if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Divine Genocide
by Hal_10000
Eeep!
John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God’s behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a “hunter,” sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God’s will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.
They’ve got the actual quotes and this is not taken out of context at all.
First thing’s first. This is not that rare a belief. Many Zionists believe this as well—that the Holocaust was the price paid for the re-establishment of Israel. I don’t believe this and the vast majority of Jews don’t. Nor, do I expect, even the majority of revelationist Christians. But Hagee didn’t invent this view. He’s just saying it in a particularly repulsive way.
The larger issue is, of course, at the epicenter of the God Debate. I find the usual explanations for the cruelty of the Universe—Earthly things don’t matter; God has a plan; it’s all free will; original sin—to be not only inadequate but sometimes repulsive. I’m more inclined to the view expressed by Darwin, which I quoted before:
There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice… On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.
Or, if you like, one my favorite quotes from the Best TV Sci-Fi Show Ever:
I used to hate that life was so unfair. Then I thought wouldn’t it be much worse if life was fair and all the terrible things that happened to us came because we actually deserved them. So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe
But the theological issues, while interesting, are irrelevant. This is going to be very bad for McCain. What on Earth drove him to embrace this fruitcake?
Comments
fucking McCain…
I used to hate that life was so unfair. Then I thought wouldn’t it be much worse if life was fair and all the terrible things that happened to us came because we actually deserved them. So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe
Marcus Cole- Babylon 5…
That is one of the best quotes from that great show.
Wait
Confusion alert.
Did Hagee endorse McCain for President or did McCain endorse Hagee for President?
On Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he repudiates “any comments” by hard-line conservative Pastor John Hagee “that are anti-semetic or anti-Catholic, racist, any other.” “I repudiate the words that create that impression,” said McCain.
Seems to me any controversy over Hagee is grasping at straws to draw some equivalence with Obama over Rev. Wright...kind of like canceling that issue out.
Seems to me any controversy over Hagee is grasping at straws to draw some equivalence with Obama over Rev. Wright...kind of like canceling that issue out.
Obama’s sort-of supporters on this site have been doing this for a while--they usually pull a new one out about once a month, and act as if no one’s ever seen it before. Mother Jones was cited on a post here in support of this, for god’s sake.
At this point, the only explanations for repeatedly trying to draw this equivalence are either stubbornness or intellectual laziness.
At this point, the only explanations for repeatedly trying to draw this equivalence are either stubbornness or intellectual laziness.
Democrats are doing a great job making themselves look stupid this time around. They try to make Hagee’s comments which evaluate the reasons for the holocaust but don’t morally endorse them into a Nazi membership for McCain. Somehow, they think Hagee is worse than Wright (not even close) and Hagee is more influential to McCain than Wright is to Obama. They’re portraying Joy Behar’s revelation about Prescott Bush as important information about what must be George Bush’s policy while Michelle O’Bama’s words at a campaign stop are irrelevant and off limits. The Republicans are melting down and ruining their party. The Democrats are, too. Any of you who are the least bit conservative need to realize why the two party system is so important. Look at the countries in Europe with more than 2 parties. In Germany, there are 5 prominent parties. Nothing can ever get done without a coalition of parties. These compromises of bi-or-more-partisanship mean that conservative views will NEVER come out on top. Always weakened. The only way we’ll ever have any type of conservative leadership is with two parties. After the disaster of this decade in politics, maybe both parties can emerge stronger; with strength of policy and without meaningless rhetoric rattling out as a substitute for work. Blame has become a substitute for intelligence.
Like it or not, association of Republican leadership with right-wing theologian leaders IS a valid campaign issue, given the influence Falwell, Robertson, Jones, Dobson, etc, have had in things like judicial appointments during Republican administrations.
That’s shit that shouldn’t happen under our Constitution, and the question of whether these folks will have undue influence on McCain is absolutely valid.
The same argument could be made for Dems giving undue influence to Hollywood liberals, but that doesn’t hold - there’s no First Amendment requirement on separation of Thespians and State like there is on Church and State.
McCain has to walk a tightrope here. I don’t envy him this.
That’s shit that shouldn’t happen under our Constitution, and the question of whether these folks will have undue influence on McCain is absolutely valid.
Where in the Constitution is religious influence forbidden, dwex? The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment only forbids the establishment of a state church—it does not forbid religion from entering debate and influencing policy.
Hard-core secularists need to figure that out one of these days.
And those of you who think there’s no issue need to look beyond the First Amendment to Article VI of the Constitution, which says in paragraph 3:
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
and understand that asking religious leaders for their opinions of (e.g.) federal judge nominees is WAY too close to the line to be acceptable.
I think you are reaching here, dwex
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
This does not address the problem (if there is one) of religious influence on sitting office holders. This speaks to a personal qualifications of people running for office, not who those people listen to.
Regarding your concern, McCain has never been cozy with the people you speak of. He has shown a history was accepting the support of anybody but having a hair trigger in condemning their actions if it brings disrepute to his campaign. All Presidents are influenced by those around him who’s wisdom he admires or who he is indebted to. How much influence do you think the union bosses will wield if Obama gets elected?
It’s not a reach at all, rich. What is a federal judgeship if not a “public Trust”? And asking fundies whether they think any particular nominee is fit is clearly a religious test. Google around on it. You’ll find this is a pretty clearly held belief, with judicial precedent. For example
I don’t have concerns about McCain being unduly influenced. My point is that, because of the abuses in this area by current and previous Republican administrations, McCain will face undue scrutiny on the issue - and should.
I was pretty clear that the Dems have similar issues of undue influence. But they aren’t wandering down an explicitly Constitutionally-prohibited path, while the current administration clearly has.
Religious test oaths, clearly unconstitutional, is not the same thing as a standing office holder holding councel with a relgious person. I understand your concern, but I don’t know how you stop standing office holders talking to people who’s advice he respects. If Obama is elected and wants to consult with Rev. Wright concerning a replacement for Ginsberg, I don’t know how you stop it. The problem that Bush got into (and don’t paint the whole party with this broad brush, Reagan avoided this pitfall) was the publicity that ensued, it violated the appearnce of propriety when as you said yourself, Clinton did the same thing with his Hollywood buddies. Religious folk have every right to a place at the table, they vote, and they have every right to work towards molding the country more towards their vision, just like everybody else. I’m with you on the dangers of undue influence, but the system usually self corrects in these matters.
The constitution doesn’t say “oath”, it says “religious test”. Obama shouldn’t vet nominees with Wright any more than Bush should with Robertson. It’s improper.
The constitution doesn’t say “oath”, it says “religious test”. Obama shouldn’t vet nominees with Wright any more than Bush should with Robertson. It’s improper.
You may consider it improper, but it isn’t illegal by any stretch. You’re making out like it’s illegal to consult with a religious leader. By that measure, you couldn’t even really elect officials who go to church-a gathering of people with similar religious views where discussion and consultation is bound to happen. You elect the person based on what you think of their judgement. That includes who they hang out with and how influential those connections are. McCain doesn’t hang out with Hagee nor really ask his opinion in any way other than to seek his endorsement. Obama factually met with Wright for years and clearly placed great weight with Wright’s opinions. Wright isn’t disturbing because he’s a preacher anyway. He’s disturbing because he pretends to be a preacher of religion and Biblical tenents but instead substitutes his own politics. He has literally made a religion out of Black nationalism and liberal policy.
way to utterly miss the point of my original post…
Like it or not, association of Republican leadership with right-wing theologian leaders IS a valid campaign issue, given the influence Falwell, Robertson, Jones, Dobson, etc, have had in things like judicial appointments during Republican administrations.
That’s shit that shouldn’t happen under our Constitution, and the question of whether these folks will have undue influence on McCain is absolutely valid.
The same argument could be made for Dems giving undue influence to Hollywood liberals, but that doesn’t hold - there’s no First Amendment requirement on separation of Thespians and State like there is on Church and State.
McCain has to walk a tightrope here. I don’t envy him this.
Your original post, apparently written in English, says that you believe that the Constitution forbids or should forbid an American president consulting with a cleric or religious leader regarding issues or appointments. Because no court has yet ruled this a breach of church into state, you believe this is a valid reason to question McCain’s motives and appointments.
We get that.
You go on to say that consulting with moonbat Hollywood types can’t be forbidden, a statement which is true. You also can’t forbid meetings with religious leaders. You have freedom of association, and association would not necessarily imply that McCain was letting
a preacher make any decision at all. Even if you think preachers to be as or more loony than Hollywood actors, their speech and association is just as protected by the Constitution. The forefathers who wrote the Constitution really knew what they were doing, didn’t they? The United States will never found a church nor collect taxes for one. Other than that, it protects the free speech of preachers and moonbats alike, and doesn’t keep Republicans from consulting with preachers. Be careful what you want forbidden. It could come back on you later.
Like it or not, association of Republican leadership with right-wing theologian leaders IS a valid campaign issue, given the influence Falwell, Robertson, Jones, Dobson, etc, have had in things like judicial appointments during Republican administrations.
THIS is the point. Responding to, for example:
Somehow, they think Hagee is worse than Wright (not even close) and Hagee is more influential to McCain than Wright is to Obama.
Get it? Regardless of whatever issues there are with Wright, McCain has to deal with the abuse of the Bush & prior Republicans, so anything he does in this area will get massive scrutiny, period. The undue influence of these folk allowed by Republican administrations will haunt McCain, hence:
McCain has to walk a tightrope here. I don’t envy him this.
Get it? It’s really not that complicated.
It’s improper.
According to whom?
You originally implied that it was unconstitutional for religious leaders to have any influence over elected officials. Well, frankly, it doesn’t matter how “improper” it may personally seem to you, you have utterly failed to demonstrate how it violates the Constitution. People, including elected officials, have the right to counsel with whomever they choose, for any reason they choose. A president can indeed choose someone for the SCOTUS based on religious viewpoints, and there ain’t nuthin’ in the Constitution that can stop it.
Of course, the appointee has to go through Congressional approval, and all, so there are those built-in checks and balances, but the notion that an elected offical cannot be influenced by a religious leader without violating the Constitution is simply nonsense.
According to whom?
Read the reference I posted above in response to richtaylor questioning it. It’s pretty clear.
BTW - props to McCain. He often seems reactionary in his decisions during this campaign, but when he makes his decision, there’s no equivocating:
“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them,” McCain said in a statement Thursday. “I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.”
Read the reference I posted above in response to richtaylor questioning it. It’s pretty clear.
To you, perhaps.
Your link to the U.S. Supreme Court Center regarding Religious Test Oaths is a red herring. Having a religious leader influence an elected official is nowhere near the same thing as demanding that someone “declare his belief in the existence of God” before appointing him to a position.
Remember, your implied claim is that influence from a religious leader is unconstitutional. That claim is wrong, and pointing to a Court decision re: Religious Test Oaths does nothing to change that.
So you don’t think that deciding on a nominee for a federal position based on his religious beliefs is a major constitutional issue? That’s a freaky position to take, but whatever.
So you don’t think that deciding on
UPDATE::::
linkUNION CITY, Calif. (AP) - Republican John McCain rejected the months-old endorsement of an influential Texas televangelist after an audio recording surfaced in which the preacher said God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land.
“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,” the presidential candidate said in a statement issued Thursday.Hagee quickly responded that he was withdrawing the endorsement.
McCain actively courted Hagee, who leads a megachurch with a congregation in the tens of thousands and has an even wider television audience. Former GOP presidential rivals also sought Hagee’s backing.
The preacher has controversial views that were well-known before McCain accepted his endorsement at a news conference Feb. 27 in San Antonio shortly before the Texas presidential primary.
Hagee has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the great whore” and called it a “false cult system.” He also has linked Hitler to the Catholic church, suggesting it helped shape his anti-Semitism. And Hagee said Hurricane Katrina was God’s retribution for homosexual sin.
McCain has faced a barrage of criticism, with some comparing the situation to the controversy faced by Democrat Barack Obama over the views of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
McCain has tried to distance himself from Hagee’s views, saying he strongly condemned anti-Catholic rhetoric. Yet he never rejected the endorsement.
“I’m glad to have his endorsement,” he said on ABC’s “This Week” in April. “I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti- anything.”
The Arizona senator has said he sought Hagee’s support because the pastor, like himself, is a strong supporter of Israel.
The formation of Israel was at the heart of the remarks that prompted McCain to reject Hagee’s support. The comments came in a sermon Hagee gave in the late 1990s, an audio recording of which was posted last week on the liberal blog “Talk to Action.”
In his sermon, Hagee said, “Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun, and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. ... 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.’”
Hagee tried to repair the damage by apologizing to Catholics in a letter released just last week. Saying he had emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholic and Protestant relationships with Jews, Hagee wrote, “I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.”
On Thursday, Hagee issued a new statement saying he was weary of the controversy and was withdrawing his endorsement.
Hagee said critics are “grossly misrepresenting my position on issues most near and dear to my heart.”
“I am tired of these baseless attacks and fear that they have become a distraction in what should be a national debate about important issues,” Hagee said. “I have therefore decided to withdraw my endorsement of Senator McCain for President effective today, and to remove myself from any active role in the 2008 campaign.”
Sorry, my posts aren’t quite posting right.
So you don’t think that deciding on a nominee for a federal position based on his religious beliefs is a major constitutional issue? That’s a freaky position to take, but whatever.
1: No. The President can choose whomever he wants, for any reason at all.
2: You’re suggesting a level of influence which noone has ever suggested was going on. If a president has a cabinet full of advisers, a vice president, friends in congress, and so on, obviously the pastor is not the ultimate influence.
3: You’re writing a lot between the lines when it comes to the Constitution.
3: You’re writing a lot between the lines when it comes to the Constitution.
No. It’s pretty crystal clear on this particular topic.
As much as I’d hate to admit it, I have to side with the fundies on this one. Influence isn’t violating anything. It may be weakness on the part of the politician to be influenced too much… but wtf are they supposed to do?
Put their fingers in their ears and yell “NA NA NA NA NA” until a person with some type of faith stops talking to them, on pain of tearing the Constitution asunder?
The fact is there is nothing forcing an elected official to accept the vetting of a 3rd party, whether their background is clerical or otherwise. It’s the official’s choice. I really don’t see any constitutional violation of anything.
If we one day get a President who is Athiest, and he wants to run all of his Supreme Court appointees through Christopher Hitchens first… then I wouldn’t see a problem with that either. You take these things in consideration when voting for the person in the first place, right?
If you don’t want Candidate A to run every Federally appointed position through Fred Phelps “God Hates Fags-approved” screening… then don’t vote for Candidate A. I mean, besides all the other numerous checks and balances an appointee has to go through, that will be the first line of defense, right?
Sorry if this comment seems like incoherent rambling; I’m just calling it like I see it as of right now. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.
So you don’t think that deciding on a nominee for a federal position based on his religious beliefs is a major constitutional issue? That’s a freaky position to take, but whatever.
It doesn’t matter what I think. There is simply nothing unconstitutional about an elected official being influenced by a religious leader. If you wanna be freaked out by that, have at it. But that simply is the reality.
Next entry: There Is A New House In New Orleans
Previous entry: Oil of Ipecac
Probably the massive voter bloc that comes with him.