Wash. Post, Special Report reported Hagee's apology to Catholics, without noting his other smears
SUMMARY: In reports about televangelist John Hagee's apology for his anti-Catholic remarks, neither The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear nor Fox News' Brit Hume mentioned that Hagee -- whose endorsement Sen. John McCain has acknowledged seeking -- also has made controversial statements about women, race, homosexuality, and Islam.
In a May 14 Washington Post article, staff writer Michael D. Shear reported that "yesterday, pastor John Hagee, a [Sen. John] McCain supporter whose controversial comments about Catholicism angered church leaders, issued a letter of apology to the president of the Catholic League, who heartily accepted it." Similarly, on the May 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume reported that "Christian televangelist John Hagee has apologized to Catholics for referring to the Roman Catholic Church as, quote, 'the great whore' and calling it the 'apostate church.' " But neither report noted that Hagee, whose endorsement McCain has acknowledged seeking, has also made controversial statements about women, race, homosexuality, and Islam.
On the September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio's Fresh Air Hagee asserted of Hurricane Katrina: "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." He later added: "Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." As the blog Think Progress noted, Hagee made similar comments on the April 22 edition of Dennis Prager's syndicated radio talk show. On April 25, Hagee released a statement asserting that "ultimately neither I nor any other person can know the mind of God concerning Hurricane Katrina. I should not have suggested otherwise." But in a May 7 post to the Dallas Morning News blog Trail Blazers, senior political writer Wayne Slater reported that during "a conference call with religious supporters" that day, "[w]hen a woman on the call asked why he seemed to have backed away from his Katrina comments in face of criticism, Hagee said he hadn't. As for the Katrina, he said, God controls hurricanes and 'God always punishes unconfessed sin.' You do the math."
During an April 20 interview on ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked McCain, "Your own campaign acknowledges that you should have done a better job of vetting Pastor Hagee. So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement?" McCain responded, "Oh, probably. Sure." Later in the interview, McCain said of Hagee, "I'm glad to have his endorsement." While the Post noted that "McCain sought out Hagee's endorsement," Hume did not, saying of McCain's connection to Hagee only that "Hagee has endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Today, the senator, who has said he does not agree with all of Hagee's comments, called the apology, quote, 'helpful and laudable.' "
The May 14 Washington Post article in its entirety:
While Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has struggled with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., GOP foe John McCain's own pastor problem has festered.
But yesterday, pastor John Hagee, a McCain supporter whose controversial comments about Catholicism angered church leaders, issued a letter of apology to the president of the Catholic League, who heartily accepted it.
In the letter, Hagee admitted that he "may have contributed to the mistaken impression that the anti-Jewish violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition defines the modern-day Catholic Church. It most certainly does not."
Hagee, an evangelical who has been outspoken in his support for Israel, had enraged Catholics with statements about the "apostate church" and the "great whore." He said in his letter that he meant neither of those to apply to the Catholic Church.
He continued: "I pledge to address these sensitive issues in the future with a greater level of compassion and respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ."
Catholic League President William Donoghue [sic: Donohue] accepted the apology. In a statement, he wrote that "the tone of Hagee's letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology. . . . Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed."
McCain sought out Hagee's endorsement earlier in the primary season while competing for evangelical voters with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
Not all Catholics were mollified by the letter. Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, said that "it would be nice if McCain apologized," and called the candidate's previous efforts to distance himself from Hagee's comments "somewhat conditional."
From the May 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: Christian televangelist John Hagee has apologized to Catholics for referring to the Roman Catholic Church as, quote, "the great whore" and calling it the "apostate church." Hagee says he was sorry in a letter to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights. Donohue says the league welcomes the apology and, quote, "the case is closed."
Hagee has endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Today, the senator, who has said he does not agree with all of Hagee's comments, called the apology, quote, "helpful and laudable."















I don't think you understand. The bad thing that was done in the past is evidence itself. If the government was capable of one attrocity, how can anyone be sure it wasn't behind another attrocity towards the same people? This has happened before you know. Ever heard of Polio Blankets? I wish Wright's remarks were as far fetched as you seem to think they are. Unfortunately for me I am not so naive as to believe it isn't even possible.
I think you have some cognitive dissonance going on there. Nothing the Reverend said was racist that I have seen from you. You seem to have gotten your panties all wadded up over nothing.
I agree with that entirely and would like to add that those Democrats are now Republicans. The Republicans successfully lured racist whites to their party using the racial divide. The former chairman of the RNC even admitted this and apologized for it.
BTW I am not a Democrat so I really don't care about partisan swipes against them - even your nonsense.
sorry didn't finish my point . . .
They are easily offended when someone says anything negative about the good ole U.S. of A., but find it comical when Imus calls arabs "camel humpers" or when Andrew Coulter says, "we should convert the middle east to christianity" That's their version of comedy. The entire world is on to the bs point of view. The bottom line, your point of view is a fading ideology. But cling away, there's a museum for the created world you live in. There's a special wing in the Bush library dedicated to you nuts. LOL.
Your incongruity in your belief you "know" what other people believe is amazing. Do you have the lotto numbers for next Saturday?
Do you have any sources to back your statement or is this your opinion?
Just for the sake of argument, please tell us how saying the government was behind this is racist. Are you suggesting the government is for whites only?
"Senators Obama, Clinton and other leaders who seek to enlarge the scope of government face more formidable obstacles than they realize. Their desire to impose a European-style welfare state and a command-and-control economy not only contradicts our proudest political and economic traditions, but the new revelations about American DNA "
Courtesy of the republican's very own Michael Medved. Now you know, being republican is actually part of your DNA. If you don't support republicans, you aren't american, either morally or genetically!
I'll be waiting anxiously for all the calls from POV and Co. denouncing this racist homophobe...
In a 20-page memo on GOP electoral woes, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) repeatedly misspells Barack Obama’s name – it’s one R, congressman, not two -- and then manages to use the racially charged term “tar baby” in a paragraph about Obama and immigration.
Hey, where are those crys for demanding an apology from POS and Co?
I was WONDERING if anyone else noticed that Hagee apologized for one smear, but left all his other attacks in place.
Hoe "Chirstian" of him. And how irresponsible of the media not to call him on it.
Snoopy, I read another story where some guy in Mississippi is selling T-shirts with the cartoon character "Curious George's" picture on the front with "Obama 08" printed on it.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2008/05/14/bojorquez.obama.tshirt.controversy.wsb
The scary thing is that the guy doesn't see how anyone thinks the T-Shirts are offensive.
Hagee the Hut would have us believe that God was so pissed about a group of Gays parading down the street that he killed thousands of people who had nothing to do with it and left thousands more homeless, just to make a point? On the other hand, this same God allowed millions of his "chosen people" to be systematically murdered in Nazi death camps?
Sorry, but only a dumbass could believe that.
Actually the Bible is CHOCK-FULL of this kind of disprotionate and indiscriminate punishment. (Reference: http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/a_brief_summary_bible.htm)
Lot's wife was killed just for looking back as the city she grew up in, and would never see again, was being destroyed.
God sending two bears that killed 42 children because they were making fun of a prophet's bald head (2 Kgs. 2:23-24)
How about the great flood and Noah's arc!?
So yeah - that's what they would have us believe. And that's why I'm not very religious.
(To believe [stories such these] is to believe in an unjust God, to doubt it is to not be very religious!)
Whether one believes in God or not, there is no denying that the institutions of religion are man made.
Nice,
As for the 2 Kings verse, there is wide misperception regarding that passage.
The ancient Hebrew term for Children also meant young men. In this case there were a large number of them, (more than 42.) Calling the prophet bald was a derogatory term that also meant leper. In effect they were taunting and ridiculing and threatening God's prophet. The two she-bears are symbolic too. Their immagery of the bears is that they were an instrument of God's protection. They came and defended the prophet from the mob. The many young men were injured as they fought against defenders of the prophet.
It stands to reason that 1. Parents would not let lots of children insult an elder. 2. If there were lots of children their parents would not be far away and would not sit idly by while bears attacked. 3. The children would not have simply lined up for bears to attack them. They would have run home.
While I don't agree at all with Rev. Hagee and his pronouncements, one must be careful against literal interpretations of the Bible. I think he too take the Bible too literally.
AA wrote:
>>There is a huge difference. Only God can bring condemnation on his people. One minister is claiming to believe that God has brought judgement on sin. The other minister is claiming MAN is bringing condemnation on those he doesn't like. Man is not the creator - God is.
But none of this helps the argument that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality. It completely undermines a literal interpretation of the bible. First, if one needs to read a gloss or secondary material to get the context of the OT, then that makes a literal interpretation impossible. One must reconstruct meaning, rather than just read words, and only scholars, perhaps one in a million, have the intelligence and background to reconstruct meaning. And even when they do, they will come to different conclusions.
If we accept your interpretation (and I doubt it is the only one), then it still makes God look like a maniac. So he killed some people for making fun of his prophet?
On the other hand, if we accept that children would have run away if bears attacked them, then that means the OT is inaccurate--meaning you can't interpret it literally.
You also want to interpret the bible in terms of symbols in order to show God is not cruel. That is fine, but such an interpretation completely undermines a literal interpretation. If you want to interpret this passage symbolically, then what is to stop one from claiming that the whole bible, indeed all of religion, is just a metaphor for an internal quest for truth, as Joseph Campbell does?
So when one says the OT condemns homosexuality, he must also accept other literal interpretations, which show God to be contradictory, injust, and cruel. In short, it is stupid to say that God condemns homosexuality because of the OT.
Funny,
I do not know where you are getting the quote you attributed to me. Can you explain?
Different books in the Bible can be interpreted differently. One does not have to accept the literal interpretation of Creation in order to believe that the Gospels are a fairly accurate accounting of Jesus's ministry here on Earth.
Frankly I do not understand what point you are trying to make?
AA wrote:
>>I do not know where you are getting the quote you attributed to me. Can you explain?
Woops! That text was still in my clipboard from previously.
I think my point is clear. If you want to accept that the OT condemns homosexuality, then you also have to accept a lot of other absurdity in the OT. (See Mary's post below.) One cannot choose what parts of the OT are to be interpreted literally, and which are not.
Regarding whether the New Testament "are a fairly accurate accounting of Jesus's ministry here on Earth," I do not accept that at all, since they were not written during Jesus's lifetime, were written by people trying to promote a certain point of view, have to be reconstructed by scholars, have had material added and deleted from them (see Bart Ehrlman), contradict themselves, and cannot be tested for accuracy by any known means.
Funny,
Sorry I was not able to continue the discussion yesterday.
The New Testament has been tested for accuracy with all four Gospels and the Epistles having been written between 45AD and 149AD. There is far more written about Jesus's life than anything else during that time.
AA wrote:
>>The New Testament has been tested for accuracy with all four Gospels and the Epistles having been written between 45AD and 149AD. There is far more written about Jesus's life than anything else during that time.
As usual, you are just making things up. Who exactly has done this testing? No one, of course, because it is impossible to test the accuracy of the NT, unless there are indepepndent historical sources the world is not aware of. As I said before, the NT was not written during Jesus's life and was written by people who were promoting a certain point of view, contain contradictions, etc. In other words, they tell us absolutely nothing about Jesus, unless you believe 4 anonyomous authors have proved a man can rise from the dead.
Oh, how convenient. One more reason why Separation of Church and State is vital for the survival of a Democratic Republic. Our lawmakers waste enough time without having to debate what God meant in Crustaceans 14:3.
"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.
Hagee has acknowledged this is his opinion and has no clear message from God that this was part of His divine plan. Hagee is a Christian minister and in Christianity homosexuality is a sin. I do not know enough about Hagee to comment on his personal beliefs but I do know that Christianity teaches to hate the sin but love the sinner. We are all sinners in the eyes of God. There are many instances in scripture where God uses his wrath on people to call attention to sin so that others may be saved. Hagee seems to be using a modern day event to drive home a similar point in the hope of saving others.
Whether you agree with Christianity or not is a personal choice - but to continuously post stories here that Hagee has yet to apologize for one of the tenants of his belief system is silly.
Is God that much of a putz?
He sounds like a neocon to me.
I don't even like any real neocons, why would I want to worship an imaginary one?
In churchianity, human sexuality is considered sinful and something to be ashamed or uptight about. In Christianity, it's a beautiful part of Life.
You walk into nearly any church in the South (where I live) and you are about 10 times more likely to hear a minister quoting Paul as you are Jesus.
I think that in Republicans' minds Jesus was sent by God to justify and protect the powerful against the powerless.
churchianity...
I like that, Mary...think I'll use it sometime if you don't mind. Thanks...
Why do you think it is called "Christ"ianity? Just wondering.
I'm assuming by that comment you have no understanding of the Judaeo-Christian faith. Suffice to say that Jesus was a Jew who preached the Old Testament law. Those who believe he is God incarnate are Christians - those who do not are Jews. Same God though.
I'm assuming by that comment you are unaware that there is no such thing as 'Judaeo-Christian faith', as it is a myth created by evangelical right-wing Christians to align their motives with those of conservative Jews.
Anyone who interprets the Bible (old testament or new) in a literal sense is a nutbag, anyways. It's all just stories, some which have good morals (and some which don't!)
Kyle,
Christianity has accepted the Old Testament, of which the first five books are known by Jews as the Torah. Christians believe the Jews were God's chosen people. However Jesus, through his life and death allowed all people to claim the same birthright as the Jews. All men and women are equal in the eyes of God and all may obtain salvation through Jesus rather than the law of the Moses. At that point the two religions part. However there is a definite link to Judiasm from Christianity.
Thanks, Capt. Obvious.
So, practicing Christians don't eat pork? They don't work on the Sabbath? I didn't realize that all Christians held the same Old Testament customs as the Jews.
Kyle,
Sorry for being so late getting back to you.
Jesus, according to Christian theology, replaced the laws of Moses. That is what I meant by that is where Judaism and Christianity part. As was discussed here a while ago, Christians feel they have been 'perfected' (in the theological sense,) by their faith in Jesus. However Christians feel that the God of the Jews is the God of the Christians even though Christians feel God is of three persons (God the Father, God the Son, Jesus, and God the Holy Spirit.) Where as Jews do not believe Jesus is the incarnate.
So Christian's do not hold to all of the same laws as Jews, however Christians believe the Old Testament was God's inspired word.
Dems_soul wrote:
>>You err in neglecting the Old Testament as part of the Christian doctrine.
Oh, you mean the Old Testament that contradicts itself within the first two pages of itself, that Old Testament that lays down absurdly strict dietary laws--that Old Testament that we should look to in order to condemn homosexuality?
Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident and also posted on the Internet :-)
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
d) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
f) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
h) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
i) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Mary wrote:
>>Guess it's time to trot out this open letter to Dr. Laura (don't know the author):
Excellent post!
I have a Masters degree in literature and have obviously studied older texts. The idea that one can even understand a text as old as the Old Testament, considering the language gap, the problems with finding a "reliable" document, and the cultural gap, is really bizarre. The idea that we can literally interpret this text and find one meaning is just plain stupid.
The post is cute but the mind that wrote it is steeped in the same ignorance that for years touted the world is flat long after the globes circumnavigation..
Dems,
Can you explain that comment? It doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Actually, I think you mean the exact opposite.
The story about Magellan's voyage is a test of faith to see who can retain belief in the Bible despite inconvenient facts put out by the devil.
Dems_sould wrote:
>>The post is cute but the mind that wrote it is steeped in the same ignorance that for years touted the world is flat long after the globes circumnavigation..
In other words, Mary's post has completely destroys a literal belief in the bible, and the only way I can counter that is by saying that Mary is so dumb that she believes the earth is flat.
We accept your defeat in this argument.
Oh, and the Greeks and even most intelligent people in the medieval ages understood the earth was round long before the globe was circumnavigated.
Actually, that's not the point. I don't give a rat's ass if Hagee apologizes for his looney beliefs or not. What I do care about is that Obama got hammered relentlessly for weeks over his own pastor's looney beliefs, and McCan't gets a pass for SOLICITING the endorsement of a nutbag like Hagee, whose beliefs are every bit as offensive as Wrights.
The comment that MM keeps bringing out here refers to the willfull actions of sinners - clear territory for a pastor. Wright accuses the US government of proliferating Aids to commit genocide against the black community. Do you really see no difference?
Dems_soul wrote:
>>The comment that MM keeps bringing out here refers to the willfull actions of sinners - clear territory for a pastor. Wright accuses the US government of proliferating Aids to commit genocide against the black community. Do you really see no difference?
No, and neither would anyone else who is not blinded by partisanship. What a ludicrous distinction? So it is okay for a Christian minister to say that God wiped out half a city because of homosexuality? Are you saying that is okay? And do you think if the public heard that, they would also think it is okay?
There is a huge difference. Only God can bring condemnation on his people. One minister is claiming to believe that God has brought judgement on sin. The other minister is claiming MAN is bringing condemnation on those he doesn't like. Man is not the creator - God is.
In your own words - you must be very partsian not to be able to tell the difference.
Dems_Soul wrote:
>>There is a huge difference. Only God can bring condemnation on his people. One minister is claiming to believe that God has brought judgement on sin. The other minister is claiming MAN is bringing condemnation on those he doesn't like. Man is not the creator - God is.
Oh really? I would like Hagee's words to be trumpeted on the air waves for two weeks straight, and then for these words to be associated with McCain, and see if the public agrees that Hagee is just talking about God's judgment. Really.
And you can't hide behind Christianity. If Christianity really believes that a whole city is wiped out because of what superstition, then either (1) Christianity is a faith is a barbaric belief, or (2) Hagee's interpretation is barbaric.
You get to choose (1) or (2). You don't get to use a fake defense that because Hagee is a Christian, he can say crazy, hurtful things and not be held accountable.
If Christianity really believes that a whole city is wiped out because of what superstition, then either (1) Christianity is a faith is a barbaric belief, or (2) Hagee's interpretation is barbaric.
Do not associate Hagee's statement with all of Christianity. If you are going to try to understand what someone is talking about you need to understansd where they are coming from. Hagee is a Christian minister who understands that homosexuality is a sin. Biblical scripture is filled with God unleashing His wrath on those who flaunt sin. Hagee put these two ideas together to arrive at his conclusion. Hagee does not speak for all of Christianity. I do not agree with his sentiment. He prefaced his statement with "I believe" - not Christianity believes. His interpretation though is based on biblical principle whether you want to accept it or not.
A hurricane is an act of God - as opposed to Wrights accusation of premeditated murder. I can't explain it anymore plainly than that. If you can't see a difference it is because you don't want to.
DEMS,
If Katrina was to punish sin, why did it COMPLETELY MISS the location where the parade was to be?
Hagee does not speak for all of Christianity. I do not agree with his sentiment. He prefaced his statement with "I believe" - not Christianity believes.
Fried - the above is from my previous post. You have associated my understanding of the nature of Hagee's comment with my agreement that it is valid. As I do not agree with Hagee I can not answer your question. I do not doubt though that many others do.
The original subject matter of my thread was MM's constant rehashing of this statement and the media's refusal to condemn him for it. I do not believe Hagee was condeming any one with his ccomments.
So I am guessing the most christians and Hagee himself are ignoring the fact that even the bible says that Satan is "the prince of this world" in the Book of John 12:31, 14:30; and he is also "the prince of the power of the air" Ephesians 2:2
Sounds like "Satan" is in control of the "winds" maybe he was pissed that there was not a big enough parade.
You are equating man with God. You'll never figure these things out as long as you continue down that road.
DEMS-
So, when a doctor cures a patient with a life-threatening illness, is it an act against God, and therefore a sin?
Of course, modern medicine is just another movement in the atheistic Big Science agenda, isn't it?
So, when a doctor cures a patient with a life-threatening illness, is it an act against God, and therefore a sin?
No - not at all. Life threatening is relative to what the doctor knows at the time. God gave man the ability to heal himself and others. The extension of life by healing may very well be tha answer to a prayer.
You have not kept up with my posts regarding my disagreement with Hagee on the "smiting" of New Orleans.
Much of faith is indeed a mystery. If you try to answer questions about God with the mind of a human you will run yourself in circles all day long. Not everything in the world is finite and definable - nor is it supposed to be.
So, "folks like me" risk the Wrath of God, but this same God will sit by and watch children slaughtered? That is a mystery, indeed.
For me, it boils down to this. I cannot say whether or not God exists. However, reason informs me that the Creator of the Universe is not likely to behave as the petulant, jealous, insecure, selfish, bloodthirsty despot portrayed by the writers of the Old Testament. Jesus probably had it about right, but the humans who perverted his teachings into Christianity just couldn't let go of their killer War God.
"The type of wrath God is capable of, and what Hagee is trying to illustrate is aimed directly at folks like you."
I apologize if you read my implication here as that you are in God's crosshairs. I am trying to communicate to you that God uses many tools to call your attention to His existence in the hope that you will turn to him. It is indeed a tragedy when lives are lost at the hands of manical humansn, natural disasters, accidents, war, etc. - but I have faith that a loving God takes care of those unfortunate victims offers comfort to those left behind.
Dems_Soul wrote:
>>I apologize if you read my implication here as that you are in God's crosshairs. I am trying to communicate to you that God uses many tools to call your attention to His existence in the hope that you will turn to him. It is indeed a tragedy when lives are lost at the hands of manical humansn, natural disasters, accidents, war, etc. - but I have faith that a loving God takes care of those unfortunate victims offers comfort to those left behind.
Oh yes, a fundamentalists tries to dance around the problem of how God can be omnipotent, omniscent, loving, and yet allow evil such as the hurricane in China? God must not be one of these things. Maybe he is a shithead and shouldn't be obeyed if he is anything like the Old Testament depicts him. If God kills at will as you suggest, why should we obey him?
Dems_sould wrote:
>>Do not associate Hagee's statement with all of Christianity.
But the rest of your post does just that. On the one hand, you want to say that Haggee's views do not represent Christianity. (Which is my point, by the way. In other words, one can't use Christianity to excuse Haggee's hateful rhetoric.) But then in the next sentence you contradict yourself by saying that scripture is filled with God destroying those who flaunt sin, thus justifying Haggee's comment. Then the next sentence you state you do not agree with Christianity. And then a few sentences later, you change your argument once again, by saying that Haggee expresses a personal belief, not a Christian one. And then you change your view once again by stating that Haggee's belief is based on scripture.
You conclude by stating "I can't explain it anymore plainly than that." But your explanation could not be less clear. And it is clear why: you are caught in a contradiction. Haggee's words are every bit as hateful as Wright's, but you want to excuse Haggee's and condemn Wright's. That's called hyporcrisy.
And my challenge goes out to you. Are you basing God's condemnation on the Old Testament, that contradicts itself withing the first few pages--that completely flawed set of mythology?
Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, not on the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.
Those who preach that God destroyed the World Trade Center because of the ACLU and People For The American Way (Jerry Falwell's statement) or that God sent a hurricane to New Orleans to destroy half of the city because the City was allowing a Gay Pride Parade Rev. Hagee's claim), are preaching their own form of hatred based on some batsh_t crazy lunacy that they make up as they go along.
And as another poster already commented, what kind of God is it that these clowns pray to? Maybe their God should get a new pair of glasses before he sends the next hurricane. He hit everything BUT the sinful places in New Orleans.
Excellent point. I think the early "Church Fathers" found the alleged words of Jesus not very useful in their pursuit of wealth and power. Therefore, they turned to the Old Testament and the words of Paul to scare and shame their flocks into submission.
Maybe it's just me, but when somebody tells me that God told him to tell me to give him money, I'm just a wee bit skeptical.
Christianity does not teach that God takes his vengeance on sinners. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, not on the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.
In the watered down versions of Christianity you are correct. However Christianity maintains that the Bible are the Holy scriptures of God. A comprehensive reading of the Bible from Genesis through Revelation reveals one true unchanging God. In relation to maturing, before one can be trusted with freedom one must learn obedience and responsibility. To only study the NT is only learning half the lesson.
Obedience? To whom.... God? And who speaks for God? You? The writers of the Bible? By what authority?
This is akin to Romney's idiotic pronouncement that "Freedom requires religion." What a crock.
In relation to maturing... (note this was an allegorical reference)
I do not speak for God - The scriptures speak for God
This is akin to Romney's idiotic pronouncement that "Freedom requires religion." What a crock.
I said freedon requires responsibility and obedience. Meaning one must understand the responsibilities that freedom requires. Before one can be trusted with the freedom to have sex they need to understand the responsibility of raising a child. Before one can be trusted with the freedom to carry a gun they must learn to be obedient to the laws that govern the use of a weapon.
In that same way before one can truly understand the love of God in the NT, one must also understand the wrath of God in the OT.
Dems_soul wrote:
>>In that same way before one can truly understand the love of God in the NT, one must also understand the wrath of God in the OT.
You mean the OT that contradicts itself in the first few pages? That OT? As Mary's post pointed out, it is pretty impossible to interpret the bible literally as you imply. You responded to Mary's post with a snarky comment, meaning you cannot defend your position.
As Nerzog pointed out, how do you know that the bible is the word of God?
As I point out, how do you even know how to read the OT, since it was written in an ancient, dead language and has to be constructed from fragments. For example, most scholars believe that Job was added to not just once, but twice. So which Job do I interpret literally--the one in my KJ bible, or the one the scholars said was the "original?"
So... when is Pastor Hagee going to apologize to the Jews?
"It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day... Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people."
How silly of me to think that God should have intervened to stop the Nazis.... if we're to believe Hagee, they were simply acting as agents of the "loving God" to punish the Jews.
Yeah, right.
Shorter Pastor Hagee:
The Nazis were just doing the work that God had intended for them. Those Jews never would have been killed if they'd have just accepted Jesus into their hearts.
Sounds like a charming fellow.
Maybe he'll eventually say he's sorry for other remarks.
Of course I've yet to hear Rev Wright apologize for anything. And before one of you can say he's got nothing to apologize for...I bet a lot of folks would disagree. Including Barack Obama.
I think Rev. Wright should apologize for his big stupid ego - but shouldn't we all?
Aside from that, I don't see anything at all to apologize for.
Jeter - I'm going to have to call Rev. Hagee's faith into question. The man who claims the most that he is a Christian, usually isn't. Further, Hagee only apologized when he was called out on his remarks. He didn't apologize because his remarks were hurtful, hateful and full of sh*t. He didn't apologize because Christian's seek forgiveness when they've wronged others. He apologized because politics forced him to (and I would venture to guess that a call from McCain also caused him to apologize).
And when he apologized, he gave a half-hearted apology. "If I offended anyone...". He's a douchebag, fake Christian. He knows he offended people, millions of people, who are members of one of the oldest Christian denominations. A real Christian, in my view, would have apologized in a different manner, such as: "I've said some things that were truly appalling. I apologize to those whom I've offended. There's no excuse for my words. I ask for your forgiveness." And the best part of an apology is in action - you don't do the deed (for which you've apologized) again.
So I question Hagee's faith and practice. You folks on the right question my faith and practice (because of my politics), why shouldn't I question his? If he can't walk the walk, he shouldn't talk the talk.
Did Rev. Hagee feel pressured to be "political correct" again or was this a sincere apology?
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."
Rev. Hagee is a certified NUT but no coverage of his crazy sermons, crazy antics or questions on McCain's judgement in asking for the support of this nut. If Obama can be faulted to attending Rev. Wright's church for 20 years WHERE is the question of McCain's judgement in asking for the support of a pastor who finds NOTHING wrong with "bringing slavery back to America". Why is it acceptable to simply accept McCain answer that he doesn't agree with Hagee but he WELCOMES his support. Why the double standard?
Pearlene,
I agree with you. McCain sought out this vile hateful nut's support, & this should not be allowed to slide in the media.
McCain should reject the guy once & for all. Just saying he doesn't agree should not be enough.
Obama severed his ties with Rev. Wright. The same should be demanded from McCain.
Jeter, the bias is blatant. You cannot miss the imbalance in the insane coverage of Obama and Rev. Wright vs the none coverage of McCain and Rev, Hagee. Unfortunately for McCain, Hagge is not his only problem. There has been no coverage of the man McCain calls HIS "spiritual guide".
What does Rev. Parsley believe? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tViqufbk7I8&NR=1
Republicans brought the evangelical church into politics not for religious beliefs but to use their numbers and their power to influence. THAT is the problem. Religion should have NO role in politics. If your afraid of Rev. Wright you should damn well be afraid of Rev. Hagee and Rev. Parsley.
The double standard on the left is amazing!!!
When will FOX NEWS air 24-7 coverage on Pastor Hagee's controversial statements?
Oh, that's right, the far-right doesn't have double-standards, because they don't have any standards at all!
Fair enough?
Pointy, I gather from your posts that you consider Wright a racist, but what specifically do you think he has to apologize for, and to whom?
It's possible that anyone is a child molester. You are only making my point for me.
I'm always glad to set you straight, tommy.
Using the child molester possibility as an analogy, let's say Person A (the US government) was caught showing a small child pornography (the Tuskeegee experiments) and then a year or two later, the child was found dead in the woods after an apparent sexual assault (read AIDS epidemic). Considering there is a known direct basis for the suspicion (the Tuskeegee Experiments), do you think it would be necessarily unreasonable to believe Person A (the government) might have possibly been involved? Maybe or maybe not. Now consider you are the child's parent (later generations of Black people). Do you think it may seem even more of a possibility considering the known history involved? Of course, you don't.
Thanks for the compliment. I've never been very good at analogies. I figured it was worth a shot.
I suppose the absence of an argument on your part is preferable to you nitpicking the analogy, which I half-expected. Thanks for at least not doing that.
theories, and more time boning up on your analogies, you would have been more convincing.
Perhaps if you'd spent less time soaking up loony conspiracy
Tommy just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.
History tells African Americans that it was legal and acceptable for the US government to experiment on African Americans. It was legal and acceptable for physicians to lie about the treatment they were suppose to provide. It was legal and acceptable to withhold a cure when one became available. It was legal and acceptable for patients to die without every knowing they had NEVER been treated and it was legal and acceptable to not treat the patients allowing them to give their treatable disease to their love ones.
1947 penicillin had become the standard treatment for syphilis YET the experiment did not end until. Tuskegee scientists withheld penicillin and information about penicillin, purely to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. Participants were also prevented from accessing syphilis treatment programs that were available to other people in the area. The study continued until 1972, when a leak to the press resulted in its termination.
Gotta wonder what would have happened if there wasn't a leak to the press.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study injured the level of trust in the black community towards public health efforts in the United States.
I never claimed I personally believe in that conspiracy. I am sorry if I gave that impression. However, I can understand why someone like the Rev. Wright can believe it is possible - especially considering the history as he cited it.
There is no need for personal attacks. We merely have a difference of opinion.
I think it is probably best for me to avoid analogies altogether. They usually are more effective at obscuring my argument for whatever reasons. I take responsibility for my failure on that.
Open/Pearl,
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don't give credence to even "suggested possibilities" without necessary and verifiable proof, it is the only logical viewpoint for me so as not to indict and/or convict people, and/or institutions, unfairly. It is not unreasonable, nor it is a weak argument.
Also, I have been personally affected within my family and friends of the ravages, the horror, the tragedy, the suffering, and the sadness of AIDS. If I thought for one lucid moment that the government of the country in which I was born and raised and live would have been intentionally involved in something so heinous, so horrible and so premeditated, I would pack my bags in ten minutes and move elsewhere, that I can promise.
What horrible things the government could do that would cause you to leave the country?
It seems like that for intentionally spreading AIDS, it's yes, but for torturing people, it's no.
Or is it only when you've been affected personality? Or is it only when it is hypothetical and not actually happening?
But torture is something "the government of the country in which I was born and raised and live" has been "intentionally involved" and "something so heinous, so horrible..."
And yet you abide.
"If I thought for one lucid moment that the government of the country in which I was born and raised and live would have been intentionally involved in something so heinous, so horrible and so premeditated, I would pack my bags in ten minutes and move elsewhere, that I can promise."--tommy
That is fine, but don't project onto others your own opinions. Rev. Wright has lived in a generation that has seen much heinousness from our government and at times defended by it. Lynching, racial segregation, Jim Crow laws, Poll Taxes, attacked by police dogs, Seperate - but equal, church bombings, and on and on and on. I think Rev. Wright is a hell of a guy for staying here and trying to make things better in spite of all those heinous acts perpetrated and/or usually defended by our own government.
If you really believe you "don't pretend to know what another man or woman has gone through, nor am [are you] arrogant enough to minimize ones life experiences as [you] have not walked in their shoes. And [you] am perfectly comfortable with skepticism of ones government..." then you would necessarily need to cut the Reverend some slack here instead of apparently projecting your own feelings onto him.
Pearl,
I don't pretend to know what another man or woman has gone through, nor am I arrogant enough to minimize ones life experiences as I have not walked in their shoes. And I am perfectly comfortable with skepticism of ones government, however it is quite another to put out theories that serve to generate fear and hatred without substantial evidence and proof of their validity. People have the perfect right to believe what they want, and speak to it to their heart's content, and the rest of us have the perfect right to denounce it, or vehemently disagree with it as well.
however it is quite another to put out theories that serve to generate fear and hatred without substantial evidence and proof of their validity.
Tommy, Rev. Wright DID NOT generate fear and hate, it was already there.
Copyright © American Journal of Public Health 2006
Exploring Lack of Trust in Care Providers and the Government as a Barrier to Health Service UseKathryn Whetten, PhD, MPH, Jane Leserman, PhD, Rachel Whetten, MPH, Jan Ostermann, PhD, Nathan Thielman, MD, MPH, Marvin Swartz, MD, and Dalene Stangl, PhDObjectives. We examined associations between trust of health care providers and the government and health service use and outcomes.Methods. Interviews with a sample of 611 HIV-positive individuals included an attitudinal assessment measuring beliefs concerning the creation of AIDS, information being withheld about the disease, and trust of care providers.
Results. Trust in care providers was associated with increased HIV-related out-patient clinic visits, fewer emergency room visits, increased use of antiretroviral medications, and improved reported physical and mental health. Trusting the government was associated with fewer emergency room visits and better mental and physical health. More than one quarter of the respondents believed that the government created AIDS to kill minorities, and more than half believed that a significant amount of information about AIDS is withheld from the public. Ten percent did not trust their provider to give them the best care possible.
Conclusions. Distrust may be a barrier to service use and therefore to optimal health. Distrust is not isolated in minority communities but also exists among members of nonminority communities and equally interferes with their use of services and health outcomes.
Mistrust of the medical community on the part of Black Americans extends back to the era of slavery, when slaves served as subjects in medical experimentation and research without consent or personal benefit. Blacks believed that White physicians allowed such subjects to die so that they could dissect their bodies. Bodies of Black Americans were, in fact, exhumed and sold to science. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study further fostered fear and distrust of public health officials and later reinforced the conspiracy theories regarding AIDS.
Studies have shown that a large proportion of Black Americans believe that HIV/AIDS is a man-made weapon of racial warfare and that the government promotes substance abuse as a way of keeping Black Americans poor and in prisons. These beliefs have been supported through dissemination by providers, policymakers, and the media of literature promoting such theories. Other research has found that many people believe that AIDS is a disease created by God as punishment for breaking religious and moral laws, that is, a punishment for their sins or the sins of their parents.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1470533
Then how about fanning the flames, either way it's an unproven conspiracy theory, and to give it any legitimacy whatsoever without evidence is not only unfair, but reprehensible.
You even said you yourself don't believe it, neither do I.
You keep claiming there is "no evidence". I disagree. You may be more accurate to say there is no "direct" or conclusive evidence - just to help you out.
Past actions can establish a pattern of conduct. There is certainly evidence of a pattern in regards to treatment of blacks and other minoriies in this country. It may not be conclusive evidence and to be quite honest, it isn't enough for me, but it is evidence nonetheless and I wish you would stop falsely claiming there is "no evidence" here.
Open,
If the government really wanted to exterminate black people would it have only selected 399 blacks in Mississippi who already had contracted the disease of syphilis? Why would it stop there. Wouldn't the government have prevented blacks everywhere from obtaining penicillin when it became available?
The ethics of the Tuskegee test were abhorent to be sure. But we are talking about one test of 399 people. To extrapolate that to a government conspiracy regarding genocide of African Americans either in the 1940's or 1980' is lacking of serious merit.
As I have written (repeatedly), it is not my belief. It seems there is a difference between how seriously you (and other non-black people) view the Tuskeegee Syphalis Experiment and what apparently a large portion of the African American community view it. IMO, this difference is likely the result of whether people like yourself were targeted. Somehow whenever other groups are targeted it doesn't seem so serious. When it is your own group, you usually view it a bit more critically - as Wright has done.
Secondly, we both admit the ethics of the Tuskeegee experiment were abhorrent, but that is only one example of what the government has done to the AA community. I gave many more examples above and it isn't even an exhaustive list.
Of course, you and I can sit here and judge that it is preposterous to speculate on the government's alleged involvement in spreading AIDS, but we definitely haven't walked in Rev. Wright's shoes. For that, I am willing to cut him a little slack. His remarks do not offend me at all and I don't think he has anything regarding his views to apologize for that I have seen.
Maybe he can take that political apology that Clinton gave the Blacks regarding that little faux pau (sp) by our government, you know that one where they purposely let them die with syphilis, and make an apology to us white people about how he has wronged us. About how great the US government has been to blacks for so great a number of years!
Sheesh....yeah and while he is at it maybe the indians can step up and apologize too! (sarcasm off)
Col
In my view, he needs to apologize to three groups of people/entities.
1. His congregration, for the things he said about a govt plot to kill African Americans with the AIDS virus
2. The govt/govt workers
3. the American people as a whole.
OK, POV, I'll at least give you points for responding. Most WDS sufferers just bail when questioned--
In my view, he needs to apologize to three groups of people/entities.
OK, since you're the apology decider...
1. His congregration, for the things he said about a govt plot to kill African Americans with the AIDS virus
Should we hold all clergymen to apologies for anything they've said to their congregation that's not provable as factual and historically accurate? Can you name a clergyman who would not owe an apology by your standard?
2. The govt/govt workers
You govt. worshipping cons slay me. He should apologize to all of the govt workers who didn't invent AIDS ? Why would they be offended?Or apologize to the government as an entity? That sounds sort of strange.
3. the American people as a whole.
I'm a part of that "whole", and don't feel any need for an apology, so you're 0 for 3. Since you gave no reason that an apology is needed, except for your "feelings", I'll assume this is just that, your feelings with no rational support.
BTW, I've been asking something of all of the panicky cons who are so flipped out about Rev. Wright; post a transcript of your pastor/priest's sermon here, and we'll all go over it and tell you what we need apologies for. Looking forward to it.
Pearlene,
While I agree with you that the slave auction was very insensitive and is in very bad taste, I doubt there was any racial animosity intended.
While I agree with you that the slave auction was very insensitive and is in very bad taste, I doubt there was any racial animosity intended.
AA, Insensitive? Is that all slavery was to you, insensitive? I hate to inform you AA, but slavery is a hell of a lot more than insensitive for me. IT'S MY HISTORY and I don't appreciate some crazy white evangelical pastor making light of it.
Did you learn about slavery in school? Do you remember what slavery was like? Black men and women were brought to this country packed like freaking sardines on boats. Someone died, no proper burial, just throw them overboard. Those that did not die from the conditions on those boats were sold like godd*mn cattle at auction. Large, strong black men and strong black women were bought. Bought with the intention of breeding them together to create more strong black slaves, like they do with thoroughbred racehorses. Black women were raped repeatedly and black men were killed whenever and wherever. Justice for black people? They were not considered human. Black children were sold like animals, separated from their families, no thought given to what effect it would have on the children. That's just a small amount of thing that were done to Black people during slavery.
Insensitive? I'm afraid that would be you AA, for even suggesting something so horrible was simply insensitive.
Great post, pearline.
You demonstrated that calling Hagee insensitive is a huge understatement. Hagee is a complete idiot for saying what he did. I took it that Hagee's actions here come more from innocent baby-like ignorance rather than willful overt racism.
In my (all white) high school back in Indiana, we used to have a "Senior Slave Day" at the beginning of the school year where freshman were auctioned off to seniors. It was eventually canceled - not because of the collossally insensetivity to race, but because some of the kids just became too cruel over time. I don't think anyone there even gave the slightest thought about how it could even possibly be perceived as offensive to anyone.
Pearlene,
I did not use that word to minimize the act of slavery but only to show, which you have demonstrated, that it was insensitive to do so.
Slavery is a part of your history and of mine. One of my great-great grandfathers, (a Captain in the Michigan Calvary,) fought to help free the slaves.
Slavery is not just your history but it is the history of the world. It was accepted pretty much world wide up until the 1600's and then in parts of the world into the 20th century.
I remember Latin clubs in high school having the same type of slave auctions. The participants dressed up in togas as Roman slaves. There was no reference at all to American slavery.
Insensitive? Yes. Deliberately racist? No.
I think Hagee gets the benefit of the doubt there, but personally I think you are being a hypocrite for not giving Obama the same benefit of the doubt on that whole Ayers BS you were spewing the other day.
Unfortunately, the Republicans opened this can of worms by courting the Evangelical Troglodytes and using emotional issues like abortion and Gay Marriage to drive them to the polls. The Democrats have tried to play in that sandbox by wearing their religion on their sleeves, and the Republicans are making them pay for it. By trying to out-religion the Troglodytes, Democrats have opened themselves up to this kind of crap.
Neither Hagee nor Wright should even be an issue. Now that they are, the shame of it is that the News Media are not giving both equal equal treatment.
Some bits from Martin Goodmans "Rome and Jerusalem." The early Christians wanted it bothways. To coopt the Old Testament in part because of the Jewish history that they wanted to be alinged with. With Jesus and the New Testament they became different from the jews and believed that the Jews should have also become Christians at that point. There is some hostility because they did not.
The greater part of hostility to the jews comes from the Romans. The Jewish revolt of circa 70 AD was the first and maybe only time a Roman Province revolted. The Romans still had a few bugs in the transfer of power to a new Emperor. which was what was going on. There were a few claiments in this poplitically tricky time. The winner had to prove his authority. He used the Jews to do this. Disporia came out of it. The Christians, largely Roman, needed to seperate themselves from the unpopular jews at this time. So such things as the accusations that they killed Christ came out in their rhetoric and behavior right about then. With all the rhetorical buggery, Pilates offical actions somehow didn't count. It was all the Jew's fault, the Roman leadership merely innocent bystanders in this great sin.
God's gonna be PISSED! I expect California to slide off into the ocean any minute now! Of course, given God's accuracy in these Holy vendettas, that earthquake that hit China yesterday may have been meant for California.