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.
Blogs For Victory 
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?
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–
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–
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?