Will MSNBC devote as much coverage to McCain's embrace of Hagee's support as it did to Obama's rejection of Farrakhan?
SUMMARY: On February 27, MSNBC devoted significant coverage to an exchange from the most recent Democratic presidential debate in which NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert repeatedly questioned Sen. Barack Obama about praise he received from controversial minister Louis Farrakhan, whose statements Obama has denounced. The same day, Pastor John Hagee -- who has made controversial comments about homosexuality, Islam, Catholicism, and women -- endorsed Sen. John McCain, who embraced Hagee's support. Hagee's endorsement and McCain's response to it raise the question of whether MSNBC will report on them as extensively as it did on Farrakhan's praise.
On at least nine* different occasions on February 27, MSNBC either aired or discussed an exchange from the February 26 Democratic presidential debate in which moderator Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief, repeatedly questioned Sen. Barack Obama about controversial minister Louis Farrakhan, whose statements Obama had previously denounced and whose support Obama said during the debate he "would reject and denounce." Among those instances, MSNBC's Monica Novotny said, "NBC's Tim Russert introduced a new topic into the debate last night, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan"; Mika Brzezinski asserted that Obama had been "put on the spot a little bit"; and Willie Geist said that the exchange "could have been an ugly issue for him, because as Tim Russert said, Minister Farrakhan is someone who's called Judaism a 'gutter religion.' Do you really want this guy on your team?" Also on February 27, John Hagee, founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas --who has made numerous controversial statements about, among other things, homosexuality, Islam, Catholicism, and women -- endorsed Sen. John McCain for president. Following Hagee's endorsement, McCain said, "All I can tell you is I'm very proud to have pastor Hagee's support." The endorsement and McCain's embrace of it raise the question of whether MSNBC will devote coverage to them comparable to its coverage of the Farrakhan issue.
On the September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio's Fresh Air, host Terry Gross said to Hagee, "You said after Hurricane Katrina that it was an act of God, and you said 'when you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn.' " She then asked, "Do you still think that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that's becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?" Hagee responded:
HAGEE: 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 are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. 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 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 that 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.
Earlier in the program, Gross asked if Hagee believed that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," to which Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly."
A March 7, 1996, article (accessed via the Nexis database) in the San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported:
Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a "slave sale" to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, "The Cluster."
The item was introduced with the sentence "Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave."
A July 27, 2006, Wall Street Journal article about Hagee noted the incident:
To help students seeking odd jobs, his church newsletter, The Cluster, advertised a "slave" sale. "Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone," it said. "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." Mr. Hagee apologized but, in a radio interview, protested about pressure to be "politically correct" and joked that perhaps his pet dog should be called a "canine American."
A December 23, 2007, Reuters news article on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) visit to Hagee's church reported that "some Catholics were angry about the visit." The article noted:
In his recent book "Jerusalem Countdown," Hagee wrote: "Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews."
On February 28, Michael D. Shear reported at the washingtonpost.com election blog The Trail that Catholic League President Bill Donohue (himself a controversial figure) "today blasted Sen. John McCain for accepting the endorsement of Texas evangelicalist John Hagee, calling the controversial pastor a bigot who has 'waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church.' " Shear also reported that Donohue said: "Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee."
Additionally, investigative journalist Sarah Posner noted in God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters (PoliPointPress, January 2008) that in his book What Every Man Wants in a Woman (Charisma House, 2005), Hagee wrote:
Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist.
Posner also noted that in another Hagee text, "Bible Positions on Political Issues," (John Hagee Ministries, 1992) Hagee wrote, "[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family."
From the September 18, 2006, edition of NPR's Fresh Air:
GROSS: Pastor Hagee, if you believe that the Bible takes precedence over Washington, D.C., I would assume maybe you'd think the Bible takes precedence over the Israeli government as well. If you use the Bible as the basis of policy, is there any room for compromise? And if you use the Bible as the basis for policy, then should Muslims be using the Quran as the basis of their policy? And again, what possible room for compromise is there at that point?
HAGEE: There's really no room for compromise between radical Islam and --
GROSS: I'm not talking about radical Islam. I'm just talking about Islam in general.
HAGEE: Well, Islam in general, those who live by the Quran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews. Now, I had an Islamic on my television show last week. His name was Walid Shoebat. He was raised as a Palestinian terrorist and at one time was -- placed a bomb and was supposed to walk into a bank. And I said, "Walid, I'm trying to understand the definition of what is a radical Islamic person, because I've read many books, many magazines and I can't come up with a good definition of what constitutes a radical Islamic." And he says these words, and I'll quote them, he said, "Anyone who truly believes the Quran is willing to kill Christians or Jews. That's waging jihad." He said, "Now, those people who are willing to go into another country and start a war will only be about 15 to 20 percent of Islam."
There are 1.3 billion people who follow the Islamic faith, so if you're saying there's only 15 percent that want to come to America or invade Israel to crush it, you're only talking about 200 million people. That's far more than Hitler and Japan and Italy and all of the axis powers in World War II had under arms. That is a massive number of people. So while we may define radical Islam as a minority, because there are so many, it is still an overpowering military potential.
GROSS: But what you said is that all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews. Do you believe that?
HAGEE: Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly.
[...]
GROSS: I just want to ask you one question based on one of your sermons that -- and this isn't about Israel. You said after Hurricane Katrina that it was an act of God, and you said "when you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn." Do you still think that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that's becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?
HAGEE: 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 are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. 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 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 that 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.
GROSS: So I know you're very opposed to homosexuality, but you think that the whole city was punished because of things like the forthcoming Gay Pride parade.
HAGEE: This is true. All of the city was punished because of the sin that happened there in that city.
From the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
WILLIE GEIST (co-host): One of the other somewhat fiery moments last night was the issue of Louis Farrakhan.
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, there is a guy whose endorsement I want.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, yeah!
GEIST: They talked about Louis Farrakhan at this big important debate for about 10 minutes. It was incredible. So, Farrakhan announced his support for Barack Obama, and Barack Obama was asked whether he accepted it, whether he rejected it, or denounced it. So then we got into a semantic argument about the definition of "is" is --
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, boy.
GEIST: -- but what's the definition of "denounce" and "reject." Here's some of that exchange.
[begin video clip]
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
CLINTON: No, I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it, and there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting.
[...]
OBAMA: I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it, but if the word "reject," Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.
[end video clip]
JOE SCARBOROUGH: OK.
BRZEZINSKI: OK, you're right about --
SCARBOROUGH: I mean as far as style goes, you see him kind of smile. He's like "I don't care. I've won this, so I'll do whatever you want to do. You want me to say it's really, really bad?"
GEIST: That could have been an ugly issue for him, because as Tim Russert said, Minister Farrakhan is someone who's called Judaism a "gutter religion." Do you really want this guy on your team?
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, it's horrible. No, you don't.
GEIST: And at the end, that's the last moment of the argument. You know, he absorbs the blow and sort of turns it around.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the February 27 edition of MSNBC Live:
BRZEZINSKI: Susan, let's take a look back at the debate last night, a moment where he was -- Barack Obama was put on the spot a little bit about his position on support from Louis Farrakhan. Take a listen.
OBAMA [video clip]: I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought and we're not doing anything I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan.
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the February 27 edition of MSNBC Live:
MONICA NOVOTNY: NBC's Tim Russert introduced a new topic into the debate last night, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan. Listen.
[begin video clip]
CLINTON: There's a difference between denouncing and rejecting.
[...]
OBAMA: I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it, but if the word "reject," Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
[end video clip]
NOVOTNY: They're talking about the rejection and/or denouncement of the endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by Louis Farrakhan. Chris Cillizza is a political reporter for the washingtonpost.com, Susan Page, USA Today Washington bureau chief.
* A Media Matters for America review of TV Eyes transcripts for MSNBC on February 27 found at least nine occasions in which the February 26 debate exchange about Farrakhan's support for Obama was discussed.
Will MSNBC devote as much coverage to McCain's embrace of Hagee's support as it did to Obama's rejection of Farrakhan?
Simple answer........ NO!
With the possible exceptions being two of Stephanie Millers future husbands, KO & DA
A little bit about Hagee...
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/15160-pastor-john-hagee-more-dangerous-than-bin-laden
The old man has still got a lot of sucking to do.
I honestly believe this is a taboo subject. Unless an Evangelical preacher is caught in a homosexual act you don't see many stories about them any more. It's not news any more that Evangelicals have moved into the political areana in a big way...it's reality. But the media appear reluctant to delve openly into the way that Evangelicals attempt to impose Biblical beliefs into foreign policy. It's as though the media are afraid to do so out of fear of being accused of being anti-Christian...or even anti-Semitic when you consider the so-called Christian Zionists like Hagee's group.
BTW, isn't Hagee's church a Pentacostal church? Don't they speak in tongues? Wouldn't you love to hear John McCain speak in tongues? George W, Bush already does... ;>)
Isn't it against law now to question evangelicals...
or the military? Is it fascism yet?
That's a classic Cleve...
Funny and chilling at the same time.
Good Point Irony about it being taboo. It seem there is a willingness for some to discuss Obama's church and even Farakhan's andeven Romney's to address the controversial aspects of it and feel free to point out what they consider "hatred" and "bigotry" in them but they really don't pursue those types of stories about evangelical churches. If you are going to start disecting religions and congreagtions then you should do so all around or don't do it at all.
Great work here by Media Matters...
You folks are truly the heart and soul of America. Send this to Timmie. Brilliant contrast! The corporate media will take a powder on this--and their preferred Con will be given a free pass,
The entire liberal blogosphere should focus on this.
Farrakhan: promotes racial/sexual division within communities/nations.
Haggee: promotes his interpretations of God's word.
I think I see the similarities. Christianity promotes equality/responsibility and Islam promotes division/violence. Both 'promote' something.
"Hagee promotes ideas that Iran should be bombed off the map."-Irony
Well no wonder MCCain embraces him then (-;
"The difference between the two, however, is that Farrakhan has little power or influence outside of a small, limited sphere. Hagee's nut case Christian Zionists, being part of the Evangelical movement, can sway elections..... Farrakhan is repugnant and annoying. Hagee and people like him could get us all killed."
What I see you doing is allowing Farrakhan to remain an individual threat, while you group Hagee into a group that you don't like. How bout you stick to the topic; Hagee/Farrakhan?
Farrakhan and people like him will get us all killed more quickly than Hagee and people like him. The evangelical movement may be dangerous in your mind, but the Islamic movement is dangerous in reality and Islam is showing how dangerous they can be daily. How many bombings are attributed to dangerous evangelicals in the last 2 years? Need more time? How about 10 years?
Phil - I count THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS.
The deaths number in the hundreds of thousands. Nice try, though.
Here's a study that is a year and a half old as reported in the Washington Post (so you won't argue about "liberal media sources")...
Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000
...And I'm sure you can add a few to those totals since then!
"I can prove that a few bombs from an bomber dropping 40,000lbs of explosives at a time does a little more damage than a rocket-launched grenade."
Sure you can. But can you prove they were dropped by evangelicals?
"...And I'm sure you can add a few to those totals since then! "
We can add a lot of deaths to those numbers.... al queda has been very busy. But, your article did not differentiate those deaths between whether they were caused by evangelicals or by al queda. If you can get me a link to that information, it would be very helpful.
And that, "my friend", is much more dangerous, in the long run, than the physical threat posed by Al Qaeda.
"No, Christian Reconstructionists don't strap bombs to themselves and blow up people, but they are intent on subverting our Constitution to their interpretation of "God's Law". "
So what you're saying is...? Let me give you a situation, and see if it fits your analogy. A Christian is standing on the street corner handing out Bible tracts to those who will accept them. On these tracts are statements that say "God is the Creator of all things". Across the street on another corner is a terrorist who is shooting people as they pass by if they don't agree to convert to Islam.
Ok, I see how Christian ideals are much more dangerous than any terrorist could be, and that Christianity is subverting our constitution by saying "God" at any given moment. I guess only an idiot would agree the terrorist is more dangerous in that situation.
You, along with others, will lump all Christians into one basket and claim they are all the same. Will you lump Farrakhan and his religion into one basket and make claims that all of Islam is as you believe? I think you will state Farrakhan is an individual who has limited exposure/power and he cannot be as dangerous as Hagee and his followers.
philib: "Farrakhan: promotes racial/sexual division within communities/nations. Haggee: promotes his interpretations of God's word. I think I see the similarities. Christianity promotes equality/responsibility and Islam promotes division/violence. Both 'promote' something. "
How generalized were we getting with statements like: "Isn't it against law now to question evangelicals..." and "or even anti-Semitic when you consider the so-called Christian Zionists like Hagee's group. BTW, isn't Hagee's church a Pentacostal church? ". All made before mine.
Your turn to explain why Islam does not allow segregation of men/women at times. You explain why Islam will put to death a homosexual. You explain why this division/violence is acceptable!
"How generalized were we getting with statements like: "Isn't it against law now to question evangelicals..." and "or even anti-Semitic when you consider the so-called Christian Zionists like Hagee's group. BTW, isn't Hagee's church a Pentacostal church? ". All made before mine."
1) Evangelicals are not ALL Christians. If the statement read: …question Christians or all Christians, then you might have a point.
2) You yourself called Hagee "loonytoons". The second statement was referring to Hagee and his church.. Again, not ALL Christians.
3) We can also cherry pick lines from scripture to show intolernce and divisivness as well. It really serves no purpose.
4) You still haven't addresses the peacful Muslims that live all over the world. How do you account for them? Are they not true Muslims?
The bottom line is this: Both Christianity and Islam are better served if the violent, divissive, and intolerant elements that exisit in the two, are exposed and criticized from WITHIN their respective religions. I do see it happening on both sides, and it gives me hope...
2) Farrakhan was referred to as an individual, Hagee was referred to as 'him and his like'. If there had been an equal comparison I wouldn't have concerned. I don't like the teachings of either one (individually).
3) The extreme teachings of one scripture is creating violent havoc sp? world-wide. The extreme teachings of the other scripture is creating violent havoc .... where?
4) How do you account for the Christians that don't kill abortion doctors?
No. It is not obvious. Let's NOT start mind reading. The charge was that posters previous to you were bashing ALL Christians. I have shown that not to be true. Period.
2) Farrakhan was referred to as an individual, Hagee was referred to as 'him and his like'. If there had been an equal comparison I wouldn't have concerned. I don't like the teachings of either one (individually).
The subject of the thread was McCain and Hagee and if there would be the same kind of scrutiny by the media that Obama got. People in this thread have stated that they do not agree with Farrakhan. Do you honestly believe that because some posters did not explicitly include Farrakhan's followers that some how that gives his followers a free pass. Really??
3) The extreme teachings of one scripture is creating violent havoc sp? world-wide. The extreme teachings of the other scripture is creating violent havoc .... where?
Hagee himself has promoted war with Iran. Wasn't it Pat Robertson that called for the assassination of Chavez? And I know, they or their followers haven’t strapped on a bomb or mowed down a busy market. But, and I did mention this in another post, albeit glibly, what do we make of SOME Christians who support the current policy of war and death???
If I want to kill, does the fact that I hired someone to do it for me make me any less responsible? What about the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. The KKK? They claim to be Christian as well? Which brings me to….
4) How do you account for the Christians that don't kill abortion doctors?
I’m not sure what you're asking of me here. It seems like you want me to acknowledge that most Christians don’t engage in violence. Yes, I agree. I never said ALL Christians did. Isn't it possible that the Islamic extremists don’t represent all of Islam anymore than Hagee or the KKK represent Christians. Any MODERATE Muslim will tell you that. And try to remember that there REALLY ARE liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call them, that are ALSO Christian. Really.
Peace...
"I’m not sure what you're asking of me here. It seems like you want me to acknowledge that most Christians don’t engage in violence. Yes, I agree. I never said ALL Christians did."
I never said all muslims act like terrorists, either. Your question implies I did say that. I simply noticed many liberal posters regularily blame all of Christianity for the faults of a few. This thread included.
I know there are liberal and conservative Christians, each with opposing views on teachings from the same Book. If 'Farrakhan and his ilk' had been said then I would have known blame is on Farrakhan and those who follow him and on Hagee and those who follow him. Instead we get 'Hagee and his ilk' are blamed for faults of Christianity, while Farrakhan is alone responsible for his actions.
So, while McCain is responsible for not only defending himself when a private citizen endorses him, he also is responsible for defending himself from everyone else who follows Hagee. While Obama is only responsible for defending himself when a private citizen endorses him...not those that follow him. Do you understand?
Umm... equality? Sure. As long as you're Christian. And even then, maybe not. There's so much in-fighting among the different sects of Christianity, your statement is hilarious.
Responsibility - like Jesus took responsibility for all your sins, so you don't have to pay for them? That's Ann Coulter's Christianity, in which there is no accountability whatsoever (Jesus already died for my sins, I can do whatever I want!)
Oh, this exchange is just too perfect to let pass without comment.
Conservative: Hagee is promoting "equality/responsibility."
Liberal: Uh, actually he's not, he promoting dangerous divisions, such as here and here.
Conservative: Oh, so you're against responsibility.
This is a particular example of the generalized form:
Wingnut: Bizarre assertion.
Reasonable person: Objection to assertion, with factual support.
Wingnut: Non sequitur accusation.
Arguing with wingers is like trying to have a reasoned conversation about naptime with a 3-year old.
"Wingnut: Bizarre assertion." (terrorists are not dangerous)
"Reasonable person: Objection to assertion, with factual support." (daily news)
"Wingnut: Non sequitur accusation." (well then Christians are dangerous)
My God, larry. You hit that perfectly. I didn't think anyone would agree with me, but I'm glad there is someone. ;)
"(terrorists are not dangerous)"
Who said or even suggested that?
Phil,
In your view, is Hagee's interpretation of God's will correct? Do you think the Nation of Islam promotes tradition Islam?
No
Yes
Phil,
Hagee has a history of bigotry, just like Louis F. does. I think you can agree with me on that point. He has spoken out against homosexuality.
From Wiki:
In his book Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, Hagee interprets the Bible to predict Russia and the Islamic states will invade Israel and be destroyed by God. This will cause the anti-Christ, the head of the European Union, to create a confrontation over Israel between China and the West. A final battle between East and West at Armageddon will then precipitate the Second Coming of Christ.[7] In a discussion concerning Muhammad, he claims Muhammad was a man of war and this influence on Islam is the cause of the troubles of Jerusalem[citation needed].
He seriously condemns the Catholic Church and blames Hitler's ideas on it.
He says this of hurricanes:
"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." [16].
Obama rightly said he didn't seek the endorsement of Louis F. Why is McCain not taking heat for welcoming the endorsement of someone who is arguably equally intolerant?
If you think that Louis F. represents traditional Islam, what do you make of people like Muhammed Ali and countless peace-loving Muslims? Have they misinterpreted the Koran?
Not only that, but here's Catholic apologist Phil Donohue on his take on Hagee's endorsement of McCain.
http://salonmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/mp3s/2008/feb/conversations_donohue.mp3
Tell me something Phil, when you wish the death and destruction of millions of people in order to bring about the apocalypse, are you, in fact, crazy? Or is that just Hagee's interpretation of the Bible?
"Hagee has a history of bigotry, just like Louis F. does. I think you can agree with me on that point. He has spoken out against homosexuality."
Fried, I don't argue the point (and I agree) that both are loonytoons. If you'd kept up with the conversation, you'd know that the claims being made by you liberals are Farrakhan is a nut / Hagee (and every other Christian) is a nut. I have not argued that Hagee isn't a nut, I object to including ALL Christians as being the same as Hagee. When you start argueing that Farrakhan (and every other Muslim) is a nut, like you do with Hagee, then I'll stop my arguement.
Phil,
I have never said that all Christians are nuts. If I have please point it out to me. I am a Christian myself. I am just wondering why MSNBC, which made a huge deal of the Louis F. disavowal is not showing Hagee to be the controversial figure that he is. Further, Obama has repeatedly denounced Louis F. McCain has embraced Hagee's endorsement.
Right now, Obama is getting hammered by the media for Louis F despite denouncing him. McCain is not getting any scrutiny for his embrace of Hagee's endorsement. We have agreed that both Hagee and Louis F. are both loony toons. McCain receives no flak for embracing a loony toon and Obama gets flak for renouncing one. Why?
"I am just wondering why MSNBC, which made a huge deal of the Louis F. disavowal is not showing Hagee to be the controversial figure that he is."
My guess would be because Hagee isn't promoting an ideology that is murdering hundreds of people a day all across the world. Funny thing that it isn't only happening in Iraq/Afghanistan with those people who believe just like Farrakhan. So, it's only proper for demands to be made that Hagee be subject to the same treatment since he also promotes an ideology of division/violence, right?
None of you have really thought this through, have you? Of course Obama will be more scrutinized, he is being endorsed by a radical Islamic ideology and he has a Muslim name. The last thing we need is ANY connection between radical Islam and a candidate for the US presidency. Are you people stupid and just don't understand that?!? MSNBC is doing your party a favor by stressing Obama's disassociation with that group and you people complain!! You even have the gall to demand equal scrutiny of another candidate because he is endorsed by a radical Christian ideology (which everyone knows is out there bombing and killing inocent human beings).
Promotes war with Iran.
Promotes assassination of foreign leaders.
Supports current policy of death in Iraq.
"Farrakhan: promotes racial/sexual division within communities/nations...Haggee: promotes his interpretations of God's word."
It sounds as if an interpretation of God's word can't possibly be inappropriate. If I were to promote a return to slavery and female subjugation, is that acceptable simply because that's my interpretation of God's word?
"Nice selective argument you got going there. It's just Hagee's interpretation but Farrakhan is spreading the undisputed evils of Islam. I didn't realize you were such an expert on the teachings of the Koran."
That's right, you have no idea how much I know about the Quran. It's obviously you have no idea about the Quran. So, my "selective argument" is accurate. Hagee teaches his own version of Christianity and Farrakhan teaches his own version of Islam. It isn't my fault Islam is proving to be the violence promoting religion over and over again.
"but the Islamic movement is dangerous in reality and Islam is showing how dangerous they can be daily."
Make up your mind. Is Islam the problem, or is it Farrakhan's version of it as you state in the post I'm replying to?
"That's right, you have no idea how much I know about the Quran. It's obviously you have no idea about the Quran."
-Philib
So have you read the Qur'an? I have. I also know enough about it to put an apostrophe in-between the r and the a.
Your ignorance is astounding. The Koran is no more violent than the Bible. The Old Testament was basically one war after another of Hebrews fighting other Hebreews and other tribes. A majority of the muslims in the world do not engage in the suicide bombing, if they did we would hear about a lot more casualties than we do. That aside your double standard view of minimizing Hagee's support of McCain and focusing on Farrakhans support of Obama is interesting. What's the difference? Racist views are racist views. Farrakhan may talk a good game, but if he were seriously linked to any muslim terrorist organization, don't you think Uncle Sam would have already arrested him? I thought that's what the Patriot Act is all about. Your problem is you are biased and your so convinced of your own beliefs you can't separate yourself from the issue to see that ignorance is ignorance - black, white, albino, jewish, muslim, christian, atheist, doesn't matter. Ignorance is ignorance. There's no degrees to it. So saying this guys ignorance is worse than that guys ignorance is laughable, as is your arguement.
"The Koran is no more violent than the Bible. The Old Testament was basically one war after another of Hebrews fighting other Hebreews and other tribes."
Since you know about both, please explain to me what Christianity does with non-believers? What does Islam do with non-believers? Then continue telling me that the quran is no more violent than the Bible.
"Farrakhan may talk a good game, but if he were seriously linked to any muslim terrorist organization, don't you think Uncle Sam would have already arrested him?"
Farrakhan is a rasict SOB who teaches hatred of all races other than his own and seperates his group from all others (division/violence). If this wasn't America he would be in jail by now. If I was Obama I would pray the media extensively announces that I don't want a racist endorsing me. Funny thing...you people think the press went too far with a violent faction but not far enough with a peaceful one.
PHILIB: You’re a Christian - I’m an Atheist. I may be in a “minority” but I’m still an American and my views are every bit as “equal” to yours according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Haggee promotes interpretations of YOUR god’s will – just like Farrakhan promotes interpretations of his. Personally, I think they’re both nuts and anyone who believes their drivel is equally insane.
As far as one or the other promoting violence against the other – you’re living in a cave if you think “your side” is innocent. "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" (Ann Coulter) – and there’s plenty more from the ilk of where that came from. The "divine violence" that Haggee preaches in the Rapture fairy tale diminishes the worthiness of every human being who does not fall in line with his fear-mongering teachings. Face reality - and drop the hate of anything non-Christian and you may find life even more rewarding than the fantasy you live in.
This item wasn't posted until 8:30 pm Eastern time.I guess all of the wingnuts have gone to bed. You know, the ones who were so shaken by Obama's failure to reject and denounce Farrakan using the exact words the debate moderator and Clinton demanded he use?
I'll check back in the morning.I'm expecting outrage. ;0)
I guess some hapless intern worked all night removing the wingnut posts because I see nary a one.
More censorship from the worrierking? Keep up the good work. I thought you people welcomed differing view points? I guess saying and doing are two totally different things. Which is expected from liberals. It's common knowledge that liberals express their viewpoints aggressively, but will not DO anything unless the government provides everything for them.
"I guess some hapless intern worked all night removing the wingnut posts because I see nary a one."
I guess we'll never know, since all the posts have been removed (good job worrierking). He's done it before, so it isn't beyond reason he'll do it again. It's nice that liberals claim they promote free speech, but censor it when it disagrees with their own opinion.
Philib, this may be a good time to pretend you've logged off, before you make an even bigger clown of yourself. You are one thick brick.
And by recommending you pretend to not be here, I'm not censoring you, just trying to help.
Hey WORRIEKING could you email me the passwords to the MMFA server so I can delete a few posts I don't like too? LOL
If it makes you feel any better PHILIB, I had a few posts censored earlier this week. All I can say is that if you had something censored from this site it had to be either pretty racist, threatening, or vulgar. They let anything else remain. But I understand if this might have happened to you - even the most righteous of Christians go off the deep end every now and then.
Nerz, PhildO is just a bit slow. I facetiously posted last night that I was looking forward to the outrage over the Hagee endorsement from those who were wetting themselves about Obama not denouncing Farakkan strongly enough for their liking.Their hypocrisy and selective outrage is pretty predictable.
Worrierking played along, suggesting that their posts had been censored. PhildO may be having trouble accepting that he is the stoopidest wingnut, as he is the only one thick enough to try to rationalize McCains approval of Hagee. That concrete thinking causes people to miss out on the joke pretty often.
LOL - You gotta be kidding me?
Nope, Cleve. Philib is one of our fellow Americans, and his vote counts just the same as ours. ;0)
" I was looking forward to the outrage over the Hagee endorsement from those who were wetting themselves about Obama not denouncing Farakkan strongly enough for their liking.Their hypocrisy and selective outrage is pretty predictable."
Col, worrierking has a history of censoring my posts. He could not get over the fact that I provided scientific proof and he could not. After the thread had been 'closed' I noticed that all my proof, (after his non-supported/un-educated guess), had disappeared. I don't call people names, or cuss and I stay on subject (mostly...well, as much as everyone else), so there was no reason to censor my remarks other than he didn't want to be proven wrong in front of all of you. Maybe worrierking will speak for himself, and not have others do his fighting for him. Admit or deny? http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310003?f=s_search (worrierking / Friday February 1, 2008 9:53:40 AM)
Back to the topic. Apparently, you cannot follow this conversation either. My "hypocritical claim" was that someone said 'farakan is a nut and hagee and all Christians are nuts'. I took an objection to the "all Christians" part of the statement. And, NONE of you have figured that out. Obama doesn't have to accept an endorsement from Farrakhan if he doesn't want to. McCain can accept endorsements from whoever he wants. I never made any "selective outrage" over who did or who did not accept an endorsement. It is YOU who whined about someone not agreeing with an assessment that all of Christianity believes like Hagee does.
Philib, I went to your link. If Worrierking is having your posts deleted, you may want to send him a thank you note. I think what you're seeing as somebody not being able to argue with you because of a lack of facts is really other posters being overwhelmed by your incoherence.
Was this part directed at me?
It is YOU who whined about someone not agreeing with an assessment that all of Christianity believes like Hagee does.(Philib)
If, so, could you show me where I even implied that, or is this just more hallucinating on your part?
Damn you, Worrierking!! Stop censoring the posts with your moonbat wizardry! What other explanation can there be? When Barack Obama denounced and rejected Farakkan, the conservatives had time to post loads of comments about how much of a sissy he was for not doing it loudly enough.
Obviously, when McCain gives a big hug to another nutty church-of-hater, it would logically follow that these same he-men would have this thread up to the 400 mark with their scathing condemnations of McCain. It just doesn't make any sense. Why do you hate freedom of speech, Worrierking?
I immediately emailed this story link to Dan Abrams last night pleading with him as the “only sane voice left” at MSNBC to expose this story on his show. I’m anxious to see if my respect for him as “fair” proves worthy of my expectations.
That's because people like John Hagee are "proper Christians". Not the least bit radical
these people, no siree.
This is exactly why many of MCCain's past supporters have turned away from him. He totally comprimises himself everytime when it comes to the evalgelical right wingers. There was a time that the man recognized the harm but he has comprimised his principles because he believes (rightly or wrongly) that he can not win without their support. I actually think on this he is worse then the true believers because he knows better yet to win he will embrace them and their bigotry and hatred.
McCan't has sold his soul to the End-Time Theofascists. Be afraid.... be very afraid.
Apparently, Bill Donahue of the Catholic League thinks Hagee is a "Bigot".
Check it out here:
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1393
Troglodytes eating their own.... divine entertainment.
Yea I feel you. Donohue is just as crazy and bigoted as Hagee,which is why this is informative about the way some people in media think, and why they won't pursue this issue. In contrast every black canidate has had to repudiate Farakhan as some passage of loyalty and answer to every word spoken by Jessie and Sharpton. Obama was even questioned about comments made by Harry Belafonte(private citizen). Yet rarely if at all or "white" politicians questioned about every comment Rush, Robinson et.al., make!!!!Their silence on this issue is deafening!!!
Media Matters, you jest ? Of course they won't , they are hypocrites all day long , promoting McCain and not holding him under the same scrutiny as the others and it's what they don't say , the questions they don't ask about mcSAME, that's so blatantly bias .
Fantasy question , "Mr McSame I'm a real journalist and will do more than call you " the straight shooter " or " the Maverick " , I would like to know how by Pentagon Al qaeda 5 % of fighters can possibly take over IRAQ, now or the near future , isn't that a bit of an exaggeration or worst ? "
Haggee is just as reprehensible as anybody else , but they'll go easy on the story and won't be so dramatic , as the constant drumming of Farrakhan day after day after day after day . They know what they're doing it's guilt by association and all silly or reprehensible allegations form a Lapel Pin , African clothing will be brought up , to make Obama look bad or Clinton ..McSame Bush is treated much much better and protected .