Back to Bible 101 for Dumb Democrats

Padre

Milforum Chaplain
Wright & wrong


Posted by: Diogenes - May. 03, 2008 8:52 AM ET USA


In his 1956 presidential campaign against Eisenhower, taxed with criticism from Rev. Norman Vincent Peale (the "Evangelist of Optimism"), Adlai Stevenson retorted: "Speaking as a Christian, I find the apostle Paul appealing and the apostle Peale appalling."
Stevenson's quip deserves to be remembered because it marks its author as the last Democratic presidential candidate to display accurate and unscripted acquaintance with a biblical author. He knew that Paul wasn't a Pollyanna.
In saying this I find myself in the unfamiliar position of agreeing with Lefties -- at least with those who argue that the flap concerning Senator Obama's preposterous "pastor" is captious and overblown. Like Hillary, Obama is an Ivy law grad. Like Hillary, Obama is a national-level Democratic pol. Of course they don't know what their parsons believe. How could they be expected to? Why would they care?
During the 2004 election cycle there was a mini-flap when candidate Howard Dean revealed that he left the Episcopal Church over a dispute about a bicycle path (he also maintained that the New Testament character he most admired was Job). And back in the early 1990s, Hillary herself, after circumstances obliged her to remember she'd been a life-long Methodist, told us that her favorite book of the bible was The Beatitudes. Embarrassing, briefly, but everyone understood the gambit. Her adopting a faith-life was a move no more momentous than her dumping the Cubs and donning a Yankees ball-cap prior to her New York senate run.
Here's what happens. Candidates issue a formulaic campaign bio including standard personal information. Before it's released some staffer notices the Religion/Church line is blank and realizes that the press might take the wrong kind of interest. So they send some flunky to the Yellow Pages to come up with a denomination, a church, an address, and the name of a pastor. If the pastor in question has shared the podium with the candidate at a fundraiser barbecue, so much the better. That's the extent of the spiritual pollenization. Nancy Pelosi's goofy quotation of a non-existent "biblical" verse nicely illustrates the range and depth of the transaction.
These are Democrats. They view Christians as nature's gammas. At their best, some ministers of religion may be regarded as useful idiots, beneficial for neutralizing the "values vote." To suggest that a Methodist clergyman had concrete influence on Hillary's political beliefs would be as ludicrous as claiming that Ernie Banks shaped her theology. By the same token, the contention that Senator Obama and the Reverend Wright share an interest beyond the politically advantageous disbursement of government monies is itself an exercise in cynicism. For obvious reasons, Obama's political opponents are making maximum capital out of the wild pitches of his pastor-of-record. No question but that his staffer typed the wrong name in that bio blank. Detesting his positions as I do, I hardly regret the damage done to the momentum of Obama's campaign. But it's a mistake to confuse political expedience with the facts of the case. You want to know what a progressive Democrat believes as a matter of spiritual conviction? Find out what pop music he listened to in high school.

http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm

copy of "Bible For Dummies" on its way to the DNC :p
 
Padre

You have made it very clear in the past that you hate Democrats, liberals, the left, etc...We get it.

I have a question for you.

In the past, you have criticized or mocked the faith of other people (mainly Democrats) I was curious however about your feelings toward John McCain's Spiritual Adviser Rev. John Hagee who refers to the Roman Catholic Church (THAT MEANS PEOPLE LIKE YOU) as "The Great *****" and comparing it to Hitler, A Cult, Satanic Worship, etc...

Being part Catholic myself, I would have been extremely offended, except that I am not voting for McCain, I don't like hate groups of any kind, and I have heard this anti-Catholic crap before from the Religious Right. So I personally don't give a damn what people like Mr Hagee says.

But thats my opinion, I was curious about your opinion. My question is this: for someone claiming to be a Catholic Priest, why do you support the side that readily admits that they hate your faith? It doesn't seem logical, does it?

As a matter of fact I could ask the same question to all Catholic Republicans...

You can watch this "Christian" in action in the clip below.

John Hagee compares † Roman Church † to Hitler


Oh and BTW. Unlike Obama who finally kicked out his idiot hate-monger, Hagee is still on the McCain Campaign. Food for your thought.
 
Last edited:
How does one become "part Catholic", pray tell?



By the way, please do not let this thread spiral down into you know what.

Fair warning to all.
 
Last edited:
How does one become "part Catholic", pray tell?



By the way, please do not let this thread spiral down into you know what.

Fair warning to all.

Catholic Mother, Protestant Father. I have relatives that worship in both faiths, so I honor both faiths.

Understood, and I apologize for being slightly too aggressive. However I suspect the whole objective of this thread was an attempt at trolling to begin with which is why I reacted the way I did. Calling Democrats DUMB in the thread title gives it away...

But I'll play nice despite this...:smil:
 
Last edited:
Mmarsh, there are quite a few Christians who do not only dislike the establishment but are hostile towards it.
I'll give myself as an example. Although I am a Christian, I absolutely hate most Churches and pretty much all Korean Churches.
I think the point is, don't claim to know more than you know because enough people know about this subject to call you on it.
 
Mmarsh, there are quite a few Christians who do not only dislike the establishment but are hostile towards it.
I'll give myself as an example. Although I am a Christian, I absolutely hate most Churches and pretty much all Korean Churches.
I think the point is, don't claim to know more than you know because enough people know about this subject to call you on it.

I don't recall making the claim that I knew better than anyone, where did I say that? On the contrary, I readily accept the fact that I am not a theological expert.

Your (from what I can gather you are telling me) and even my complaints with the church, are of a social/political maybe even theological disagreement. Thats perfect fine. As I said, I have my own list of complaints as well. But you don't accuse Catholics of Hitler and Devil worship do you? You don't strike me as being that hateful.

But by comparing Catholicisms to Hitler and Satan, Hagee is not highlighting disagreement, but is promoting religious hatred. The same type of religious hatred that people like Osama bin Laden preach, the same type that led to the European 100 years war, the 30 years war, and the Spanish Inquisition. How on earth can we condemn Muslims extremist hate speech when we tolerate it from other Christians?

There is a big difference between our complaints of religion vs someone like Hagee's views of hate.

Nor is Hagee some crackpot, there has been a strong anti-Catholic sentiment in certain Christian Faiths, (and thus the GOP) for decades...

All I am asking our friend above (and all GOP Catholics) is why they would want to side with a political party that tolerates (perhaps even accepts) an extremist anti-Catholic viewpoint. If I were supporting McCain, I would be demanding that McCain eliminate this type of his extremism from his Campaign. Obama did it. So far McCain hasn't.
 
Last edited:
No, I'm not accusing YOU of knowing better than anyone. I'm saying it as in the Democrats who in these cases have said pretty inaccurate things regarding the Bible in order to appeal to the masses. Personally, I think that's pretty sad. If the Bible isn't a big part of your life, I don't see why that should be THAT big of a deal.
I think I normally show enough respect to members of this board to be making blind accusations. I know you didn't claim to know better than anyone else and I haven't accused you of that either.
I hope Hagee's messages are not being taken out of context but if you're as well known as he is, I agree, you got to be careful about what you say. You got to say what you mean, but it better be packaged in the right way.
I personally believe that a LOT of religious organizations of various and probably all faiths are evil. Evil, as you know, isn't some kind of red monster with horns, it is simply the lack of courage to do the right thing and I see it all the time in religious organizations here. I think the Hitler reference had to do with how the Vatican never took a strong stance against Fascism despite all the things Fascists were doing at the time. The statement about how Hitler was doing the same thing the Catholic Church did... it's a bit weak because like everything, a religious organization takes a long time to mature. It's the same reason you can't jail someone now for doing what is illegal now but wasn't illegal back then when it happened. A statement over the top? Yeah I'd say so, but he does have a point.
Having said that, I wouldn't want someone so extreme on board with a political program that has bringing people together at the core. You're right. McCain hasn't gotten rid of him and it makes us wonder why. Is there some kind of aspect of Hagee we're not seeing that McCain needs him for? I don't know.
And there's one thing you're wrong about Mmarsh.
I am a very hateful person.
 
Last edited:
Lets try and stay on topic.

1. The point the author of the article is making, and that I thought worth posting on IMF, is that Democrat candidates for (high) office are more guilty than others (apparently) of manufacturing their religiosity or spirituality (presumably to win votes of that segment of the electorate that value religiosity in candidates), but their facade comes undone when they can't even get basic biblical facts or references correct in public comments. In other words they embarrasingly expose the superficiality of their religiosity and that their "faith" is a political tool rather than a true personal conviction. But the other point the author is making is that we the people, shouldn't be shocked by this and should not expect a higher standard from such candidates up to an including their choice of chuch, parish or pastor. It therefore is a defence of Senator Obama - that he should be left alone on the Wright connection because no one should be shocked that a (Democrat) politician attands a service that has, and who holds fuzzy beliefs.

2. The article - and therefore the topic - is about Democrat candidates perchant for faking religiosity via biblical knowledge to win votes or create a pro-faith persona, and not about the anti-Catholicism of a particular pastor. Mmarsh, go post your very good post somewhere else. It does not belong in this topic.

3. I note that no one challenges the facts of the article - that Sen. Clinton et al "misspoke" (ie. lie, fabricate, invent) regarding biblical quotes, just that some are upset at the dumbness of these people is brought to light in the public square - ouch, does it hurt that much? Poor Democrats.
 
Lets try and stay on topic.

1. The point the author of the article is making, and that I thought worth posting on IMF, is that Democrat candidates for (high) office are more guilty than others (apparently) of manufacturing their religiosity or spirituality (presumably to win votes of that segment of the electorate that value religiosity in candidates), but their facade comes undone when they can't even get basic biblical facts or references correct in public comments. In other words they embarrasingly expose the superficiality of their religiosity and that their "faith" is a political tool rather than a true personal conviction. But the other point the author is making is that we the people, shouldn't be shocked by this and should not expect a higher standard from such candidates up to an including their choice of chuch, parish or pastor. It therefore is a defence of Senator Obama - that he should be left alone on the Wright connection because no one should be shocked that a (Democrat) politician attands a service that has, and who holds fuzzy beliefs.

2. The article - and therefore the topic - is about Democrat candidates perchant for faking religiosity via biblical knowledge to win votes or create a pro-faith persona, and not about the anti-Catholicism of a particular pastor. Mmarsh, go post your very good post somewhere else. It does not belong in this topic.

3. I note that no one challenges the facts of the article - that Sen. Clinton et al "misspoke" (ie. lie, fabricate, invent) regarding biblical quotes, just that some are upset at the dumbness of these people is brought to light in the public square - ouch, does it hurt that much? Poor Democrats.

-------------------------------------------------------

No, your thread was (and still is) an obvious attempt to troll as you have done plenty of times in the past (lets not try denying it) which is exactly why I didn't bother commenting on it directly. Nor did anyone else fall for the bait either for that matter. As I said, we all know you hate Democrats. We all get it, your ideology is like Pheonix80. GOP = Good, DEM = BAD. You have said the same thing for months. You wouldn't have posted the article if it were critical about a Republican. The next thread you post, try not to sound so bias and perhaps someone will really feel like answering. Secondly, you are in no position to lecture anybody about hijacking threads as you have trolled more threads than can be possibly counted. And lastly, while you are not obligated to comment about Hagee but your steadfast refusal proved the point of my first reply. That its so much easier to attack other people's beliefs or ideology than actually have to defend your own. But I got the response I fully expected to get. So my curiosity is sated, so you don't have to worry about it. I will instead indulge your question.

Are you saying that politicians lie or exaggerate about their faith in order to create artificial sympathy? If so, thats not exactly a revolutionary discovery. If you really think thats solely based to the Democrats than you obviously didn't watch the GOP nominations on TV. I suggest you watch actual political debates yourself rather than accept a single blog from the internet as a fact.

I get CNN International, so I watched the GOP debates, almost all of them. I didn't hear John McCain mention his faith publicly until he was running for president. Nor did I hear it from Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani either. In fact in the 2nd debate, there was a question about "faith" and it was just hilarious to watch the Republican candidates claim that they "found" Jesus while running for president...one right after the other. Some like Huckabee (a Southern Baptist like Hagee) were truly faithful but most were as disingenuous as Hillary or Obama were. (And YES, I think the ex-Republican candidate Huckabee is more religiously observant then current Democrat nominee Obama is).

I would have eagerly supported the candidate of either party who said "Sorry I cannot answer a faith question, I am not religious not is the question important to the running of the country". Nobody from either side has had the courage to say this. The fact that McCain never actually mentioned his faith while he was a POW UNTIL running for president to be a remarkable coincidence. Nor did Hillary pandering to the religious right go unnoticed. I thought her monologue speech on "Faith issues" it was so pathetic I turned it off after 5 minutes. But you don't need to worry about Hillary, she lost and everyone knows it but her.

So it short, its all a bunch of religious Horse-hockey, be it from most Democrats or Republicans. They are BOTH full of it. And Meanwhile, the Candidates who really were running on a "faith" issues who actually had a religious background were so extreme they scared everybody but the real zealots away.

The true is this: Most Democrats don't care about "Faith" Issues. That's a GOP platform, and most Democrats are as secularist as I am. We care about the economy, the various wars, and lack of health-care. We DON'T care which candidate is the more religious or faithful. This election is for President of the United States not to be Archbishop of Canterbury.

I would love to hear McCain's ideas on the war, economy, or healthcare but he either he doesnt have any, or they are a rehash of the Bush Administration. Either way, it doesn't make him a very attractive candidate.
 
Last edited:
boring.jpg
 
contrasts in pastors

Pastor Hagee Apologizes for Anti-Catholic Remarks


Evangelical leader John Hagee, one of John McCain’s highest-profile supporters from the religious right, has apologized for comments he made that were offensive to Catholics.
In a letter Monday to Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, Hagee wrote, “I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful.”
Pastor Hagee, leader of San Antonio’s Cornerstone Church, has often made references to “the apostate church” and the “great *****,” terms that Catholics say are slurs aimed at the Roman Catholic Church.
In his letter, Hagee said he now better understands that the Book of Revelation’s reference to the Catholic Church by those two terms are “a rhetorical device long employed in anti-Catholic literature and commentary.”
“Neither of these phrases can be synonymous with the Catholic Church,” he wrote.
Donohue, accepting the apology, said on FOX News Radio: “I’m absolutely delighted … I haven’t seen such a quick turnaround in the 15 years that I have been president of the Catholic League.” He said he plans to meet with Hagee on Thursday.
Likening Hagee to two New York shock jocks who encouraged a pair of listeners to attempt to have sex in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 2002, Donohue added that he is receptive to honest apologies.
“We’re not in the business of rejecting apologies whether it’s from Opie and Anthony or Pastor Hagee so now when we meet we can understand that this issue is moot and behind us and I think it’s a great moment that we can have some degree of reconciliation.”
Hagee’s endorsement in February had been difficult for McCain, as Democrats, Donohue and others called on the presumptive GOP nominee to reject the pastor’s support.
McCain said Tuesday he didn’t know if the new apology would stifle criticism, but said it was “helpful” and “laudable.”
“I believe the fact that these two individuals came together is a laudable thing and a testimony to both individuals and their principles, which are Judeo-Christian values,” he said, adding that his campaign had nothing to do with brokering the apology.
McCain, who has taken pains to gain the trust of the religious right, has rejected specific statements from Hagee — namely about the Catholic Church and blaming the sinful behavior of New Orleans residents for Hurricane Katrina — but would not denounce the pastor. Hagee apologized for the Katrina statements a couple weeks ago, saying it’s not his place to try to know the mind of God concerning the natural disaster.
Hagee has claimed that his “great *****” remarks were taken out of context, and that he was not directing them at the Roman Catholic Church. A spokesman said via e-mail Tuesday that Hagee “never used this phrase to refer to the Catholic Church.”
Donohue, who in February said that Hagee “has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church,” said in a statement Tuesday that their feud is now history.
“The tone of Hagee’s letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it,” Donohue said, adding that Hagee has spent “weeks” meeting with Catholic leaders.
“Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology,” he wrote. “What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns. But he has done just that. Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed.”
Hagee is firmly pro-Israel and has praised McCain for sharing his values to that end. But he has condemned Catholics for what he sees as efforts to persecute Jews. In his 2006 book “Jerusalem Countdown,” Hagee wrote that history proves Adolf Hitler and the Catholic Church were linked “in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.”
In his letter to Donohue, Hagee indicated he no longer believes in such historical links.
“In my zeal to oppose anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its ugly forms, I have often emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholic and Protestant relations with the Jews,” he wrote. “In the process, I may have contributed to the mistaken impression that the anti-Jewish violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition defines the Catholic Church. It most certainly does not. Likewise, I have not sufficiently expressed my deep appreciation for the efforts of Catholics who opposed the persecution of the Jewish people.”
Reacting to the letter, the Democratic National Committee again called on McCain to renounce Hagee’s endorsement Tuesday.
But McCain gave no sign of doing so. His campaign also rejects any attempts to draw comparisons between Hagee’s controversial remarks and those of Barack Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.
Donohue told FOX News Radio that both McCain and Obama “have both gotten some bad advice on how to handle certain people who are close to them.”
But he said “I don’t really have a stink with McCain per se.”​


over to you Mmarsh.
 
How does one become "part Catholic", pray tell?



By the way, please do not let this thread spiral down into you know what.

Fair warning to all.

I consider myself part Catholic. I was baptized catholic and I share some beliefs but question others.
 
Padre

Ah a discussion, thats much better!

To your rebuttal, I call his "apology" load of s***, its nothing more than a Political motivated sideshow of "cover-your candidates-butt". I don't buy it for a second.

Hagee made these comments back in March and he apologized for it yesterday, it took 3 months to make an apology, he certainly took his time, didn't he? Thats pretty unbelievable.
Its totally obvious what happened. The American Catholic Groups told McCain that they would shift their support to Obama (which would have certainly cost McCain Ohio) unless a public retraction was made. Thats what happened. Catholics a swing voter blog, McCain cannot lose them or he's already lost the race.

Nor is it the first time Hagee has said something like this. It be one thing if this was a casual slip of the tongue. If you read Hagee literature and sermons you'd see he has been bashing the Catholic Church since 1987. In US history the Southern Methodist/Baptist have long despised Catholicism, these comments are not anything new.

A few other of Hagee's quotes made BEFORE the one he made in March.

“Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.” - Jerusalem Countdown (revised edition, 2007, p. 114)

"A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate." -Hagee's 1987 book Should Christians Support Israel? (p. 4)


Sound Familiar doesn't it? Thats why his apology is absolute crap. And he has made similar comments about Katrina victims, homosexuals and others. A Tiger doesn't change its stripes, just wait until the election is over and he'll be right back to the hate speeches.
 
Last edited:
It pays, sometimes, to let a post rest for awhile and wait for more facts to develop, or for the Truth to surface.

As the French would say.......... "Voila!"



McCain rejects endorsement of televangelist after comments on Hitler surface

By LIBBY QUAID

The Associated Press

STOCKTON, Calif.



Republican John McCain on Thursday rejected endorsements from two influential but controversial televangelists, saying there is no place for their incendiary criticisms of other faiths.

McCain rejected the months-old endorsement of Texas preacher John Hagee after an audio recording surfaced in which the preacher said God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land. McCain called the comment "crazy and unacceptable."

He later repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent.
McCain issued a statement Thursday afternoon announcing his decision about Hagee.

"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," he said.

Later, in Stockton, he told reporters: "I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable."

Then in an interview with The Associated Press, McCain said he rejected Parsley's support, too.

"I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America, and I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn't endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement," McCain told the AP.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4912796

As of today, no Republican candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008 or before, has ever stuffed up a Bible quote when wanting to use their knowledge of the Bible to impress voters. In contrast, there is no shortage of Democrat candidates who have stuffed up Bible quotes in order to impress voters and thus unimpressing said voters.

Argument stands, case closed.

:horsie:
 
You missed the point entirely.

Hagee wasn't booted from the McCain camp for being anti-Catholic, it was because of anti-Jewish remarks, because the guy is too racist and too stupid to keep his mouth shut.

It was "Jews deserved Hitler" -was the nail in Hagee's coffin, not his anti-catholic or anti-gay statements I mentioned earlier.

You see, if there is one sacred cow in US politics its this: Don't ever criticize the Jews or Israel. If you do you political career is over faster than the speed of light.

Case in point: It took 3 months to (sort of) distance himself from the anti-catholic remarks. It took 1 nanosecond for McCain to totally kick Hagee off the campaign after his anti-semitic statements.

Why is that the case? Because Catholics are deeply resented in the Bible belt.
 
Last edited:
Hi MM - I do not wish to carelessly interrupt your discussion, neither of you need any help from me, and I cannot add any weight to American political/religious issues.


I am here simply to speak as a Roman Catholic and to say this , a little off-topic but important since it has been introduced. Perhaps more important than the issues of the current election process even.


A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate." (quote)



As a catholic I consider this statement to be true, but I would even suggest 2000 years is nearer the case. I consider it to be reason for the predicament of the Jews, springing as it did from the political considerations of The Roman Empire, when the gospels were introduced, and which is the stumbling block for the Church. I believe that these gospel matters should be confronted by the Church, and until this happens my conscience does not allow me to attend the Passions at easter. Many a long year ago I made these feelings known through The Universe catholic publication. This has been the basis of the suffering of the Jews, who, of course, were indeed the early Christian numbers, pre-Rome.

I look forward to this situation being rectified, which is necessary if the Church is to continue to grow and live, because in the last resort good can only be based on truth as known, in my opinion.




"It was "Jews deserved Hitler" -was the nail in Hagee's coffin." (quote)




MM - I feel that this statement deserves to be the nail in anyone's coffin.


Ok guys, please carry on without any more from me, just tidying up. I have no wish to stir up a hornets' nest. I shall now take my leave of this thread. Thanks for your attention.:)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top