Defending Rev. Hagee
Bookworm on May 23 2008 at 9:53 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
John McCain threw Hagee under the bus today, which was either (a) politically wise or (b) a disgraceful bit of pandering, not even to his own base, but to the New York Times and Co. (and, yes, I know that his desire to placate the NYT is a problem, but every Republican this year seems to be suffering from NYT’s placati-itis). Be that as it may, I still think it’s important to point out that Hagee is not the vile anti-Catholic hate-monger that he’s being portrayed as being in the anti-McCain, pro-Obama, pro-Jeremiah Wright MSM.
I’ve already linked to Dennis Prager’s column defending Hagee against the calumnies made against him. JoshuaPundit has also reacted strongly to the horrible claims made against Hagee. He points out, as did Prager, that Hagee did not say what Frank Rich and the HuffPo peopled said he did. He used the phrases “Great Whore” and “Catholic Church” in the same speech, it is true, but he didn’t say that they were one and the same.
Further, unlike Wright, who used “Zionists” and “evil oppressors” in the same speech with the clear intent that they be understood as comparable terms, Hagee, when he realized that his words had been taken out of context in order to smear Catholics, apologized. He met with Catholic leaders. He discussed doctrine with them. He apologized and they accepted his apology. Prager said this too.
JoshuaPundit goes a step further than Prager to discuss the way in which Hagee and his church have paired their actions with their beliefs, actions that I’m sure all of you will approve:
Pastor Hagee’s Crossroads Church, among their other numerous good works raised $8.5 million dollars to rescue Jews from the Soviet Union and to help them to settle in Israel.
And Pastor Hagee and his Church are the linchpin behind Christians United For Israel, one of the most diligent and uncompromising supporters of Israel and the Jewish people anywhere. They rival AIPAC when it comes to manning the trenches in Congress to lobby for the nation Jeremiah Wright famously referred to as ‘a dirty word’.
As you all know, being Jewish, Pastor Hagee’s doctrinal stance is alien to me. Further, since I’m in some gray area between atheism and agnosticism, much of what he says seems either silly or pointless to me. What I do know, however, is that this is a good man who does good things. That he thinks Hitler may have been Biblically prophesized — well, I think that’s a bit silly, because I don’t read the Bible as the literal word of God (my apologies for my skepticism to those of you who do). Whether logical or not, though, Hagee has taken his Biblical understanding and turned it into a series of good, moral acts. His interpretations, whether you view them as wacky or reasonable, stand as the framework for a life of humanism. How can one castigate that?
Email This Post To A Friend
11 Responses to “Defending Rev. Hagee”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
How can one castigate that?
When it is convenient for the progress of one’s political ambitions, of course. To rule over any significant party of humanity requires crushing a couple of individual humans in the process.
Yeah, but NY Times or not, McCain’s perfectly free to pitch this guy under the busy if he chooses. The guy is NOT McCain’s pastor. McCain didn’t sit in his church for twenty years, or even twenty minutes - or, for that matter, twenty seconds: he’s never been in his church. He’s never given him a nickel. He didn’t get married by Hagee, and Hagee’s never met - let alone baptized or confirmed, or set their hair on fire or whatever it is that church does with kids - McCain’s children.
Nobody cares what Hagee said: it isn’t necessary for McCain to have a thing in the world to do with him, because he in fact does not.
I don’t like John McCain, but I’ll give him credit for being bright enough to see where the mainstream media’s going to go with this, and stepping on its neck quick. Obama’s already been out there blathering about “McCain’s pastor,” and it just ain’t so, Barry, but McCain lknew it was coming so he got on it quick.
I don’t have a problem with this - unlike the problems I have with ninety percent of McCain.
I agree with you, jj. I just have a problem with Republicans dancing to the NYT’s tune. The NYT’s opinion should not count in their decision-making, but it does.
It’s the same thing as the Greenhouse effect on the Supreme Court. Eventually, even the staunchest conservative judges seemed unable to resist the lure of a favorable mention in one of Linda Greenhouse’s NYT court reports, even if it meant jettisoning their principles. Interestingly, the current crop, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito, seem immune to her wiles. Maybe it’s because they have a critical mass, or maybe it’s because they’ve realized she’s a critical mess.
I agree with you, jj. I just have a problem with Republicans dancing to the NYT’s tune. The NYT’s opinion should not count in their decision-making, but it does.
The Republicans react like good little trained slaves to the commands of the Master. Slaves do not get into the “OODA loop” of the Masters, after all, for slaves are only there to react to commands, not to give them.
The NYT decides to publish a story. The Republicans react. The NYT publishes another story. The Republicans react.
This is called going into the cycle of defeat, where the end result is not “perpetual cycles” but “perpetual defeat”.
Well spoken, Ymarsakar. The Republicans should not act like little slaves to the editors of the NYT, but should crush a couple of editors over there to make progress in this country.
The Republicans are a political party with none of the Constitutional powers of parole, pardon, execution, or enforcement. The Republicans can’t do jack except elect Republicans into the Executive, which you would have known had you stopped navel gazing at the corrupt politicians you helped bring to power.
The proper response of Republicans to the NYT should be to mock them and dismiss them as not being worthy of consideration by serious people. Such as…”it would be inappropriate to respond to the NYT until all the retractions have been published”.
It would also be inappropriate to respond to hysterical people before they are properly medicated, Danny.
Expert theologians have wrestled with the theological questions of free will and predestination for centuries.
Is everything that happens, including Hitler and the Holocaust, a part of God’s plan? Even down to the exact millisecond that one particular Jewish child was gassed and then burned in an Auschwitz oven?
Does God simply *allow* bad things to happen, or does God *require* certain bad things to happen so that His precise plan unfolds exactly as expected?
You’ll certainly get no definitive answers from me. All I can say is, there are a lot of things that happen in my life that I could chose to control but I do not. And our universe seems to be one where ‘chaos theory’ reigns, especially at the quantum level, and a certain randomization seems hardwired in. So I personally am very comfortable with my concept of God as a being who has created a universe where probabilities collapse nondeterministically: meaning, just about ANYTHING can happen, and God wants it that way. Therefore tragedies do occur, and we learn humility and empathy from them. Evil can flourish, and we can fight against evil and even triumph sometimes. Accidents are in fact accidents because in this, God’s, universe, they are allowed to happen.
You could say in my view that God could have kept his hands on the steering wheel of every atom, molecule, compound, and creature, but that he deliberately took his hands off the steering wheel to ensure that life, free will, and chance, in this universe, all have purpose.
Rev. Hagee doesn’t know the mind of God; he didn’t land a quickie interview with God the morning he made that statement about Hitler. I don’t know the mind of God either. But that doesn’t stop us from trying, and occasionally making outrageously offensive statements.
I guess I should add that even in my unusual belief system about God, God is quite capable of intervening when and where He wishes to, to bring about a particular desired outcome. If the prophecies concerning the recreation of the Jewish state in the homeland are correct, there’s nothing to say God would not intervene at any point to bring it about.
Alternatively, were God to review all the unfolding events across his creation, perhaps it coud be seen that in all of them, across time, a reestablishment of the Jewish state in their homeland would be seen to ALWAYS occur. And the prophecy might reflect that, or might reflect God’s promise that if necessary He will intervene to cause it to occur.
(By the way, who is to say that THIS particular establishment of a Jewish state in the homeland is the one that is reflected in the Apocalyptic vision? This vision very well may refer to a *tenth* such Jewish state being established, and at some distant point in the far, far future. No human can possibly know for sure, and I am certain that any arguments for or against any particular viewpoint are futile. If the Apocalyptic vision is true, it will happen when it happens.)
Similary, my view on God does not preclude the power or importance of prayer from having an effect, be it solely by the power of prayer or as a trigger for God’s direct intervention. I simply don’t know, and I’m willing to leave it at that. (Except that the fervency of any particular prayer does not guarantee a better outcome - that does seem clear. God doesn’t grant your prayer simply because you’re a better Christian nor because you prayed better. Based on the nature of tragedies we see all around us, that much seems clear.
I guess that what these questions come down to for me is that I am not smart enough to ever figure out how God works. Other people have all kinds of theories, supported by any of a range of convictions, but as long as they are willing to express their theories through dialogue and persuasion, it’s no skin off my back.
In the end, it is what it is and perhaps I will one day be lucky in another life to get a full disclosure. Until then, everyone’s welcome to their opinions.