McCain Repudiates Pastor Hagee’s Endorsement

As tensions continue to rise around candidates and their religious endorsements, Senator John McCain politically distanced himself from the Pastor John Hagee on Friday, May 23. According to Pastor Hagee, it was John McCain who sought out his endorsement, but after severe and mounting criticism from Catholic and Jewish voters McCain distanced himself from the evangelical pastor.

McCain’s volatile relationship with Hagee highlights a possible fissure in his base as McCain attempts to appease both conservative Christian voters and moderate Independents.

Juliet Eilperin and Kimberly Kindy of the Washington Post report, May 23, 2008:

Hagee, 68, is one of the country’s best-known Christian television evangelists and is known for his fervent support of Israel. But he has a conflicted relationship with Jewish organizations. He spearheaded a group called Christians United for Israel, but not all Jewish groups embrace him, because he does not support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are also leery of his support because he has suggested that their “rebellion” against “Jehovah” has caused much of their suffering, including the Holocaust.

This week, a new controversy over his preaching began when a video started circulating of a sermon, delivered in the late 1990s, in which Hagee calls Hitler a “hunter,” a reference to the Book of Jeremiah, which quotes God saying he “will restore” the Jews “to the land I gave to their forefathers.”

“Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter,” Hagee says in the sermon. “And the Bible says — Jeremiah writing — ‘They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill out of the holes of the rocks,’ meaning there’s no place to hide. And that will be offensive to some people but don’t let your heart be offended. I didn’t write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

When asked what McCain thought of the remarks, spokesman Tucker Bounds responded with an e-mail from the candidate denouncing Hagee. “Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them,” McCain said. “I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.”

Speaking to reporters later, McCain said: “I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable,” adding that while “Pastor Hagee is entitled to his views,” he does not want to be affiliated with them.

McCain’s recent repudiation of Hagee is already drawing criticism from some, as well as parallels to Obama’s situation with Pastor Jeremiah Wright. The same article continues,

Mindful of the controversy that ensnarled Sen. Barack Obama, his possible opponent in the November election, McCain tried to draw a distinction between his link to Hagee and Obama’s ties to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who was the pastor for many years of the church Obama attends in Chicago. Wright’s incendiary remarks about the U.S. government have dogged the Democratic front-runner for months.

“I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright’s extreme views,” McCain said in the statement. “But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years.” He added: “I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today.”

At a campaign rally in February, McCain said he was “pleased to have the endorsement” of Hagee. The next day, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights publicly chastised the candidate and demanded that he reject the endorsement. But McCain refused, despite comments Hagee has made about Catholicism, and his implication that Hurricane Katrina represented divine retribution because a gay pride parade had been planned in New Orleans for that week.

Initially, after learning about Hagee’s comments, McCain said that just because he accepts — or seeks — someone’s endorsement does not mean he endorses that person’s views. McCain later said that he repudiated Hagee’s views, but continued to say that he accepted and was proud of the endorsement.

The situation will probably boil over in several weeks, but this does not put to rest the tensions within McCain’s voting block. Pastor Rod Parsley is probably the next to go, and if this continues he will receive severe criticism from the conservative right.

  • What’s amazing in all this is that McCain sought out Hagee’s endorsement specifically. One can only assume he did so simply looking for token endorsements to placate social conservatives, regardless of whether or not he agreed with or knew anything about the Pastors he was seeking endorsement from.

    Hagee should have known this would be the response, unless he wrongly assumed McCain did a little research and was in line with his beliefs.

    Lessons learned on both sides I suppose. Don’t endorse someone who isn’t in line with your beliefs, and don’t take an endorsement from someone you don’t entirely agree with.

  • I have to say I was pleased to see this endorsement come to and end. Pastor Hagee, being one of my favorite Pastors as my TiVo is filled with his sermons, I hope has learned his lesson. He never should have endorsed McCain, instead he should have endorsed Huckabee who was lobbying for Hagee’s nod.

    Basically Hagee was giving an endorsement to John McCain who has no respect or admiration for conservatives in the least. This allegation that Hagee is anti-semitic is absolutely 100% false. Anybody who is at all familiar with his ministry knows you will not find anyone more in support of the Jewish people. As a matter of fact, he has helped relocate many of them back to Israel and has invested lots of his own money and his organization’s money in doing so.

    Then take this story:

    Throwing stones at John Hagee

    May 15, 2008

    By Joel Mowbray – In a particularly harsh New York Times column, Frank Rich recently painted a persuasive portrayal of high-profile evangelical Christian minister John Hagee as a nutty anti-Catholic bigot who does not like Jews, either. Simply put, it is a lie. Certain facts cited are, in fact, true. The most damning “facts,” however, are not. Therein lies the problem.

    Mr. Rich flipped the truth on its head — and it would stretch credulity to think he made an honest mistake. In the YouTube video the Times columnist parades as evidence of bigotry, Mr. Hagee is actually doing what he has done for decades: combating anti-Semitism. In other words, Mr. Rich branded Mr. Hagee a bigot when, in fact, he was actually fighting bigotry.

    Describing a now-infamous YouTube video clip — which lasts all of one minute and 17 seconds — Mr. Rich wrote: “Wielding a pointer, [Mr. Hagee] pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is ‘the Great Whore,’ Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking ‘the blood of the Jewish people.’ The Great Whore represents ‘the Roman Church,’ which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.” What the columnist neglects to note is that “the Great Whore” is not Mr. Hagee’s term, but rather the Bible’s. And suffice it to say that if Pamela Anderson had the same breast size as the rather plain-looking “Great Whore,” then the iconic blond never would have become, well, iconic.

    But those are simply deceptive tactics. This is the big lie: Mr. Hagee never said that “the Great Whore” was the “Roman Church.” Certainly not in the video, and it appears, not ever. Mr. Hagee quite clearly said that she represented “the Apostate Church.”

    Later in his monologue, Mr. Hagee cited Adolf Hitler’s boast that he was merely following in the footsteps of the “Roman Church.” (Many Protestants have used the “Great Whore” to further anti-Catholicism, but Mr. Hagee has not.) So shoddy was Mr. Rich’s research that not only did he not call for comment, but he even declined an offer from Mr. Hagee’s publicist to answer any questions — an e-mail that was only sent the day before publication, because the publicist had heard that the column was in the works. (Mr. Rich did not respond to a request for an interview for this column.)

    Were Mr. Rich interested in being fair, he would have noted that Mr. Hagee, for over a decade, personally supported a San Antonio-area Catholic convent which provided free housing for retired nuns. (Mr. Rich knew this, as it was referenced in the publicist’s e-mail.) His failure to adhere to basic journalistic standards might explain why Mr. Rich (perhaps unintentionally) created the impression that Mr. Hagee is, at best, no friend of Jews, or at worst, an anti-Semite. It’s an ugly implication — and dead wrong.

    Theologically, Mr. Hagee believes that one of the greatest sins a Christian can commit is anti-Semitism — hence the reference in the video to the drinking of the blood of the Jews. He was reminding Christians, as he often does, of the long history of Christian anti-Semitism. Mr. Hagee wastes no opportunity to teach Christians that one of the surest ways for a Christian to become a member of the “apostate church” is to engage in anti-Semitism.

    For decades, Mr. Hagee has easily been one of the most prominent Christian leaders fighting anti-Semitism. To him, loving Jews as much as one’s Christian neighbors is a core tenet of his faith. In his book “In Defense of Israel,” Mr. Hagee wrote, “Show me an anti-Semitic Christian, and I’ll show you a spiritually dead Christian whose hatred for other human beings has strangled his faith.”

    If anything, Mr. Hagee is obsessed with purging anti-Semitism from Christendom. Thus, the book contains a lengthy discussion of the history of Christian anti-Semitism. (It is from this section that his critics have pulled quotes to argue that Mr. Hagee is anti-Catholic. The leading critic, though, the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, this week announced a truce with Mr. Hagee.)

    If only Mr. Rich had spent roughly 20 minutes to peruse the relevant chapter, he would have learned two important tidbits: 1) Mr. Hagee’s criticism was directed solely at the Catholic Church’s past deeds, and 2) Mr. Hagee also attacked Protestant anti-Semitism, with an in-depth exploration of Martin Luther’s considerable influence on Nazi ideology.

    Throwing stones from inside his glass house, Mr. Rich wrote, “Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.” Given how far off the mark he was, it is only fair to ask of Mr. Rich: Could he not find a “12-year-old with a laptop”?

    Hagee never should have endorsed McCain, I hope he didn’t think it would turn out any different than this. McCain was the weakest candidate he could have possibly endorsed, and he did so knowing McCain’s voting records. It just shows where McCain’s ambitions really lie.

  • It is very easy to cherry pick quotes, decontextualize meanings, and caricature people in this political climate. I have no doubt Hagee’s views and words were taken out of context. Likewise, I feel the same about the Jeremiah Wright incident.

  • Josh

    Hagee can be a pretty big bigot, at least from what I’ve seen of his sermons, but he pales in comparison to Parsley, McCain’s other wacko spiritual advisor. I wonder how long it will take for him to repudiate him? I mean, Parsley has repeatedly called for the extermination of the Muslim people…that’s just completely unacceptable, especially when Parsley is also a leader in complaining about how offended Christians are by non-believers. CG, what are your thoughts on Parsley?

  • Dreadsen

    Michael this is EXACTLY like Wright as far as taking things out of Context to persuade someone to think in the wrong direction.
    But the problem is if people dislike someone anyway then they invite any false or wrong accusations. And if you try to INFORM people of the TRUTH the same way C.G. is doing above by pointing out the misinformation. But instead there are people who will look at the post and make the illogical thought that she is anti semite because she is defending an anti semite. When there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that he isn’t. Some will ignore the overwhelming amount of contrary evidence because they choose to hate the man or the man he is endorsing. This is what i tried to do with Wright.
    I had stated that i didn’t like the guy but these misleading sound bites took him way out of character. The sound bite above is 1 minute and 17 seconds long. I tried to defend a 7 second soundbite and was accused of supporting the misleading message.

    The Hitler statement was taken out of context. Unfortunately there are people who only watch local news channels who don’t do their research who will believe this.

    Lets also look into the fact that McCain sought out this endorsement eventhough he was urged not to by some in his own campaign and catholics. He defended this endorsement on Stephenopulos show.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html

    Meanwhile, Catholic League president Bill Donahue has answered back:

    “Did we also mischaracterize Hagee when he called my religion ‘The Great Whore,’ the ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ’ and a ‘false cult system’? McCain cannot ignore Hagee’s lies any more than he can tolerate his bigotry. This is getting out of control.”

    You can look at that link and see some bad things he has said in regards to African American, Hurricane Katrina,etc. I’ll say McCain may not have known about the Hitler statement but it was okay as long as he was bashing the Catholics.

    McCain says this

    “I will say that he said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position. I hope that maybe you’d give him a chance to respond. He says he has never been anti-Catholic, but I repudiate the words that create that impression.”

    Well he could have made the same argument about this Hitler statement. That was taken out of context as well and there is also contrary evidence which supports that Hagee supports Israel.

    Why is it okay to beat up on the Catholics whether it’s a sound bite or not and not renounce him but when he is mischaracterized about Israel then it’s time to throw him under the bus?

  • “Why is it okay to beat up on the Catholics whether it’s a sound bite or not and not renounce him but when he is mischaracterized about Israel then it’s time to throw him under the bus?”

    Because McCain’s campaign probably wanted to throw him under the bus the first time there was controversy, they just made a political calculation to wait. McCain never agreed with Hagee on anything, he just wanted votes, which is why this turned out the way it did. Even if McCain thinks he was taken out of context, he’ll never defend him because he never agreed with Hagee’s core beliefs, plus he obviously doesn’t respect him.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Even when Hagee is twisted into sounding like the devil in human flesh, much like Jerry Falwell, he still never sounds like Jeremiah Wright with anti-American venom. The media sure tinkers with the average American’s mind 🙁 . I’ll go a little farther than Conservative Gal and say that Hagee should not have supported Huckabee, either. From many things I have read, Huck is a different person behind the scenes. An insider with access to him would not reveal his name and informed Robert Novak that Huck was helping out Obama’s campaign underhandedly. I know that the people who sided with, say, Fred Thompson, instead of Huckabee, such as the Southern Baptist leader Paul Pressler, did so because they knew Huck enough to not endorse him.

    I detect pride in almost everything Huck says. BTW, he thinks Jeremiah Wright isn’t too different from Jerry Falwell and that he has been taken out of context. He also said, in Novak’s report, that Obama might be what the United States “deserves”. He meant that as an expression of bitterness over not getting the nomination himself, I think. Dr. James Dobson’s criticisms of Fred Thompson and support of Mike Huckabee may have done the most to hurt Fred Thompson 🙁 . As much as a respect Dobson, I feel terribly about how he hurt Fred Thompson’s standing among Christians, just because he really didn’t understand Fred Thompson’s federalism.

    That’s my comment for the night. 🙂

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Nate, I want to compliment you for the fabulous job you’ve done on this site, encouraging debate, patient when people get out of line, and very classy. The only thing I would suggest you do differently is not mock Ron Paul or Ron Paul’s supporters in the threads you start, because you want to treat every voting constituency equally. You’re doing a fabulous job!

  • Thank you CS, I really do appreciate the comments and encouragement.

    Ron Paul has been mocked a little, but everyone has been from time to time somewhere in these threads. Since McCain is left for the GOP, look no further than the site’s own Conservative Gal who has become a defender of Paul as the only true conservative option. I’ve continued covering him since he is still in the race, just not making as much news now.

    Thanks again for your comments, I need them from time to time.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I don’t pay attention to every thread here, so thank you for explaining that you just want to poke fun at all of the candidates from time to time!

  • Nate, the thing is, Hagee’s sermons and positions are no secret, and McCain went on record several times for saying he knew the man and was proud of his endorsement. It is one thing to receive an endorsement, it is another to go after getting it. I am not exactly buying the argument that McCain knew nothing of Hagee’s statements until recently. I think the political pressure got too great and he had to cut him loose.

  • Michael, it’s not that I’m defending McCain, I’m saying that I think his campaign went out looking for influential evangelical Pastors, then solicited endorsements. You see what I mean? They didn’t care what Hagee or others were about, only that they meant votes. Now when he’s taking slack in the media, he’s cutting him loose because they obviously didn’t care to determine whether or not McCain agrees with what Hagee preaches, just that he could deliver votes.

    To my knowledge, and correct me if I’m wrong, McCain doesn’t have a history with Hagee prior to this campaign and the endorsement.

  • Dreadsen

    C.S.

    “Even when Hagee is twisted into sounding like the devil in human flesh, much like Jerry Falwell, he still never sounds like Jeremiah Wright with anti-American venom.”

    Jeremiah Wright is also twisted into being Anti-American. Criticizing the government doesn’t make you anti American. He has clarified that. But the sound bites pushes a different agenda.Wright never incites Violence or says the the mass murder of people is deserved and should happen again. Wright is Mr. Rogers in Comparison. And lets remember Hagee and Wright have preached many sermons for a very long time. All of these sound bites or excerpts are the few statements of a gazillion sermons. The Great Majority of their other sermons are actually good and spiritual. Neither one of them could keep a congregation if those sound bites were a small example
    of how every sermon is.

    Nate

    True He didn’t have a history prior to this endorsement. BUT he also didn’t have a history with the shock jock who was yelling Barack Hussein Obama either. Yet he denounced him immediately. And all he was using was his full name.
    Prior to this denouncement of Hagee the Cable news shows with the exception of Fox all started hammering away at this Hagee
    endorsement. I couldn’t believe that even my local news was talking about it in the morning and in the evening.It was the
    research someone did to come up with the Hitler segment. This is when the political pressure became to much. I believe if this didn’t happen he would have kept his same stance as he has. I don’t believe he knew about the out of context Hitler statment but he KNEW good and well all of those other horrible things Hagee and Parsley says.

  • Dreadsen

    I also don’t understand why he would choose to get this type of endorsement for votes, when he would be losing a lot of Catholics at the same time

  • Dreadsen,

    The thing about it is that Rev. Wright has thousands of parishioners in Chicago. Hagee and Parsley have millions through television, radio, publications, etc… worldwide. Therefore, I’d say they could be considered less controversial since they have larger followings. What they say has been said for years by evangelical preachers, for the most part. Therefore, I don’t think it’s so unusual for someone like McCain to seek out their endorsements. However, once the media got wind of some of their more controversial statements, the whole thing went south and he was forced to denounce them in fear of losing more moderate to independent votes than the conservative voters he may have picked up. I believe this was a purely political move, as was Obama with Wright.

    Whether McCain agrees with Hagee/Parlsey or Obama agrees with Wright is immaterial. They made political choices to put distance in between, both when the media basically forced them to.

  • Dreadsen, I agree that people must have pulled the Hitler clip out of the vault b/c I can tell you first hand that was not last Sunday’s sermon.

    Christopher Schwinger, interesting stuff about Huckabee! It all kind of clicks now why the southern Baptists didn’t come out and endorse him….very interesting….still processing……..

    CG, what are your thoughts on Parsley?-Josh

    Well I’m really not that familiar with Rod Parsley. I have only caught a few teachings, one in particular on abortion being murder so it wouldn’t be fair for me to render judgment. Now Hagee is another story, it’s a running joke in our house that Hagee’s our T.V Pastor!

  • Christopher Schwinger
  • Christopher Schwinger

    The one thing I can say right now about Hagee vs. Wright is that, both being Christian (at least in name), Hagee at least does not emphasize one race over another race. Christianity is all about overlooking race.
    http://newmediajournal.us/staff/rush/2008/05132008.htm
    This is the best article I know of on the subject of black liberation theology–it’s Marxism/communism disguised as freedom.

  • Dreadsen

    C.S.

    Well I know people would rather talk about Rev. Wright but I was only trying to talk about how all of these pastors have been taken out of context for a particular purpose and how all of them don’t preach the way they have been portrayed all of the time. This is why there are very little sound bites or excerpts on all of them. Eventhough they have been preaching for many, many years. Hagee has made some very derogatory statements offending African Americans. Wright’s Denomination is 99% White. Even Catholic Churchs in Black Neighborhood teach in favor of the community. Hispanic Catholic churches do the same thing. Neither one teaches one race is better then the other one. They both just teach things which are of subject to the community. And not ALL of the time either.

    This is the pastor from St. Sabina notice the difference in how he preaches. This is him preaching in Wrights Church.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Ec_um8cts0

    These are The officers of United Church of Christ meeting at Trinity. This is in 4 parts. They explain a lot.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=8lSSHmWH9q8

    And this is the president of United Church of Christ he goes into talking about the other ethnic churches in the organization.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYla5xdPTUg

    Here is a segment of the same priest being interviewed by fox.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=DiSutcBArDU

    BLT is not the same as it started out. just like Jehovah’s Witness, Mormons, etc doctrine and teaching is not the same as it originally started out as. The both have some damaging and murky orgins but have moved away from that. If BLT was the same i’m sure the White Parent org of Trinity would have distanced itself from them long time ago.

  • Christopher, the problem with comparing Wright and Hagee in what the say about race is the issue of hegemony. The very nature of hegemony is that it is invisible, hence Hagee does not need to cite race or talk about it in order to be a part of the very pervasive discourse in our country. Wright, in engaging in the discourse, makes it visible.

    I have to say, when I saw those clips of Wright’s antics after he re-emerged, I thought he looked like a loon. But after watching the actual full clip of his responses (like the one I posted in the comment sections of my last commentary), he seemed very different.

    The media is really twisting these religious leaders into two-dimensional caricatures. If Christianity is “above race” Christopher, I would argue you should be more outraged that the media is targeting Christian leaders like Hagee and Wright, than differentiating them based on racial discourses.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I am outraged about the media’s targeting Christian leaders over, say, Muslim ones. I was just trying to show that Obama, attending that church for twenty years, had heard numerous racist remarks which are the antithesis of Jesus’ teaching. I suppose I accomplished nothing, because everyone already knows that? I only mentioned Hagee because he is the topic of this thread. The style of preaching, or the fact that Wright’s denomination has whites, are things I intend to look into (via Dreadsen’s YouTubes). But please also give your perspective after reading the New Media Journal article I listed (above Dreadsen’s post).

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I watched the YouTubes and still do not understand how blacks, and even whites, can dwell on racism in this country. Furthermore, I do not see why they defend Obama when he advocates killing a child after birth.

  • C.S, the New Media Journal article is quite specious at points, while at others it has important and cogent claims. I agree that there is much of “European” thought integrated within Black Liberation theology, but then, there is much “European” mixed in with Christian theology in general (some obvious people…. Calvin, Martin Luther, etc.).

    How much actual Black liberation theology have you read? I mean, you’ve read the criticism, but have you read the actual content first?

    Latin American Liberation Theology — do you see this in the same vein? Do you view this as corrupting the practices and beliefs of Christianity?

    What you are witnessing is religious activism. There are all sorts of examples of it throughout the world, and one topic I do not find at all demeaning of a religion like Christianity that speaks highly about compassion, humanity, and goodness, is the idea of liberation.

    Christianity is not a person– it is not a ‘thing’ that “rises above racism.” Christianity is a religion– more specifically, an ideology of faith. People are the applicators of this ideology and people are mired in racial politics.

    Look at the very depiction of Jesus, Christopher. Do you really think Jesus was actually white skinned? Do you really think he was born in December? These is part of the European addendum to the religion. This is quite normal– all living religious traditions change as they get re-contextualized.

    And can you please explain your claim that “Obama when he advocates killing a child after birth”?

  • Babs

    Michael, I think he’s probably referring to the fact that Obama voted in favor of partial birth abortions.

    On Hagee, I grew up around Pastors and Evangelists. I knew Jerry Falwell before the TV camera ever entered his church, he was my Uncle’s Pastor and we visited the church when we visited him. He was a much different person before the camera started rolling and he became a star. The only TV Evangelist I’ve ever seen that remained virtually above reproach after they hit the big screen was Billy Graham. I don’t doubt that McCain had never even heard a sermon that Hagee preached much less knew his stands on anything, the object of the game was celebrity endorsements, and Televangelists are celebrities. McCain’s never even visited Hagee’s church as I understand it, much less been a member there or held him as a spiritual advisor or pastor.

    To say that Wright got thrown under the bus with sound bites taken out of context worked – until he made the second wave of appearances and erased all doubt of what he is about. Not even Obama will defend him now, so his supporters shouldn’t either.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=45553
    Obama and infanticide

    Dreadsen, I have not read any BLT (Bacon Lettuce and Tomato? 🙂 ), so I suppose you could reject everything I say. However, I don’t think you’ll do that. I want to hear your perspective on Wright’s statement that America deserved 9/11: do you think he meant that as referring to abortion, homosexuality, and other things that are offensive to a good portion of the nominally Christian population? Or do you think he was saying that Hamas and Al Qaeda and bin Laden take righteous vengeance when they attack westerners?

    I stated that Christianity is above race because the New Testament’s message is that not the color of skin or the ethnic group makes no difference to God. (The culture does, of course.) That is emphasized in the New Testament because Jews formerly were the recipients of God’s blessings. That’s all.

    I do not believe Jesus was a “white” per se, but I think the color of His skin is irrelevant, and that Rev. Wright is trying to put Christ’s Passion in the context of a struggle against whites, just as he said that Romans and Europeans are white and are bad and killed Jesus. He’s trying to intertwine race where it doesn’t belong.

    Babs, that is a fascinating account about Jerry Falwell. It’s a pity that more people do not stay the same when they get public exposure and start to feel like they can tout their influence. It’s actually quite sad to read that about Falwell.

  • Michael

    Babs,

    This is what I am saying though. His second appearance was taken out of context too. He was irate, upset, and I have already gone on record for saying that the man has ego problems, but his words and gestures were re-edited for flair and dramatics. I am not defending everything the man said– neither should I believe any one of us when it comes to a person talking about religion. I am saying that there is a lot of sound, thoughtful ideas coming out of the man. I will refer once again to the clip I provided in the comment section on my last commentary for an example.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Oops–I meant to address my statements to Michael, not Dreadsen!

  • Babs

    Michael,

    How could his second appearance be taken out of context? I viewed the entire speech, both of them, without benefit of editing or soundbites. I think the man meant ever word he said, and apparently so did Obama. How was it taken out of context? Sure, he might have been irate and upset, but the speeches weren’t off the cuff reactions, they were prepared and calculated?

  • Whobody

    Babs –

    I think you were right when you said that these preachers change when the spotlight is on them (get a little big-headed and that’s when these pompous claims to knowledge of radical false prophecies and explanations of historical events begin), and Wright’s second appearance could be an example of that.

    Whether he is a radical preacher or not (nobody talks about the other sermons he’s given over the 20 years at that church – only the one’s that back up their own point of view – so there is proof of moments of radical thoughts/opinions/claims but not proof of 20 years of radical sermons), he was most likely going to state these claims again because they got him attention. He was willing to go with these ridiculous theories, possibly, because they would make him famous on a wider level. Isn’t it possible that he threw Obama under the bus for his own benefit and greed? — Where Hagee still has the attention and can merely back away without risking his fame and ego?

  • Babs

    Oh yes, Whobody, I think it got very personal between Wright and Obama, and they both each other under the bus. Before the second set of Wright speeches came about, the Obama camp reportedly offered Wright assistance in damage control and PR with the press. Once he took the spotlight that last time, though, all bets were off between them.

    I think that Hagee acted a bit more humble in that he did make an apology to the Catholic community a week or so before the other statements came out, and they accepted it. If Wright ever apologized for anything, you’d have to enlighten me on it. But between the two, I think Hagee handled his situation a little better then Wright did.

    Oh, and Chris, you’re right, it is sad about Jerry Falwell. To sit in his church and listen to him as “just” a church Pastor 30 years ago, and to listen to him the last few years before his passing, you would never believe it was the same person. Very sad indeed.

  • Babs

    And Chris, thanks for the link concerning Obama and Infanticide. I had not taken my research on the issue that far on Obama’s side, I stopped with the partial birth abortion vote. Very informative.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    You’re quite welcome 🙂 .

  • IndiMinded

    I read the article too Chris, and I’d probably be more concerned with the issue, except it’s the first I’ve heard about this, and the article is just so terribly written… I mean no offense, but that article struck me as incredibly shoddy journalism. Having read the article, I am quite certain I know what their position is and who the writer is voting for. It was written like a smear piece. If this were a serious issue, why aren’t decent journalists writing about it?

  • Christopher Schwinger

    IndiMinded, I agree with you that World Net Daily’s articles are quite difficult to read. Of course it is from a conservative viewpoint, because the liberal viewpoint does not criticize Obama about abortion. When you said “why aren’t decent journalists writing about it?”, I believe it’s because most of the better writers work for liberally-slanted news syndicates.