John McCain, Hagee and Catholics
February 29th, 2008 at 11:46am Mark Noonan
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.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Religion, Republicans
235 Comments
1. southerner | 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
2. Amanda | 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.
3. southerner | 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 -
4. southerner | 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.”
5. slaw | 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.
6. southerner | 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.
7. southerner | 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.
8. OhioOrrin | 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.
9. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
First Jesus Camp now this?
What has happened to republicans?
10. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | 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.
11. js | 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.
12. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 29th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Js-
He wants to play than he must pay. No more free rides for Mr. Hagee.
13. southerner | 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.
14. Kahn | 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.
15. js | 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.
16. southerner | 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?
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. Your posts read like they are written by a barely literate 14 year old with absolutely zero sense of the history of this nation.
18. js | 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?
19. js | 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.
20. Diana Powe | 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?
21. Jeremiah | February 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Here’s another, California just signed SB 777 into law.
Bad news all over the place.
–Jeremiah–
22. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | 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.
23. southerner | 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.
24. 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.
25. Jeremiah | 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–
26. Diana Powe | 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.
27. Diana Powe | 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?
28. js | 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.
29. Some Assembly Required | 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.
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. 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.
31. Jeremiah | 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–
32. Some Assembly Required | 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.
33. southerner | 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.
34. southerner | 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?
35. plainjane | 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.
36. southerner | February 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Deleted - this blog won’t link directly to bigoted statements.
37. southerner | February 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Deleted - this blog won’t link directly to bigoted statements.
38. southerner | February 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Deleted - off topic
39. southerner | February 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Deleted - complains about comment policy.
40. Mark Noonan | 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.
41. Mark Noonan | 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.
42. Amanda | 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?
43. js | 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).
44. Some Assembly Required | 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)
45. js | February 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
welll….
Ralph is running…wonder if this will help him?
46. southerner | 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.
47. Diana Powe | 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.
48. Jeremiah | 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–
49. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | 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. :-)
50. Kahn | 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?
51. southerner | 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?
52. Diana Powe | 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.
53. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | 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.
54. Kahn | 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.
55. southerner | 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
56. searp | 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.
57. Kahn | 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.
58. Amanda | 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.
59. 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.
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.
60. Pain | February 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
kahn,
Do you think all abortion doctors are Democrats?
61. Amanda | 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.
62. Diana Powe | 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.
63. southerner | 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.
64. Diana Powe | 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?
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?
66. Tractatus | 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?
67. Sunny | 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.
68. Retired Spook | 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.”
69. Diana Powe | 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?
70. Casper | 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.
71. southerner | 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!
72. Diana Powe | 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.
73. bongoman | 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?
74. Jeremiah | 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–
75. 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–
76. Retired Spook | 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.
77. Kahn | 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.
78. Joe | 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.
79. southerner | 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
80. Kahn | 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?
81. Kahn | 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?
82. southerner | 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
83. Kahn | 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?
84. Canadian Observer | 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.
85. southerner | 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.
86. Diana Powe | 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.
87. Kahn | 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.
88. Kahn | 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.
89. JD | 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.
90. Kahn | 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.
91. southerner | 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)
92. Kahn | 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.
93. southerner | 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.
94. Diana Powe | 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!
95. southerner | 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.
96. Kahn | 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?
97. clark smith | 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.
98. Diana Powe | 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.
99. southerner | 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.
100. southerner | 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.
101. Jonathan | 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.
102. Jonathan | 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.
103. Kahn | 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.
104. Kahn | 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.
105. bongoman | 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:
106. Southerner | 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.
107. Max Power | February 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Ha!
108. bongoman | 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.
109. Diana Powe | 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.
110. bongoman | 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.
111. Michael | 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
112. Jeremiah | 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–
113. Almiranta | 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.
114. bongoman | 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.
115. Southerner | 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?
116. Diana Powe | 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.
117. Eric T | 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…
118. Michael | 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?
119. clark smith | 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.
120. Eric T | 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..
121. Diana Powe | 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?
122. Jeremiah | 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–
123. bongoman | 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.
124. js | 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”.
125. southerner | 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.
126. Kahn | 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.
127. southerner | February 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“…many Christians have been an ‘embarassment’ to the GOP” - Jeremiah
Oh the irony…. ;)
128. Diana Powe | 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.
129. southerner | 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.
130. Kahn | 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.
131. Kahn | 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?
132. js | 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
133. Jeremiah | 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–
134. js | 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.
135. Diana Powe | 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.
136. js | February 29th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
24 weeks, the child responds to pain. Tha