bring about prophecies of the end of the world, even including a breeding project in Texas to create a “perfect red heifer” to sacrifice to Jesus.
Then came summer, and the McCain for President campaign began openly courting the support of John Hagee and his cadre of right wing supporters. McCain announced that he would make a surprise speech before Hagee’s pro-Armageddon organization, Christians United for Israel.
John Hagee introduced John McCain himself, proudly saying, “I have had the privilege to meet and talk with Senator McCain on several occasions.” The two men then hugged, in a display of mutual political affection.
McCain, for his part, slathered praise on John Hagee’s organization, saying “God bless you, God bless you for your commitment,” and appreciating the groups vision of the United States as a “Judeo-Christian principled nation”.
As he embraces a political partnership with John Hagee, John McCain embraces Hagee’s outlandish religious political beliefs, which include:
- The idea that the European Union is involved in a conspiracy to place Satan at the head of a united world government
- Plans to create a theocratic regime that rules over the United States
- Use of the U.S. military to conduct religious warfare
- Claims that God himself planned the Nazi holocaust
- Belief in groups of terrorists organized by God and ready to attack the United States if Christian religious law is broken
If you don’t want a President who leads according to these kinds of beliefs, then you don’t want to see John McCain elected in 2008.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Kahn desperately doesn’t want to defend the presumptive Republican candidate on this matter because he knows very well that to do so means that he’s playing a losing hand. He doesn’t even have anything to say about Senator McCain’s history of trying to be on both sides of the abortion issue that Kahn’s been going on about in lieu of addressing the embarrassing situation of John McCain welcoming the support of a anti-Catholic bigot.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Ya got me there southerner, he’s a wacko.
But he hasn’t actually killed anyone yet, has he? Abortionists do every day. So, whose worse?
I guess I don’t think McCain actually subscribes to Hagee’s wacko views. Do you? And in the mean time - both Clinton and Obama support people who kill every single day. Again, whose worse?
AND - are you OK with treating unions and grass roots organizations the same way as religions and strip their tax-exempt status if/when they endorse a candidate? Because I don’t just see derision in the posts above - I see anger and threats.
And I’ve seen Democrats exterminate religious wacko cults before. Every man, woman, and child. And not that long ago either.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Diana, I just abortion as more important. Thats all.
I also see you can’t define the day life begins - but you’re willing to kill anyways.
And I see you attacking a religion (even though I agree they’re wackos, see my earliest posts above) for doing the same thing unions and grass root organizations do.
And I also remember watching in horror as Democrats burned to death the children members of another stupid wacko cult in Waco. your party does not have a good record when it comes to dealing with the lunatic fringe.
Oh - and I actually am Catholic. Hagee hates us about the same as many liberals. In my view anyways.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Hagee is a Christian-zionist religious whacko. A candidate who wants to win would be wise to distance himself from such a rapture theorist crackpot.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
You are condemning a group that SAYS stupid bad awful things, while not condemning a group that actually DOES stupid bad awful things. Get it? Is that so hard?
Its NOT a different issue. It IS the issue.
Obama rejects some of Farrakhan’s views (to parse the same way he did). BUT, he’s willing to let clinics murder babies. So who cares if he rejects Farrakhan?
Hagee is certainly a nutcase. But Clintons husbands Justice Department burned little children to death and didn’t call the fire department until after the fire was out.
AND, your willing to strip a religious organizations tax status, for doing the same thing as a union or a grass roots organization. FYI - religions ARE grass roots organizations.
Thats how I see it. As bad a Hagee is, YOU’RE worse.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Kahn, regarding whether or not the Sierra Club and NAACP should be taxed. These organizations do have tax free status for their operations, however if I make a donation to them it is not tax deductable as they are not charities or involved in ‘good works’. Churches are given the same tax free status as charities such as the Red Cross, in other words you can write off your donation to the Church and the Church does not have to pay tax on any income it makes. That’s a pretty sweet deal for people like the good pastor Hagee, who as I pointed out above took home over $1.25 million in untaxed compensation in 2001 alone.
I am perfectly fine with politicized Churches losing their tax-deductible status on the donor side so that they have the same tax status as the NAACP or Sierra Club, that works fine with me. That okay with you too?
On a technical tax-code level, Churches are categorized as 501(c)(3) organizations, they have the highest level of tax free status. Sierra Club and NAACP are 501(c)4, and have much more restrictions. Don’t believe me? Read about it on wikipedia at the link below, that article will also explain to you that 501(c)(3) organizations are NOT allowed to endorse political candidates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)
February 29th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Thanks JD. Knowing how much you look out for us, we’ll be sure to give your advice all the consideration it’s due.
Here’s some for your side. Stop supporting the murder of babies, stop trying to circumvent our civil rights in regard to arms and speech, and stop trying to redistribute wealth to buy votes. Just advice.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Kahn,
Seriously, the idea that the democrats started fires or burned people to death in Waco falls into the realm of unproven conspiracy theory. I don’t want to debate you on it since it’s a whole other kettle of fish but I think your post was pretty insulting to the law enforcement people who were involved with dealing with Koresh at Waco. We have no knowledge of whether those individual officers were republican, democrat or whatever, it’s a terrible characterization to say that they burned people to death. Personally I place the blame for that squarely at the feet of that nutcase David Koresh.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Kahn,
As I noted above, it’s sad that the best that you can muster up here is your desire for the theoretical end of a chain of possibilities regarding a theoretical President McCain (who sometimes wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned and sometimes he doesn’t). However, it’s even more sad that you’re desperately having to rummage around for anything you can lay your hands on, including the Branch Davidians, to change the subject away from the “sometimes I believe this and sometimes I believe that” history of the Straight Talk senator from Arizona. Quick! More smoke! More mirrors!
February 29th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Kahn, you may view an unborn foetus as a ‘baby’, however the Supreme Court and the law of this country does not. A woman in the US is allowed to have an abortion up to the 20th week of gestation. At 20 weeks a foetus is in no way viable outside of the womb and cannot be regarded as a ‘baby’ in any definition. I understand that you believe that life begins at conception, however the fact is that consciousness and self-awareness do bot begin to form until much later. There is a physical organism present at this point but it merely has the potential for life, it does not exhibit any of the characteristics of sentient life as we understand them.
You might be surprised to learn that I am not in favor of abortion as a general propostion, however I do not choose to call women how terminate pregnancies before the 20th week ‘baby killers’ as you do. That’s because they are simply not killing babies, they are terminating the gestation foeti which have the POTENTIAL to become babies.
There is no strick on/off date at which one becomes a person in my opinion. However a 20 week old foetus is not a person, it is a potential person. You should also note that 87% of abortions in the US are performed before the 12th week of gestation.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
For certain is that children were known to be in the compound and that the fire department was not called (and it wan’ts even close) until after the fire was out. Those little children were actually melted in place down in their bunker.
The attack occurred under direct order from Attorney General Janet Reno. She IS a Democrat. And she worked for Bill Clinton.
Religious extremists? Definitely. Violating gun laws by making illegal conversions to machine guns? definitely. But why send in tanks to end the siege? Reno claimed it was because the children were being abused. Not a federal crime, and she burned them to death anyways.
But thanks for responding.
Still drawing a blank on tax status for unions and the exact time a fetus becomes a baby?
February 29th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
From this—as well as from the fact that he labels those who support Israel as “Zionists”—I can reasonably deduce that Southerner is anti-Israel.
When a person hates Israel, I immediately wonder if they are anti-Semite as well, as hatred of Israel is typically a cloak for underlying anti-Semitic attitudes.
I won’t pronounce Southerner an anti-Semite, however, until or unless I see him spouting hateful statements explicitly directed at Jewish people.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Kahn,
Still fulminating over the Branch Davidians and abortion instead of John McCain and John Hagee which are the actual topic here, I see. Why don’t you just come out and say that you can’t defend the senator’s egregious flip-flopping? It would save a lot of keyboard time.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
As for your continuos posts labelling democrats ‘baby killers’, what do you say to the fact that a 2003 CBS News poll found that 70% of Republicans believed that abortion should either be ‘generally available’ (29%) or ‘available but with stricter limitations than now’ (41%).
In the same poll 28% of republicans said that abortion should not be permitted while 21% of democrats felt the same. That’s not a big difference and certainly does not allow you to characterize the democrats as the party of baby killers. What it does clearly show is that only a small minority of the adult US population wants abortion banned.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Clark Smith,
I am pretty sure that if you asked him, John Hagee would readily admit that he is an unapologetic zionist. Have you ever read anything this guy wrote or watched any of his videos? Do you even know what zionism is? Why does calling someone a zionist make me anti-semitic? Please explain.
And Hagee does feel we ought to back Israel in any and every attack they make on their neighbors. Again, does deploring that make me anti-semitic? Wow, all my jewish friends here in New York will be surprised to hear it. I’ll let them know the next time I’m celebrating my birthday with chopped liver and schmalz at Sammy’s on Allen street. Unlike you though, most jewish people in New York are smart enough to realize that criticizing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and its hyper aggressive foreign-policy does not make one an anti-semite.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
No, the problem lies with intolerant, hateful, bigoted, homophobic, Bible-thumping, hatemongers who hide behind the teachings of Christ and the Bible to justify your contempt for anyone who doesn’t think, believe, or fall right in line with the Christian fundamentalist’s rhetoric.
It’s people like you, Jeremiah, that are the problem with America.
If you want to live in a society that adheres to a strict, extremist government-style theocracy, might I suggest you live In Iran.
There’s a reason why we have the Separation of Church and State in America: to keep you zealots away from our government.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
73. bongoman | February 29th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
bongoman, Jeremiah is, to put it mildly, out of his f***ing mind.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
McCain opposes abortion. Clinton and Obama don’t. I don’t choose MY values by reading polls. I see none of you can define the day and hour a fetus become a baby. yet you’re willing to kill it anyways. That says more about you than it does about me.
I don’t care about Hagee.
Gee Diana, melted little babies doesn’t get you mad? You must have a liberal will of iron.
And - liberals, you were not going to vote for McCain anyways, admit it. Pound sand.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Jonathan - a lot of hate in your post. Of course you think you’re right. You’re correct! But all I see is hate. It drips from every word.
And on what day and hour during pregnancy do YOU say a fetus becomes a baby? Be specific, and prove it.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Ayn Rand answers this question nicely in terms of the accrual of rights.
As explained by the Ayn Rand Institute:
February 29th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Kahn,
Some things in this world occur g r a d u a l l y. There is no switch that turns life on in a foetus, however for my money life is associated with consciousness and I would not say that a three or four month foetus is capable of any degree of consciousness. According to the medical establishment consciousness begins to form in the third trimester and it is at that point that life begins in my opinion.
Where does your desire to find an exact ‘moment’ that life begins come from? This is another example of REALITY not being in accordance with your simple minded view of the world. When confronted with problems like this absolutists like you always reject reality as somehow being ‘wrong’.
We see it time and again on this blog when people continue to argue such hopeless causes as the idea that Saddam had ties to Al Qaida, or that Iraq had WMD when we invaded or that intelligent design is somehow a better explanation for how we got her than Darwinian evolution.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Ha!
February 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Kahn, it’s Jeremiah not Jonathon who’s talking about stringing people up from trees or locking them up.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Kahn,
Senator McCain says today that he opposes abortion and wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. He’s said differently when it suited his political needs. You can believe him on that point but that’s only because you choose to ignore his flip-flopping on that and other issues. That’s the entire point of the controversy about him and John Hagee. In 2000, Hagee’s type were named as “agents of intolerance” who were a source of “shame” for the Republican Party and America by John McCain. Today, when politics and his personal ambition demand it, he’s “very proud” of his support from someone who is an anti-Catholic religious bigot.
So, why can’t you just come on out and say it honestly and straightforwardly without trying to drag in unrelated subjects? Senator John McCain’s hypocrisy and political pandering don’t matter to you because he’s a Republican practicing hypocrisy and political pandering. It’s okay. You can do it.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
And Jeremiah, just for the record, I am not a “sodomite activist”. For the record I’m happily married with two beautiful children and I take the task of parenting seriously and conscientiously.
I just don’t give a toss what another adult does consensually with another adult in the privacy of their bedroom. But, seems like you are happy to have them lynched. Terrifying.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
McCain’s statement on Hagee endorsement:
“Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.
“I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.”
YMMV
February 29th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Kahn,
At the very moment of conception is the point the baby begins to grow.
The problem is the lefts definition of “worth,” you know it’s like, the child even though it’s not fully grown is somehow “does not” have intrinsic worth compared to a child outside the womb.
So you see, they define an unborn child comparable to dirt, trash, waste what have you, and that’s the level of depravity that we find on the left, the problem being that there are those on the right who do also, and John McCain is among them.
He is for embryonic stem cell research, if you’re for ESCR you have to be for abortion, because it takes an unborn child to carry out ESCR. So, not a question about his stances on life there. And even if he would appoint more Conservatives Judges who would craft a Human Life Amendment would he sign it into law so that it would be illegal for all states (the preferable route), or would he allow some to save and others to murder? The ten million dollar question. He is for homosexual marriage.
True Conservative principles to me, embody a man who will uphold traditional values, not giving sway to the enormous amount of garbage that the homosexual activists are trying to shove down everyones throat by way of hate “crimes” laws, some hate crimes have already been carried out - for example - in Philadelphia the Repent America group was arrested and sent to jail for sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with them and speaking out against the act of homosexuality, by a militant homosexual group - and that’s what it’s coming to all across America if people do not wake up now and fight back.
There’s really no way out at this point, we are in debt about 2 Trillion dollars, because the government decided that they would step in to the lives of the small business owner and tax them to death, special interest groups, OCEA, Entitlements medicare, medicaid, Welfare, food stamps, massive infrastructure worth billions and billions of dollars - and the people will say - “Where did it go?” Just ask your State Senator - there names are all over them.
What’s going to happen if Hillary or Barack gets it for President, when they want to add all these other entitlements including the ones we’ve already got? I’ll tell ya … the bottom is going to fall out of the economy, and millions will be out of jobs.
There’s only way America will get out of this mess, and it’s not going to be through no President, it’s going to take a recommittment to Jesus Christ and thinking about their own situation…maybe not even then.
The main thing is, we need to keep our freedom of speech, we can’t allow the sodomites to take this away…so speak out!
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Take a couple of days off and another Lefty agitator pops up, this time the very snarky ’southerer’. The style is very familiar—no doubt a few more hostile posts rabidly supporting radical position will ring a bell as to southerner’s last identity.
There aren’t a lot of radicals posting here, just a few recycled ones. And the rhetoric is getting goofier and goofier—and more hostile. Such as this gem from southerner, to js: “It sounds to me like you’d be more at home living in Taleban-era Afghanistan, not the good ‘ol US of A.”
Get real. We have seen the anti-religionists whine and carp and moan and groan about “theocracy” for the longest time here, and it is always bushwa.
The Jefferson letter is another red herring. Ol’ Tom was generally considered to be a pretty outspoken guy, not a shy and delicate flower easily intimidated by his peers. He was outspoken, upfront, and said what he meant.
Not only was he NOT the kind of guy to allow a strong opinion to be overridden by his fellow Constitution-writers, there is absolutely no evidence that the possibility of trying to create a “wall” between church and state was ever even discussed or debated during the drafting of the document.
No, all of the history connected with the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, & the Bill of Rights show two things very clearly.
One is that the Founding Fathers all believed in a Supreme Being of one sort or another, Who created us all and from whom all freedoms originate, Whose acknowledgment and guidance were essential to the forming and continuation of this nation;
And that they absolutely did not want any religion to ever have the kind of connection to government which would allow it to restrict freedom of worship in any way.
So, being the kind of guys who were very specific about what they wanted in the Constitution and how they phrased it, they wrote that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It very clearly does NOT address whether or not any religion may have, or express, any policitical opinion. The intent was to keep the government out of religion, not religion out of government.
These guys were very smart. They knew perfectly well how to include a phrase which would keep religion out of government, yet they did not include one. On the contrary, their writings, separately and jointly, throughout their lives, officially and unofficially, made mulitple references to God and religion as integral to the foundation, creation, and survival of the United States.
In all of their writings, this one sentence of Jefferson’s is THE ONLY ONE that could possibly be construed to say that the two, goverment and religion, should be kept apart and separate. And these guys wrote LOTS of letters.
They wanted freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
And the opinion of an individual for or against any poltical candidate is hardly the stuff of “theocracy”. The 1st amendment not only guarantees freedom of religion, it guarantees freedom of speech.
Take it or leave it, like him or not. It’s irrelevant. Trying to link McCain to any kind of anti-Catholicism or any other anti because a nut who is against a lot of things happens to endorse him is pure folly.
If McCain had a history of being anti-Catholic, or of being a religious zealot, or of personally adhering to a religion or church which advocated such things, that would be different. It would be a statement that he, himself, held these views—-and that would be something to consider when thinking of whether or not to vote for him.
He just said thank you to someone who supports him.
How about addressing the pros or cons of McCain based on ISSUES—ditto for Obama and Clinton. Just for a change of pace…..not as much fun as the Politics of Personal Destruction but a lot more productive.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Jeremiah: “we are in debt about 2 Trillion dollars”
Nothing to do with Iraq? Was meant to cost $2 billion - gonna end up costing $3 TRILLION.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
So Almiranta, let me ask you a simple question. Do you support John McCain for the presidency?
Cause I seem to remember you makng a post back when Huckabee was in contention that you would NEVER vote for John McCain to be your president. Am I wrong on that?
By the way, do you think anyone actually reads your posts?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Michael,
Of course, the two situations are not even remotely comparable because Senator McCain has appeared multiple times on stage with John Hagee and has been very vocal in how happy he is to have Hagee’s endorsement and Senator Obama has never appeared with Louis Farrakhan, never sought any kind of endorsement from Farrakhan and has rejected Farrakhan’s endorsement. However, let’s just imagine the reaction here if the situation and statement were reversed.
Imagine that the Obama campaign had released this text:
Would everyone at Blogs For Victo(r)y have said, “Fine. Nothing more to see here. Let’s all move on.” Uh, no.
The blunt fact is that Senator McCain is still embracing a man who is, in the words of Ann Althouse, a “raving anti-Catholic”. There’s no way to candy coat it. It is politically expedient for John McCain to not just approve of but to actively court the approval of a religious bigot.
You wouldn’t approve of it with a Democrat, but many of you absolutely approve of it so long as it’s a Republican. Oops, it’s a Republican flip-flopper. Quick, everyone move along here because we absolutely don’t want to see this willingness to be whoever the political moment demands you to be. The only question now is what’s going to be the next belief Senator McCain is willing to sacrifice for his ambitions.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Jeremiah-
Last Friday Rush was saying how the Christians were an embarassment to the GOP. I sure hope the GOP don’t start compromising and embracing abortion, ect…
February 29th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Diana Powe:
I did not set out to equate what Obama did to what McCain did. They are not equal. I simply passed on what he said, since noone had mentioned in the comments. I thoroughly agreed with and applauded what Obama did with his unwanted endorsement and I wish McCain would do something similar. But he did let it be known that he is not endorsing Hagee; its the other way around. And he did say there is much of what Hagee preaches that he does not agree with. Its a good start. One more thing to consider is that McCain has the nomination sewed up and Obama does not. McCain will win easily in Texas with or without Hagee’s endorsement. Obama could not afford to have any perceived affiliation with Farrakahn lest he lose votes big time, possibly the nomination as well. I’m certain Hillary would have made hay of that.
In a democracy, is a candidate limited to only accept votes from those with whom he/she agrees? How far do we take it? McCain took it far enough. Obama took it further. Their situations are vastly different. Why would one think their responses would be the same?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Southerner,
Shall we try the Wikipedia definition of Zionism?:
Unless you define a specific type of Zionism, I’ll operate under the definition cited most succinctly in the wiki quote above: “Zionism” is generally considered to mean support for Israel as a Jewish nation state.
What I call being pro-Israel, you call Zionism. I feel Israel is justified in defending itself (yes, its very existence) as it has; you feel Israel has been brutish toward neighbors who have done nothing worthy of anything approaching harsh reprisal.
From the best I can figure, you reckon those who support Israel do so at all events, and at all costs.
The vast majority of those who support Israel, do so because they believe Israel is in the right, not because Israel must be supported whether the actions of Israel are right or wrong.
Am I correct in concluding that you feel Israel is a mean, nasty aggressor that wages (as you call it) a “hyper aggressive foreign-policy” against comparatively peaceful Palestinian neighbors?
As far as I’m concerned, Israel has been very measured in its response to a “hyper aggressive” Palestinian terror-culture that’s certifiably hell-bent upon the annihilation of Israel.
If the Palestinians had the military advantages over Israel that Israel has over the Palestinians, do you doubt for one second that the Palestinians would waste a moment in blotting Israel from the map?
How then do you take the side of Palestinians when they would—had they the ability—make Israeli foreign policy look quiescent by comparison?
You ask how I could support Hagee. I never said anything about supporting Hagee, I just took issue with you bagging on Israel.
I will say this, however, that when you say, “[Hagee] is [...] a religious wacko on the same plane as the Taleban were religious wackos,” you’ve succumbed to hyperbole in a way that makes you sound as unhinged as the Hagee quotes you cite in comment #6.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Hagee has put out some decent sermons about the military, Israel, Islamic Jihad, Even our President G.W. Bush. Some of Hagee’s material is excellent and some will put you to sleep. Many churches give that sales pitch that they are the true church. And point at why the other churches are not as good. just like anything else car makers will claim their models are the best.
I have been to many different churches and the History of all of them start with the Catholic church. The apostale Peter being the First, so that goes back over 2000 yrs. The Catholic church has the actual artifacts from the cruxifiction, I have seen some of them. Pieces of the cross, the nails. In the vactican they have the “Shroud of Turin” the actual burial cloth Christ was wrapped in before he rose from the dead, and went back into the city to see everyone, that seen him brutally murdered three days earlier.
I have alot of respect for the Catholic Church, the first 1500 years after Christ’s Resurrection the Catholic Church was the only church. About 500 years ago the Lutheran Church split off and after that Baptist, ect..
February 29th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Let there be no mistake. Senator McCain did not just say “thank you” to someone who happened to endorse him.
On 09/20/07, John Hagee introduced Senator McCain at a rally in Charleston, South Carolina. How do we know that? The video is posted on McCain’s campaign website.
On 02/27/08, John Hagee, pastor of a church with 17,000 members, endorsed Senator McCain and the Senator stood on stage with Hagee and answered questions from the press while noting in response to a question that he was “very proud” of Hagee’s endorsement of him.
Today, Senator McCain still does not repudiate any of John Hagee’s Catholic-hating rhetoric and issues a weak statement saying that he does not “agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views.” Is John McCain anti-Catholic? I can’t imagine that he is. However, he is certainly happy and “very proud” about the fact that an anti-Catholic is willing to give him the possibility of some politically expedient traction with people who presumably agree that being anti-Catholic is the way to be.
We know John McCain cares more about being elected than he does about his own past statements. Michael believes that the Senator has the nomination “sewed up” which just makes it even worse. If he doesn’t need Hagee’s endorsement, given that in 2000 Hagee would have been an “agent of intolerance” bringing “shame” on the Republican Party and the nation, then why is he embracing the man today? Just how many more of Senator McCain’s stated beliefs will go away during the next few weeks and months?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Eric T,
Rush has been a good voice for Conservatives for a long time, but some of the things he’s said lately I’ve not agreed with him a 100% … he made Mike Huckabee try to look like a “Liberal” in which he lost a lot of credibility with many people. But I will have to agree with him that many Christians have been an “embarassment” to the GOP … for the simple reason that they’ve joined the ranks of the secular crowd, by adopting the “Seperation of Church and State” lie. This would make them so-called “Christians.”
I don’t think anyone who proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior could uphold something so abhorrently evil as abortion and same-sex marriage, a person just can’t be and support that type of depravity.
If anything, at this point, it’s going to take people with a willingness to acknowledge that the State is their enemy when their elected officials sanction for lifestyles differentiate from the traditional family values platform.
I wish there was some way that I could get people to understand this. Some way to wake people up!
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Jeremiah: I wish there was some way that I could get people to understand this. Some way to wake people up!
How about a public lynching of them filthy sodomites as you suggested earlier? You’re a fool.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
65. Sunny | February 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
js, where in the Constitution does it say a woman cannot decide to have an abortion?
No person shall be ……. nor be deprived of life
When a woman takes the responsibility to have sex, she has consented to create life. Its not so much that she has a right to take a human life, but that life that she created has a right to live, just like you.
Understand, the meaning of the word person under the law is “the body of a human being”.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Clark Smith:
Just yesterday we say just how ‘restrained’ Israel has been in its treatment of the Palestinians it has evicted from their rightful homes and who it is now forcing to live in occupied concentration camps on its own borders:
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=45131§ionid=351020202
Israel is a simply wonderful place Clark. How could it not be, seeing that it was created by a bunch of religious terrorists (King David Hotel bombing anyone?) who drove the rightful, centuries-old inhabitants from Palestine and forced them to live in squalor on the new state’s borders. Wow, that’s a wonderful story, right up there with the story of the American Revolution (sarcasm).
I am NOT a fan of the manner in which Israel was founded Clark, nor am I fan of the disgusting way Israel has treated the Palestinians since that time (basically like livestock). Check the number of Palestinians who have died (90% of whom were innocent civillians) versus the number of Israelis in the conflict. Israel kills a large number of Palesitinians for every single casualty it receives. In short, Israel has not behaved like an honorable nation and that is why it is a global pariah. You can put this down to ‘anti-semitism’ until the cows come home. The fact is it’s because Israel consistently demonstrates no regard for Palestinian life.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Southerner wrote - “consciousness begins to form in the third trimester and it is at that point that life begins in my opinion.
Where does your desire to find an exact ‘moment’ that life begins come from? This is another example of REALITY not being in accordance with your simple minded view of the world. ”
Well, you miss he point I guess.
First: You identify “consciousness” as the defining characteristic. Does everyone agree with you on this? Some people say life begins when you could move the fetus outside the womb and sustain it.
Second: Of course you can’t identify the moment life begins. That is exactly MY point. So, when exactly should you allow an abortion and when should you deny an abortion? You say “the third trimester”. Nice arbitrary three month unit of time. So, one second before the “third trimester” is the cut-off? Two minutes into it, and forget it? You know that makes partial birth abortion murder, right? So what do you know - as I predicted you actually agree that some currently performed abortions are murder! Did you even realize you did?
My point is that you CAN’T say when life begins. Virtually no-one agrees on what characteristics to measure, nor where in the development cycle of those characteristics to decide. BUT, liberals are willing to ignore this dichotomy and kill the baby for socio-economic reasons. That is correct, isn’t it?
The arguments that support “abortion” are very similar to the arguments that supported slavery. if you don’t count the black person, or the unborn baby as “human”, you can justify all kinds of things. That’s the crux of the argument.
But even you can’t narrow it down to less than a three month period as to when the definition would shift fro “fetus, or part of the mother” to “individual human”. And you don’t use the same criteria as some other people.
But yet, you’re willing to kill.
My argument isn’t religious. My argument is based on uncertainty. I’m not willing to kill unless I KNOW it’s OK. You are.
And your side would call me ignorant and hateful and narrow for thinking like this? I say, better to not accidentally murder a person because you can’t know for sure. You say, aw crap kill it.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“…many Christians have been an ‘embarassment’ to the GOP” - Jeremiah
Oh the irony…. ;)
February 29th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Kahn,
Good job of keeping the topic away from the subject of the thread! Talking about the actual subject could be seriously embarrassing.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Even with modern medical technology foeti can not be sustained outside of the womb before 20 weeks Kahn. 20 weeks is the cutoff date for abortion in the US, so what’s your point?
Again, you seem to have missed EVERYTHING pointed out to you above regarding the fact that a young foetus is not a person, but a POTENTIAL person. Something tells me you never will get it. That’s your right. It doesn’t make you look very smart on these boards though.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
So please spare me the how ignorant I am crap. PROVE that the “fetus you want to kill is not a human. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You’d give that standard to an ax murderer, but not to a baby?
Now, as to the claims above that Hagees church should lose tax exempt status because of his endorsement of McCain. You all agree that the same treatment should be given to unions and grassroots organizations? If you don’t treat ALL tax-exempt organizations the same, isn’t that discrimination? And as far as I can tell, the ONLY tax-exempt organizations that are treated this way are religious.
So cite your current “regulations”. Regulations are bureaucratic interpretation of law, which is itself supposed to fit into the limits of the Constitution. The Constitution is there to protect the people from the government. And any rights and powers not listed there are assigned to the people.
It’s time this systemic discrimination was challenged in court.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Diana, my point is that I don’t care about Hagee because as big a wacko as he is, people who support abortion are worse. Get it?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I think prophecy is for one to admit that we can only watch for the things and not predict them. The signs will come in the order and in the appointed times, but Hagee steps over the line in his predictions, I doubt he is solidly founded there. However, since I have experienced the power and the presence of the Holy Spirit, I know that Hagee is not an agent of Satan, for the Holy Spirit does not come upon those who do the work of Lucifer.
For him to endorse Mac is not that bad, but it is not so good either. It would not be a photo opportunity for Mac to go overboard on this, but at the same time, it would be a mistake to disrespect a minister.
http://www.acwitness.org/psalm83english.html
February 29th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Again, you seem to have missed EVERYTHING pointed out to you above regarding the fact that a young foetus is not a person, but a POTENTIAL person.
False.
A potential person is before sex takes place.
After sex when a sperm and egg unite, you have a person.
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
“Southerner wrote - “consciousness begins to form in the third trimester and it is at that point that life begins in my opinion.”
(and thats all it is, an opinion)
Thats not a fact. Facts can be proven, they are irrefutable.
There is no way for modern medicine to determine consciousness. No test exists to determine that consciousness is not present. They can test brain activity, but they can and do not know if consciousness exists within the brain. They have certified that activity in the brain begins at about 21 days. Thats about all they can really validate as fact.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Kahn,
Yes, I get the fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge the harsh reality that Senator John McCain has cultivated and repeatedly expressed gratitude for the approval of a man that would be “a source of shame” for all Republicans, including Senator McCain, until it became politically expedient for him to do so. To that extent, John Hagee’s particular status as a “wacko”, as you put it, is irrelevant. What matters is Senator McCain’s hypocrisy and political pandering. That is the same hypocrisy and political pandering you would decry in a Democrat. Come on. Just be honest.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
24 weeks, the child responds to pain. That is consciousness. The pain receptors begin to grow at 5 weeks, at 6 weeks, the unborn child responds to touch. Thats brain activity. The brain is conscious of both pain and touch. That is conscious.
An unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain than commercial livestock.
In a slaughterhouse, a method of slaughter is deemed legally humane only if “all
animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical,
chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted,
thrown, cast, or cut.” (Section 2 of the Humane Slaughter Act, 7 USC 1902).
By contrast, D&E abortions, performed as late as 24 weeks (well after the child
begins to feel pain), involve the dismemberment of the unborn child by a pair of
sharp metal forceps.(9) Instillation methods of abortion (performed even in the third
trimester) involve the replacement of up to one cup of amniotic fluid with a
concentrated salt solution, which the unborn child inhales as the salt burns her skin.
The child lives in this condition for up to an hour. In neither of these techniques is
the unborn child provided with any form of anesthesia.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Physicians testimonies.
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Well Diana, which is worse in YOUR view? Hypocrisy or organized murder?
And YOU acknowledge that unions and grass roots organizations wit tax exempt status should be treated the same as religious organizations?
And, though he let himself eventually be pressured into rejecting Farrakhan’s support, Obama did NOT do that until cornered on a televised debate. And still Farrakhan’s support is still there, isn’t it? Who is worse, Farrakhan or Hagee?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
DP,
People were talking about Abraham Lincoln like that too. He mixed with a bad crowd too, the ones that wanted to end slavery. Its good to know that Liberals act like that. Predictability.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Southerner - right or wrong, you must admit that JS and Jerimiah have a “reasonable doubt” about the time frame you identified the child’s execution as being acceptable.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
As I said before, Israel has limited itself to a measured response to blatant and ongoing terrorist attacks.
If it wished to do so, Israel could wipe out the Palestinians: Every Palestinian that draws breath is living testament to Israeli mercy, and restraint.
Time and time again Israel stays its hands against its tormentors, even though their tormentors would delight to unleash a second Holocaust against the Jews, were it in their power.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Wow, you really are not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you Kahn? Did you see the post above where I patiently explained that churches are grouped with legitimate charities like the Red Cross for tax purposes, ie they are tax exempt both from the donor’s AND receiver’s side. In the tax code orgainizations like this are classified as 501(c)(3)s. Whereas unions, the sierra club, naacp, etc. are only exempt on the side of the receiver, you can’t write off your donation, they are classified as 503(c)(4)s or (5)s in the tax code. I am fine with Hagee’s church losing its status and being equated with unions, the serra club, etc. You fine with that?
Or are you going to need me to explain this to you several more times before you just give up and move on to your next non-objection. Again, please read the below wiki about charity tax law before making a fool of yourself again Kahn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)#501.28c.29.283.29
And yes, it is wonderful how you are ignoring the theme of this forum, how McCain has shacked up with a scumbag and is unrepentent about it.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
134. js | February 29th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
As far as anyone can really say consciousness is only apparent if one can remember it. Then theres the arguement for Amnesia. If one cannot remember who they are then? in my opinion, they in effect become and entirely different person with different personality traits. Since Personality define who someone is, then, if there is no consciousness (ie. memories, personality), then the person is TRULY not living. Sure theres a body, but that is just a shell. I honestly would hope if anything were to happen to me where I would never regain consciousness my family would pull the plug. I’ve suffered through something similar with my great aunt, and let me tell you I would not wish that on anyone.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
havent you figured out that just because politicians made campain laws doesnt mean they are good laws southerner?
If you figure it out, congress passing tax exempt status to a church, only because it stays out of political endorsements, is a blatant violation of the Constitution.
Those laws 1-respect the establishment of a church that stays out of political activity, and 2-restrict the excercise of religion by excising the religious from endorsing those who uphold the values of thier religion.
Setting aside all the legal baffle that has been created to hide the obvious, you cant get around the simple truth.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
143. Some Assembly Required | February 29th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
“As far as anyone can really say consciousness is only apparent if one can remember it”
No, that is memory. You can be conscious of pain and not remember it. Does that mean that the pain didnt exist? NO, it just means you didnt remember it.
Take the same test you perscribe, do you remember being born? (of course not, nobody does). Does that mean that you were never born? NOPE. It just means you didnt remember it.
When you get drunk, and do thinks that you dont remember the next day, does that mean you really didnt do them? According to your “test”, you would have to say no, right up until you find out that you totalled your car…..
No. Memory is not a test of consciousness.
If someone stabs you in the belly with a sharp knife, are you conscious of the pain?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Well said, JS.
I guess we could say conscience is what we perceive in the here and now.
–Jeremiah–
February 29th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Kahn,
Nice job of bringing in another unrelated topic and trying to apply it to me when I haven’t even written anything about unions and “grass roots organizations”. However, it is insufficient to cover your obvious, and completely understandable, reluctance to defend Senator McCain’s current warm embrace of John Hagee who is so wacky, zany and “kooky” (as you so genteelly put it) that he thinks that you worship as a member of “the Great Whore”. Don’t worry. We understand your wanting to change the subject and not own up to the implications of your silence on the real topic here. Let me remind you, it’s “John McCain, Hagee and Catholics”.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
southerner - well, you didn’t need to interject the insults. I didn’t actually read your post above. Thanks though. Thanks to the link about the year 501. I’ve made the same point to you several times without the insults.
Should I treat you that way also now asshole?
Should these types or organizations be treated differently? And unions, the real point I was making, they are also deductible for both sides, aren’t they. Asshole?
Meanwhile what about those reasonable doubts about those babies? And your admitting that some current abortions are murders (by your very own definitions)? Asshole.
Gotta go now, your mammas calling. Asshole.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:04 am
Diana, jeeez how many time do I have to say this? I DON’T CARE!!!! I DON”T CARE!!!
Your side supports current ongoing organized murder - which is worse.
You insist on equating wacky speech with child murder. I don’t. Murder is worse. Abortion is murder is worse than thinking there’s some huge Zionist conspiracy or whatever the heck Hagee says. I don’t care.
Get it? Is that clear? I’m not defending McCain on this. I don’t care about this.
Jeeezzzzz.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:05 am
There is no medical test that either proves or disproves the existence of consciousness in fetal development.
No, meaning, none. But when they stick the baby with a scalpel, it feels pain. want to see proof?
http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm
March 1st, 2008 at 12:05 am
If you’d been smart enough to click on the complete link you’d have managed not to make a fool of yourself again Kahn:
That easy enough for you? Nice use of profanity also. Shows what a classy piece of work you are.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:06 am
I guess we could say conscience is what we perceive in the here and now.
–Jeremiah–
More like, just being aware.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:09 am
Yeah, you don’t care, and I guess you’re going to vote for John ‘Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran’ McCain. Who cares if he takes foreign policy pointers from someone who explicitly yearns for armageddon on earth. No big deal as long as you can keep ranting and ranting and ranting about abortion like a broken record.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:21 am
But he didn’t bomb Iran and abortion happened today and will happen tomorrow. That’s reality. Hagee is a crank. But abortion is murder. EVEN YOUR definition backs up the claim that at least some current abortions are murder. That doesn’t make you mad? Little babies brains being sucked out? Man, you guys are cold hearted.
Here is the whole link, you should have posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29 It may not show up either. Only half of your link is live. OK? Asshole?
And when you choose to insult me, I get to insult you anyway I want to. Is asshole profanity? I can easily imaging your face looking like a wrinkled hole spouting crap. YOU started the insult war. I will answer any insult post you make in kind. You started it. Asshole.
What is profanity? Not getting prudish on me, are you? I mean, thats a pretty petty move for someone who is willing to let babies that even he admits are human beings get murdered. Isn’t it?
By the way, I cede your point on the 501c status. BUT, I disagree with the very concept of changing tax status based upon speech. That section of wikipedia is light on info about unions - aren’t dues ALSO deductible?
Meanwhile, no I don’t care about Hagee. And you don’t really care either - do you?
March 1st, 2008 at 12:22 am
Hey look, my link works! Yours doesn’t!
Note - no insult as this isn’t in reply to an insult post. Get it?
March 1st, 2008 at 12:24 am
Kahn,
Guess what? This is not a thread about abortion. There have been threads about abortion. This is not one of those. If it had been a thread about abortion, the smart money would have predicted that the word abortion would have appeared in Mark’s title or in the text of his post. It didn’t.
The word didn’t appear until you injected it in Comment # 14. The topic is not even John Hagee’s views except that John McCain would have been obliged by McCain’s own previous statements to repudiate Hagee’s endorsement if it weren’t for the Senator’s need to engage in political pandering.
(Must avoid topic of Senator John McCain’s hypocrisy at all costs…must avoid topic of Senator John McCain’s hypocrisy at all costs…must avoid topic of Senator John McCain’s hypocrisy at all costs…write about something else…anything…must avoid topic of Senator John McCain’s hypocrisy at all costs…)
March 1st, 2008 at 12:28 am
southerner, about your moniker. Not really from the south are you? I usually only encounter such arrogant rudeness in the North East.
Which is by the way, where I grew up. Right in the heart of lemming minded liberal western Massachusetts. Hammers and sickles painted on the walls. Anti-Columbus Day rallies. I even argued with Viet Nam Vets Against the War John Kerry when he came to our school to speak.
It’s all militant lesbians there now. Liberal utopia, I guess.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:33 am
Diana, I have only one thing to say about that…. DUH!
I’m just explaining to you, to you Diana Powe why I don’t care about Hagee’s support for John McCain. I’m not supporting Hagee. I don’t like Hagee. I never even heard of Hagee before today.
It’s just that I know that John McCain opposes the organized mass murder called abortion and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do not. Now associating with a wacko is bad. But supporting murder is worse. Do you disagree with that statement? Can you see that since I think abortion is murder, that I actually really believe that, that I might think thats more important than crazy old reverend Hagee?
OK?
Oh, and I am Catholic. Are you? Thats also what the string is about - right?
March 1st, 2008 at 12:41 am
Diana, why didn’t you join us in decrying Ted Kennedy’s hypocrisy about global warming and the wind mills in the energy thread?
Or did you think to decry Democrat Senator Jim Webb for toting an illegal concealed pistol into the US Capital?
Or did you decry Nancy Pelosi when she included specific exemptions to the minimum wage bill to protect her husbands investments in a San Francisco tuna company?
Or aren’t you outraged that the Democratic Congress hasn’t “ended the war”? I mean, that IS what the election was all about, wasn’t it?
I mean - hIF ypocrisy really gets you mad…..
I know, I know. Anything that is off your point is off THE point. But you’re the one seizing on that hypocrisy word.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:42 am
If John C. Hagee believes the Roman Catholic Church is ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’, I believe this view is wrong. I know many Catholics and they in no way act like whores nor anti-christians nor cultists in any way. The are humble and generous and have great respect for the tenets of the Church. How Hagee has come to the belief that Catholics are whores I do not know, but I can say from my experience growing up in a Catholic family that this is just not the case.
Instead of being honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement, John McCain should reject and denounce Hagee’s support.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:43 am
Hey look southerner - I’m arguing with Diana without using insults. Something to think about…..
March 1st, 2008 at 12:45 am
Aitch - Hagee is a wacko. Had you ever heard of him before? I hadn’t.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:04 am
Kahn,
John Hagee is the pastor of a church with 17,000 members in San Antonio, heads John Hagee Ministries which broadcasts to nearly 100 million homes and has written 17 books including Jerusalem Countdown which contains this gem, ““Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.” He may be a “wacko” as you politely put it, but he has a large audience for his “wackiness”. To answer your question, I grew up in the Roman Catholic Church, but I am now an Anglo-Catholic.
Senator McCain is seeking endorsements so that he can succeed at being the Republican nominee for President. Beyond that, he hopes to be elected President. None of the people you mentioned is running for president or asking for endorsements in a national election.
Abortion isn’t even relevant in the sense that Senator McCain may or may not, depending on whatever serves his political needs best at that particular moment, do more than pay lip service to being pro-life. However, the President of the United States cannot do anything directly about abortion because it is legal in the United States. Congress would have more to do with that, which is where Senator McCain has been for many years. However, his ambition is to be President and that’s what it is…ambition…and whatever it takes to satisfy that ambition.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:16 am
Diana, if McCain’s abortion stance is irrelevant. Are Hagees positions relevant? You think McCain believes this crap? You think that McCain thins Catholics are whores? Well?
I’m saying that I consider this more important to YOU, a person looking to score political points against John McCain than it is to ME a person who happens to be Catholic and doesn’t care that much about it. I think that difference between McCain and the Democrats on abortion trumps this endorsement to such a degree to make it seem tiny in comparison.
Of course, I also dislike Clinton/Obama for their socialist ideas. And I think Obama is wildly naive on foreign affairs and military affairs. Either that, or he’s lying like some people suggest (see NAFTA controversy). I’m not sure which of those two alternatives is worse.
You’re not going to get me to care about this. Hagee’s crazy theories are no worse than leftist beliefs about 9/11. I doubt anyone would turn down money from Rosie O’Donnell or any of the left wing crowd. That doesn’t mean they believe that the government blew up the World Trade Center.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:18 am
Kahn,
Your recent posts sound crazed. Take it easy, you sound completely ridiculous. You’ve lost all arguments on this forum today, I know that sucks but hey, just let it go. It’s not your fault for losing them, that will tend to happen when you are on the wrong side of every issue and encounter well informed people who correct you.
And by the way, donations to a union are not tax deductible while unoin dues (rightly) are. They are categorized as a work expense.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:21 am
Kahn,
Check. Senator McCain seeks out and celebrates an opportunity to be a hypocrite which casts further doubt on any of his positions (which he has been known to cast aside at any point). You are okay with that. Got it.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:38 am
southerner - I still don’t care about Hagee as I believe that the two leading Democrats support organized murder. I got you to define when YOU though life began. In doing so, you agreed that by your definitions some current abortions are murder. But since you are not willing to condemn those murders, you must condone them. Using the logic you apply to McCain-Hagee.
If Unions support a candidate, then their members dues should be made non-deductible. So THERE we have a type of organization that is similar to churches but that is allowed to engage in politics without threat to tax status. So, just how did you “win” that argument?
Your calling me names does not make you right.
And my post worked because I know how to do it, and yours didn’t. Though you insulted me for not being able to use your broken link.
And I’ll stand my experience and education up to yours any day. I’ll bet I was right about you being from the northeast also.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:42 am
Diana, seeks out and celebrates an opportunity to be a hypocrite? Nope - I didn’t bother parsing that language earlier because it is so partisan. You are a heavily biased person seeking to score political points and thats all.
By the way, what about those hypocritical Democrats I listed above. Will you criticize any of them?
Kennedy for killing windmills?
Pelosi for exempting her husbands company fro minimum wage laws?
Webb for packing a gun into DC?
The whole Democrat controlled Congress for being in Iraq a year and a month after assuming control?
March 1st, 2008 at 1:47 am
Nope, by my definition abortion is not murder. You have never proved any such thing. Wow you’re boring, talk about a s-l-o-w learner.
You’d lose that bet the same way you’ve lost every argument today dummy.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:47 am
See, I know you won’t criticize a Democrat no matter how hypocritical. So that makes your arguments biased and lessens your credibility.
Whereas conservative posters here regularly criticize Republicans and other conservatives based upon ideas and actions.
So you don’t get any points from me. And Southerner has admitted that he is OK with baby murder. Or at least that he’s not willing to even criticize it.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:51 am
Ahhhh insults again. OK a**hole.
You said that human consiousness occured sometime during the third trimester. Well, partial birth abortions are allowed up until moments before natural birth. ergo - murder. You disagree with yourself. Or maybe you’re too stupid to realize you disagree with yourself. Or maybe your just a calous bastard that would kill a baby if it was convenient.
AND - Unions get to be political and their source of funds gets to stay tax exempt. But not so for a church. So guess what? You lose that argument also.
And, I know how to post a link that actually puts you in thr right place, and you don’t.
OK Dummy?
March 1st, 2008 at 1:56 am
So, Mark, you think the reason McCain has sought and accepted the endorsement from Hagee only because of his stance on Israel?
That is still extremely problematic. Hagee’s support of Israel is for purely selfish reasons, as is demonstrated by his book, “Jerusalem Countdown” (just let that chilling title sink in for a moment).
He believes the End Times are near and he is willing to ‘speed up that proces’ by waging religious wars, because of his interpretation of the scriptures. He believes the West Bank should remain in Israeli hands, he opposes any Two-State solution or Roadmaps to Peace and he opposes any division of Jerusalem.
Any American president who endorses such views will be met with huge distrust and it will alienate every state - even the relatively pro-Western states - in the Middle East and around the world. Not even the majority of Israelis support it. At will set back every prospect of a peace proces, how fragile, for decades.
A McCain as president who lends his ear to religious warmongers like Hagee would be a clear signal to Iran and Syria to stock up on WMD’s, preferably nuclear, now.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:57 am
Deleted - complains about comment policy.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:58 am
Deleted - obscenity; if it happens again, commenter will be banned.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:02 am
Why am I not surprised that you don’t get this? Let me educate you once again Kahn - unions are allowed to endorse candidates because they are mandated to work collectively for the economic good of their members. Ergo they are allowed to endorse the candidate they fell will best benefit their members once elected. They are not allowed to campaign among the general population for a candidate, famously unions ‘get out the vote’ amongst their own members for a candidate and they generally do so for a candidate who they think will help them economically when elected.
Not quite the same as a church leader capriciously selecting a candidate and using money which was donated for charitable reasons to fly around the country endorsing that candidate and trying to persuade all and sundry to vote for that candidate. But hey, this is somewhat subtle so I doubt you’ll get it. Maybe you should go back to ranting about abortion, you seem to enjoy that.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:08 am
I have ONLY insulted in direct response to a post where I was insulted. Once a liberal gets threatened intellectually here, they result to insults. Don’t expect me to not escalate.
I saw no attacks on southerner when he insulted me - not ONE.
LiberalMind - not right now, I’m with southerners mother.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:17 am
And Southerner - YOU make the distinction between a union and a church. I do not. I see two different kind of organizations who take money from members. I see one type restricted form political endorsements, and the other not restricted.
Obviously, under current laws and regulations, this is permitted. But it sure looks to me like an unConstitutional restriction of speech on one group where another is NOT restricted. And big surprise, churches generally (though certainly not always) lean conservative and Unions don’t. Go figure.
I understand your reasoning - and FYI - you have NOT explained why the unions get this treatment, only that they do. You do that a lot, say you’ve explained something when you haven’t. But how does working for the economic benefit of it’s members differ from the working towards the ethical and moral beliefs of a church? FYI, religion is actually Constitutionally protected. “work(ing) collectively for the economic good of their members.” is not.
So we have a a group of liberal leaning organizations who can make ads, donate to politicians, and endorse whoever they want. Their proceeds are tax free and their source of money is tax free. YET, another group of organizations who are charged with the spiritual and emotional welfare of their members may NOT participate in these very same activities without being stripped of their tax status.
So you think you explained why. But you didn’t really explain why one group should get treated differently than another,
Man - YOU are the slow learner here.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:20 am
Oh, and I reject your choice of the word “capriciously” as being uncalled for and extremely biased. Churches make choices based upon their interests and belief systems just as unions do. Just as anyone does.
Don’t transfer your inner hatred onto someone else.
And I’ll stay away from the insults if you do.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:28 am
And we’re playing Frisbee, what did you think I meant? Gutter brains.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:29 am
Bed now, my lack of immediate reply does not mean I cede your point.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:32 am
Wow, how tedious. You really seem to have comprehension problems Kahn. I’m not going to baby feed you this time, read my post #175 again and see if you can figure out why what you’ve written above is not actually true. I’m sure that if you apply yourself you’ll be able to do it all on your ownsome. Come on now little boy, you can do it! Yay for the special kid!
March 1st, 2008 at 2:33 am
PS Kahn - If you don’t want to be ‘insulted’ ie have your intelligence called in to question then stopping making such stupid posts.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:46 am
There ya go southerner, showing your total lack of class. I only respond to your insults. I offer to stop. But you just can’t. At this point, I guess we’d have to come across the table at each other. What with liberals all peace loving and all, I bet your fists would be a flailin’.
You don’t really explain why one group should get special treatment at all. You definition would fit a bank, or a credit union - wouldn’t it? Why would Unions, of all organizations be able to stay tax exempt while being political?
Your immediate resort to insults just proves that you can’t handle an argument.
The unions were written into the 501C law by Democrats precisely because they are left leaning political organizations. That’s one of the reasons we opposed those laws. GET IT? You people rig the system.
Its not that I can’t read your pathetic attempt to explain it. I can read it fine. I just understand that its wrong and you miss the point.
Here are your buddies out in Berkeley -
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=55464
Off topic? Well, it expalins how you guys think and act.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:49 am
Hey look, I managed to post another correctly working link. That way I don’t need to falsly insult someone for not being able to make it work.
Hmmmm, who did THAT tonight? It was someone with an enormous liberal head. Hmmm, who was it?
March 1st, 2008 at 2:55 am
Not that the history of the year 501 wasn’t interesting. Fascinating in fact.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:57 am
Willem,
Actually, it is my view that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capitol of the State of Israel…furthermore, as Moslems in the West Bank and Gaza have routinely proven their willingness to desecrate Christian and Jewish religious sites, I want very much for all non-Moslem religious sites in the West Bank and Gaza to be under Israeli stewardship.
And, finally, if it comes about that the Palestinian leadership remains intractable and is is unwilling or incapable of stopping terrorist attacks on Israel, then we might have to go about helping Israel to re-occupy the West Bank and Gaza just to restore order.
I put this out there for you to understand that my primary complaint with Hagee is his anti-Catholicism - it is foolish of him to indulge in such a thing; it insults Catholics, wrecks the Christian unity Our Lord commanded and merely plays into the hands of those who bear all religion ill will. As for Hagee’s “end times” views - well, he’s flat wrong on his manner of doing that as even Our Lord doesn’t know when that will come, but only the Father.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:04 am
Mark,
I apologize for some of tonights posts. I was having way too much fun.
By the way, like the Berkeley video? Thats who we post against here.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:08 am
Diana,
A hundred million homes? Errrmm…that would be just about all of them, I’d think…might be that your exaggerating a bit?
As it is, I had never heard of Hagee until January of this year - when Huckabee decided to give a sermon at his place. Once advised of who Hagee was and what he believed, I wrote a post urging Huckabee to reconsider what he did. When I heard that McCain had been endorsed by Hagee, I was saddened and disturbed, but I also know from the past that McCain is a friend of Catholics and bears no ill will towards the Church - thus, the explanation for McCain’s acceptance of Hagee’s endorsement must lie outside Hagee’s views on Catholicism.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:10 am
Kahn,
Well, the cats were away and the mice got to play quite a bit today - as Matt and I routinely point out, we do have lives outside of blogging, and we can’t monitor the blog every minute of the day. Our hope, however, is that by our hitting off topic comments on a regular basis that the people who make them will grab a clue and stop doing it - our theory on this stems from our understanding that some lefties are sent out from leftwing blogs in order to disrupt the comments on conservative blogs; its impossible to tell who is just an obtuse lefty and who is an obtuse lefty on a mission, but we have had some success in weeding out the worst offenders.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:22 am
Mark
Even when it goes against the wishes of the majority of Israel? Why do you think opinion polls in Israel show that Hillary is BY FAR the most preferred for US President? 60%. Second is Obama with 20%. Democrats are favoured by 80% precent of Israel.
McCain is third and favoured by only the extreme conservatives in Israel.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:25 am
Dont you hate it when folks cite unconfirmable polls and think they are actually making a point?
March 1st, 2008 at 8:30 am
Kahn,
“Fair enough. On what day and at what hour of the pregnancy does the fetus stop being part of the womans body and start being and individual person?”
Quite obviously, that would be on the day day that the baby is BORN, being, you know, that we celebrate a person’s BIRTHday and not their CONCEPTIONday.
An existing woman’s body is more important than the life of a person who does not yet exist. You can call it whatever you want. I call it bodily autonomy.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:39 am
I think it’s amusing that the liberals here, many of whom are not Christian, and who have mocked Mark and other Christians on this site are all of a sudden
concerned and upset …..
That McCain accepted an endorsement by someone who is anti-Catholic. They call Hagee a “religious bigot” when many of them are just that as well.
It’s the hypocrisy you know! (this like is sarcasm)
(This does not mean I support everything Hagee says and does.)
March 1st, 2008 at 10:06 am
Mark,
So, the fact that Senator McCain gave a speech in 2000 that explicitly and vigorously condemned people like John Hagee, saying that they bring “shame” on the Republican Party, but in 2008 actively courts them is of no moment? Did you ever use the term flip-flop in reference to Senator Kerry?
As to the almost 100 million homes figure, I’m sure that’s the number of homes that the networks and cable operators that carry any of John Hagee’s broadcasts connect to. I’m sure the number of viewers is orders of magnitude smaller. However, the breadth and reach of this Catholic-hater’s views are far less of note than the fact that allegedly people at Blogs For Victo(r)y prefer to stand on principle but will give the presumptive Republican nominee lots of leeway to violate his own stated principles.
So far, that’s John McCain’s pattern. He told the San Francisco Chronicle in 1999 that he wouldn’t support the repeal of Roe v. Wade then reversed himself within days. He was grotesquely smeared in 2000 in South Carolina with the “black daughter born out of wedlock” story and came to embrace the group that was, at minimum, the inspiration for the smear. He’s said, with more moral authority than anyone in Congress, about waterboarding that “it is torture” and yet voted against decisively preventing its future use. Now, he’s very proud to be endorsed by someone that he implicitly denounced in 2000.
Senator John McCain, personally ambitious and constant in his inconstancy. However, I will take him on his words in 2000. His actions reference to John Hagee have brought shame on his faith, his party and his nation.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am
The courts have determined that a fetus is indeed a person. Look at the cases in which a criminal has been charged with murder when a pregnant mother has lost her baby because of his crime!
The Peterson case comes to mind.
Liberals love passing laws protecting the breeding grounds and nesting areas of animals. Based on their logic, they should not be afforded the protection because they are not animals until they are hatched.
Liberals want to live freely from responsibility. They want all the joys of life free from bad choices and irresponsible behavior.
When a politician runs for office, he/she must past the abortion litmus test before he/she is even considered by Democrats.
Truly sad that the most innocent must pay the price for their lack of judgement.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Kahn,
I am opposed to the murder of babies. I reject your insinuation that I support such barbarism.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Are we going to let McCain in the Whitehouse? McCain, who listens to the advice of a fanatically suicidal fundamentalist. A man who has openly said that he wants to hasten the end of the world.
Is this the type of person who McCain will be taking advice from?
March 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
So, just to clarify. Do you think that Armageddon is “what’s best for American and the world”, Mark? Cause that is what Hagee and his supporters want. But hey, as long as McCain distances himself from Hagee’s rampant anti-Catholicism (without actually, ya know, refusing the endorsement), then everyting is fine with you.
What hoops you are jumping through these days Mark.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Hey JD - well Amanda just wrote “Quite obviously, that would be on the day day that the baby is BORN, being, you know, that we celebrate a person’s BIRTHday”. So as far as she’s concerned you could abort a baby on the way to the hospital.
Did you not realize that this was the view of some people on your side?
Her test is pretty basic. Not like the consciousness argument or the able-to-survive-on-its-own argument. Just about the most ruthless and cold hearted view you can have actually. But it is a valid view as are all others. Its just that her view can’t be proven - just as none of the others can.
But if YOU support people who support abortion, then yah, you support baby murders. Sorry. But you do.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Armageddon is not even in MY bible.
Southerner, do you actually have a copy of the Bible? Which one? The Catholic Bible doesn’t have Revelations…
NOT can you look it up on the Internet, do YOU have a bible?
March 1st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Diana,
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - life isn’t consistent. Get used to the rough and tumble.
What this boils down to is my conviction, based on the past, that John McCain is a good friend of Catholics and ardently supports the Judeo-Christian worldview - given this, it seems certain to me that McCain simply must not have known about Hagee’s more screwy and/or bigoted views. I don’t work from the assumption that a person is dishonorable - in fact, I can’t do so - I’m a Christian.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Kahn,
Oh dear, oh dear.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Kahn,
Well, actually, Revelation is in the Catholic bible.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/#revelation
If we wish to get into the theology of Hagee and what its all about - some of our Protestant brothers and sisters spend, in my view, an inordinant amount of time concerned about the End Times - to me, other than a general desire to have already gone home before it happens, its just not that important in the day to day of life. If Our Lord returns this evening, it is my job to be ready for it - not worry about when, exactly, it might happen.
As for why Hagee and others choose to concentrate on such things - the difference is that between “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Matt 22:36-39) and He cried out in a mighty voice: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great. She has become a haunt for demons. She is a cage for every unclean spirit, a cage for every unclean bird, (a cage for every unclean) and disgusting (beast). For all the nations have drunk the wine of her licentious passion. The kings of the earth had intercourse with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her drive for luxury.” (Rev 18:2-3) - which is the same reason a newspaper will prefer “We’re All Gonna Die!” to “Everything’s Hunkey-Dorey”…there’s just more fascination for the foolhardy in the macabre. Teaching people to love is sometimes a lot harder than scaring them.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Deleted - point already made by commenter without insults.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:41 pm
southerner,
Hoops? Perhaps - but in contrast to you, when someone on my side makes a mistake, I call it such - McCain made a msitake in accepting Hagee’s endorsement; he should have researched a bit more before accepting. Meanwhile, Obama is hip deep in Rezko and you on the left can’t find one thing wrong with it…
March 1st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Mark,
Blah, blah, blah. The fact is you’re happy to go along with a candidate who had Hagee introduce him at campaign events:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=5ca47a36-c7d8-4cf4-8451-0390c4581916
McCain is “honored” and “proud” of this wacko’s endorsement and has even breakfasted with him to discuss foreign policy. What sort of conversation was that? Should we bomb Iran first or maybe smite all the Palestinians into the sea?
Hagee is a complete jerk, he takes home over $1 million per year from his ministry tax free and makes his money from preaching hate and Armageddon.
Honestly, if Obama had accepted an endorsement from this guy you would be posting videos right and left to show what a wingnut he is instead of censoring the ones I posted yesterday. Your double standards are amazing, as is Kahn’s knowledge of the religion he claims to follow.
And about Kahn’s rather spectacular mistake above, I pointed out that The Book of Revelation is in ALL versions of the Bible which contain the New Testament, not just the Cathlic Bible as you mentioned. Don’t you think its reasonable to say that someone who goes on and on about their religion as much as he does and yet doesn’t have a basic knowledge of the New Testament is a hypocrite?
March 1st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
southerner,
And as I said before - that video is from September, and at that point I wouldn’t have known Hagee from Adam, and listening to the intro you get absolutely ZERO indication of Hagee’s views on Catholics or Revelations.
You’re an extraordinarily mean spirited person, southerner.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
What the hell has the fact that the video comes from September to do with this? Did these revelations about Hagee’s bigotry only surface since September? Was John McCain not a presidential candidate in September?
You might not have known Hagee from Adam at this point but the fact is Hagee is one of the best known televangelists in America. He is CEO of John Hagee Ministries which telecasts his national radio and television ministry on 160 TV stations, fifty radio stations and eight networks including The Inspiration Network (INSP) and Trinity Broadcasting Network.
The San Antonio Express-News reported that, in 2001 alone, John Hagee had received over 1.25 million dollars in total compensation for his position as CEO at his non-profit corporation, Global Evangelism Television (GETV). This made him one of the highest-paid televangelists in 2001.
Yet you wouldn’t ‘know him from Adam’? Fine, so that makes his bigotry and John McCain’s acceptance of his support A-okay?
And somehow pointing all this out to you makes me “an incredibly mean spirited person”.
Oy ve.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
southerner,
The meaness in you is in not being generous to your fellow human beings.
That aside - I know of a quite a few Evangelical leaders, some of whom I hold in very high regard as to the moral message they preach and their great learning vis a vis the Bible - some of whom I have far less respect for. Such as I know, good, bad and indifferent, are:
Billy Graham, Charles Colson, Chuck Swindoll, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Luis Palau, Ann Graham Lotts, Max Lucado, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, T.D. Jakes…
There are probably others which just don’t come to mind…but amongst this list there isn’t Hagee - if he’s really one of the best known Evangelicals, then he’s somehow managed to escape my notice, even though I pay a great deal of attention to the Evangelical community…
March 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Mark,
For someone who is so prompt about deleting messages from posters you don’t like for being ‘off topic’, you really seem to be having a hard time sticking to the subject in question.
I have raised, repeatedly, in posts above concerns about John McCain taking foreign policy advice from a man who is intent upon hastening Armageddon. And you have repeatedly ignored that concern, instead you’ve decided to go off on a little homily about how much you admire certain Evangelicals. Honestly, who cares? Why can’t you address the serious points raised above. I guess you just don’t want to.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Deleted - off topic.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Southerner,
Your last comment was all about how big a person Hagee is - with the implication that I, or McCain, must have known about him and his views. I advised you that claims of Hagee being well known are likely exaggerated. You, boxed into a corner, have chosen to pretend you didn’t go on about how big a person Hagee is, and are now insultingly saying that I’m not sticking to the subject at hand.
As I said, you are a very mean spirited person.
That aside…
I doubt that McCain has received any advice on foreign policy from Hagee…
March 1st, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Well, hey, I posted this days ago and it was promptly deleted. I’m impressed that you chose to face this dragon, and spin it a best as possible.
McCain says he doesn’t agree with EVERYTHING Hagee says, which is akin to claiming Kim Jong Il likes Bugs Bunny, so he’s not all bad.
Even I don’t consider the Catholic Church “a whore” or “the anti-Christ.” Hagee doesn’t leave any room for doubt that he find Catholics vile and disgusting, though, and McCain doesn’t need that kind of “support.”
Or does he?
Kudo’s, though, for not hiding from this one.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Mark. Do you know Michel Sabbah, the Latin Patriarch and Archbishop of Jerusalem? He was selected by Pope John Paul II as the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, the highest-ranking Roman Catholic cleric in the Holy Land.
Do you think his views, as Roman Catholic Archbishop, have some merits regarding the Israel-Palestine situation, as a Christian, a Catholic, and as an inhabitant of the Holy Land?
Then please read his “Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism“
March 1st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Willem,
A correct statement, as far as it goes, but it does fail to address the very real fact that it is mostly from Hamas where we get an intransigent insistence upon continued warfare. The Christian Zionists, so-called, aren’t helpful, but Hamas is downright harmful - Christian Zionists aren’t lobbing missiles into Gaza, Hamas is lobbing missiles from Gaza into Israel.
The Church in the Palestinian Authority has to tread a very fine line - keeping in mind that the Hamas types have shown themselves more than willing to murder Christians who get out of line, as well as being more than willing to desecrate Christian holy places. Under the gun of the terrorists the Church in the Palestinian Authority has to carefully craft its statements in order to get the truth out with the least chance of harming the Christian community.
But you will note that the crux of the matter is thusly stated:
Suffering under militarism - as Israel isn’t occupied, then what the Israelis are suffering form is militarism…read between the lines, this is Israelis suffering under the militarism of Hamas and other terrorist groups. We are to pray that both the occuption and the militarism come to an end - and, indeed, this is the only way for peace to be established.
Also, it should be noted that the statement very clearly explains why groups concerned with the End Times are off the mark - because we Christians are called by God, today, to do what needs to be done…not to worry about an event which, when it comes, will come when God wills it, so no sense concerning ourselves as to precisely when it will arrive.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Nope, I demonstrated above that Hagee is one of the best known Evangelicls in the US, why do you think McCain is so eager to have his support? You just outright ignored all the information I gave you and started spouting about how fine a different bunch of Evangelicals that you know about are. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn’t take away from the fact that McCain has met with this guy REPEATEDLY and refuses to repudiate his wacko support. I wouldn’t say you have me ‘boxed in to a corner’ by a long stretch Mark. I’d say that YOU are jumping through increasingly ridiculous hoops instead.
Also, still no response to the idea that McCain is discussing foreign policy with a guy who is intent upon ushering in Armageddon at the first possible instant, I note.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Mark oozes the milk of human kindness and genteel forgiveness for the Republican Party’s presumed nominee while proffering imagined scenarios about how unaware of John Hagee’s views that Senator McCain must have been. Okay, Mark. Hypothetically, let’s say that until two days ago Senator McCain and his staff had no idea that Hagee is a Catholic-hater (what Senator McCain has called an agent of intolerance) despite their history with him. However, they don’t have that luxury any more.
So, what does a man of integrity, a man whose own words were extremely clear in 2000, do? Does he just think, as you offer, “Oh, well, it would be a ‘foolish consistency’ to follow my own idea that hating Catholics brings shame on my faith, my party and my nation so I’ll just say I’m proud to be endorsed by a religious bigot even if I don’t agree with everything he says.” Perhaps a man of integrity would pay the political price of saying that he cannot accept the endorsement of someone who espouses a hatred of a particular religious group? Mark says it would be the former. You do sell integrity off at bargain basement prices, don’t you?
March 1st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
This cached copy of Blogsforbush 12 October 2007 comments field:
Watch the Glenn Beck program at 6 pm on CNN. Glenn Beck interviews Pastor John Hagee for the full hour about the End Times. I agree with Pastor John Hagee. I believe we are living in the End Times. Watch Glenn Beck’s interview with Hagee tonight at 6 pm PST or 9pm PST.
If you haven’t done so already, convert to Christianity. Accept and believe in God and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior!
:)
Posted by: Freedom1 at October 12, 2007 08:27 PM
Freedom,
Just to be sure we’re on the same page - you’re sure we’re in the End Times, right?
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 12, 2007 08:56 PM
March 1st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Well, that would seem to be a nail in the coffin of Mark’s claim in Comment # 188, “As it is, I had never heard of Hagee until January of this year - when Huckabee decided to give a sermon at his place.” In Mark’s defense, however, he may not have even paid attention to Hagee’s name and instead focused on the End Times reference.
March 1st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Mark: Your last comment was all about how big a person Hagee is - with the implication that I, or McCain, must have known about him and his views. I advised you that claims of Hagee being well known are likely exaggerated.
Google [John McCain John Hagee 2007]. It’s pretty clear McCain and Hagee are not strangers. That part of your argument if false. Whether you are familiar with Hagee is irrelevant.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Kahn -
I do not support people who support abortion. I get the impression from my learnings about Jesus that He would not support those who support abortion either. I consider myself to be a follow of Jesus and His teachings.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
This rant is still going on? Wow.
March 1st, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Try this out for size.
http://www.jobberonline.biz/Prophecy.html
March 1st, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Matthew 24:36 - ‘But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.’
–Jeremiah–
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 am
Dan 12:8-13
8And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
10Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
11And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. 13But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 am
222. RALPH | March 1st, 2008 at 10:42 pm
And I thought Jeremiah and js were the religious nuts around these parts……..
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 am
Most simple minded people dont grasp the meanings of the Spirit because they live for the flesh.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 am
Re: 218. Pain | March 1st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Pain, I’m glad you took note (but you should have included the link to Billy Graham!). For the record, I don’t know much about Pastor Hagee (I had only heard one or two of his sermons, and had no idea he didn’t like Catholism), but I really do believe that we are in the End Times. As Matthew 24:36 says -
We will not know the day or the hour - only God knows that - but we will see the signs and know the season.
One Christian pastor I do know well is Billy Graham, and he has been saying for a while that we are in the season of the End Times. Don’t wait, the Bible does not promise anyone tomorrow, accept Christ, today!
Steps To Peace With God
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 am
Mark Noonan:
Mark, I suppose that might be true for some Protestant Churches, but the ones I’m familiar with (really familiar with) discuss the End Times infrequently. For example, my local church has had only one series of sermons on Revelation in the last 5 years, IIRC. Other preachers like Billy Graham give the occasion sermon on the End Times. They don’t dwell on it, but to ignore it is not wise, either.
But, Mark, you as a Christian already have Salvation. Isn’t it also your job (and our job as Christians) to help Save others before the Second Coming? That’s why it’s important to be aware of how short our time is…to spur us to help others come to know Jesus Christ.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:13 am
Freedom,
Indeed, we are all to help each other on the journey home - but we Catholics do, after all, hold to a slightly different view of salvation than Protestants; boiled down, we take Paul’s word for it:
One way we formulate it is that we are being saved, we are saved, we will be saved - understanding that God isn’t limited to our timeframe and our salvation isn’t “poof” and done, but a process whereby we ever more carefully follow God’s plan in our lives with a mind towards being with Him for eternity.
So, I do hold that it is my job to be ready - to not, as it were, be caught in the arms of mammon when Our Lord returns.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:06 am
Mark,
I think we are discussing 2 different points. As to the first point- Salvation - as Protestants we believe…
Our good works as Christians demonstrate our faith.
The second (main) point I was trying to get across, is that it is very important to try to share the Gospel with everyone…before it’s too late for them.
As Protestants or Catholics, we need to realize that time is short for people. A person can slip in the shower and die tomorrow morning, get killed in a car crash, or - since only God knows when- the End can and will come like a thief in the night. Since the End can come at any time, it’s important to act like we have very little time left. If a person dies without God and the Lord Jesus Christ, that person is eternally separated from God and Heaven. That’s a terrible thing.
I think it’s urgent to help people, today -right now! - to come to know Jesus. Then, they will be prepared for death whenever that happens and know that when they die they will be in Heaven with Almighty God - The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. :)
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Amen, Freedom1.
As the days draw closer to the end, just as the prophecy of Isaiah were made and Jesus reiterated upon them -
Jesus considered earthly morals evil when He spoke at the Sermon on the Mount -
In verse 21 He says:
Thus, it can be said, ‘Faith without works is dead’ meaning Faith without obedience to what the Word says is of no value to ones Eternal Soul. Which may also be tied in with Ephesians 2:8-9 which says that works alone is useless.
They both tie together.
–Jeremiah–
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Mark,
I’m hoping you can help me out with this one.
How do you recommend reconciling the disconnect between what Christ teaches and John McCain’s personal life?
I have loads of admiration for Senator McCain for so many things he has done for this country in combat and in Congress. That said, though, Christ is explicit that relations after a divorce, or with a divorcee, amount to adultery, and, of course, we all know how God feels about Adultery.
It would not bother as much if I did not put in context. As I understand it, he had a child with his first wife and adopted her two children before he left for Vietnam. (We all know what happened to Senator McCain, and my understanding is that his wife was [permanenty?] paralyzed during this time following a car accident.)
Anway, the two things I cannot shake are, first, that his wife waited faithfully for six years for him to return only to have him cheat on her. And, two, do you think he was wearing his wedding ring on the night he met Cindy?
Any insight might help me from sitting this one out this year. Thanks.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I should say that my question is really open to anyone who can help. Thanks.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 am
Sam,
What do you want me to say? That McCain has sinned in his life? He sure has - but those issues are between him and God, and what reconciliation he’s done with his ex-wife and with God is something I cannot judge.