With all of the expected bile et. al. inherent in a national election campaign, I thought this was a fine story:
"When Sen. John McCain accepted the minister's public endorsement in late February, Donohue asked McCain to reject it, as he had been aware of what he considered anti-Catholicism in Hagee's writing for several years. The McCain campaign's response did not satisfy Donohue. For seven straight days, Donohue issued press releases pressuring the McCain campaign to renounce Hagee. The story was picked up by the national media. By the time McCain made a statement rejecting Hagee's anti-Catholicism, John Hagee's reputation was in tatters.
In the middle of the controversy, I received a call from Ralph Reed, who was growing concerned about the impact of Donohue's charges against his friend Hagee. "John Hagee is a good man," he told me. "I want you to talk to John and then talk to Bill." As I remember that initial phone call, I am struck by Reed's ability to imagine the possibility of reconciliation between the two men. When I agreed to make the call, I didn't think there was any chance for a truce -- there was just too much heat."
It made for an interesting juxtaposition with a second insidecatholic.com story, which discussed the required divide between theology and politics. That article includes some timely thoughts from Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict, and also quotes the Catholic Monsignor Gilbey:
"We are not led to undo the work of creation or to rectify the Fall. The duty of the Christian is not to leave the world a better place. His duty is to leave this world a better man."
The Jewish approach differs somewhat, but the position explained in the article is more nuanced than this quote, and understanding those nuances is valuable to anyone grappling with these issues.
Thank you, Joe. A good reminder.
Is a Liberation of Politics from Religion also implicit in this tract?
i for one would appreciate it if you left politics to be a better man. It is clear to me by this article and others you have written you do not take your own advice.
Robert, consider this a warning - another personal attack like the last one and you will no longer be posting on this site.
A.L.
TOC,
In part, yes. Politics and the practice of politics are still informed by religious ethics, but the concept of politics AS religion is off limits.
Which implies a corresponding limitation going the other way, re: religion AS politics. Pope Benedict's discussion of faith and reason also plays a role here... I'll come to that in a future post, it touches on stuff I've posted before myself.
Interestingly, Grand Ayatollah Sistani has also taken steps in this direction. He doesn't believe in no religious influence on politics, clearly - but he's very much against the Qom school's conception, because in his view it dumbs down religion to politics' level.
Kind of like that old story re: wrestling in the mud with a pig...
AL, if Robert has been a problem this way, then by all means let the warning stand. Otherwise, it doesn't make any difference to me.
For one thing, I'm not a Christian. So the "turn the other cheek" thing means nothing to me.
Even so, there is a lot to be said for solving the problem by "acting like Christians," per the stor. But it only works if both sides choose to do it.
John Hagee is certainly not all bad. He's an opponent of Christian anti-Semitism and of "replacement theology", and you can't have too many of those.
He's in the southern Pentecostal tradition, and he has the marks of that tradition - immersion in prophecy, apocalypse, and a quick tendency to explain Why God Burned Down the Cotton Mill. But people who denounce him for that tend to forget that Pentecostals are entitled to their religious freedom, too.
His anti-Catholic statements, interestingly, do not seem to be rooted in traditional American Protestant prejudice, which was often aimed at ethnic Catholics: Italians, Irish, Germans, and Poles. Instead they were mild versions of arguments typical of secular anti-Christian bigots: Hitler was a Catholic, Catholics want to bring back the Inquisition, etc.
He's proven that he can learn from others, and he knows how to apologize. Jeremiah Wright, he's not.
#6 from Joe Katzman at 6:38 am on Sep 18, 2008
For one thing, I'm not a Christian. So the "turn the other cheek" thing means nothing to me.
I got a real kick out of this one.
It reminds me of a quote by John Foster Dulles. Looking for a cease fire during the Suez war when asked about arranging a cease fire he said he like he expected the Arabs and Israelis to sit down like good Christians and come to an agreement.
John Hagee is certainly not all bad.
People like Hagee are bigoted, ignorant, mentally ill, delusional and therefore dangerous. I fail to see where they are worthy of any kind of defense.
People like Hagee are bigoted, ignorant, mentally ill, delusional and therefore dangerous. I fail to see where they are worthy of any kind of defense.
They deliver voters for the Republican ticket. This has been another edition of Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions.
No idea where AJL pulled that quote from, but the real answer is that as human beings, they are deserving of the basic consideration level one extends to all humans. That's a low bar, but eliminating it makes a huge and very negative difference. AJL's comrades have demonstrated that, often.
People deserve defense or credit when their actions warrant it. As is the case here.
That is the Republican answer - and it's rather different than the standard Democrat answer, which seems to ask what group you're part of first and foremost. Note the pattern of AJL's response, which assumes the same group orientation in his opponents. But that's what's in his head, not what's in theirs.
Having said all that, those Democrats like Grim who cleave to the better underpinnings of determinative actions, deserve credit. And if necessary, defense.
Interesting subject for discussion. One of the problems I have with Christian politicians is that they have twice the outrage (but no more morality) of the average politician. They speak a good moral game, but rarely follow it themselves. In fact, it is my current theory that the louder a politician screams about morality, the more likely they are deficient behind closed doors.
The catholic church has some some serious historical morality problems, but I think does pretty good today. Unfortunately, the catholic church is so political by nature (ie it is a massive bureaucracy) that political problems like the abuse scandal are bound to show up.
Now, I'm not a fan of Hagee, but I don't doubt he's a nice guy (you know, assuming you're hetero). But in many ways I consider him as much a political figure as a christian (as I consider all those TBN, 700 club televangelists to be more politician than christian).
Finally, I'll say that a Christian coming to terms with another Christian should be the norm, right? After all, it is the CHRISTIAN thing to do. What surprises me is how many denominations outright HATE (or are paranoid) of each other. How is that Christian?
No, what would impress me is meeting with (or some coming to terms with) Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or any other none Christian group. I don't think that's something either of these men could actually stomach.
#11 from Joe Katzman at 5:29 pm on Sep 18, 2008
AJL pulled the quote from me, in my previous post.
Which leads me to question the following:
That is the Republican answer.
I am Republican and that is not my answer. I moved from New York to the south when I was 15 in 1961, it opened my eyes to the effect of the absolute poisonous filth that guys like Hagee spew in the name of religion. I doubt that this kind of leopard changes his spots on a dime but would be more willing to give him absolution for his past sins if he would make a long and sustained effort to undo all the hate he has spread, a la George Wallace.
Believe me, Joe. If you ran in to this guy, I would not be surprised if he checked you for horns.
So on this topic, can anyone recommend a good book of the evolution of Catholic politics, Protestant politics, and the interplay of Catholicism vs Protestantism in both Europe and the United States?
(I'm willing to read more than one if that's what it takes to get a decent understanding of it. I'm a history buff, and have been working my way through Quentin Skinner's stuff, at the moment.)
But, but… he loves Israel! I mean, as long as it's doing what it can to bring about Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ!
OK, it's nice that we have a generation of Religious Right evangelical Christian leadership who no longer have automatic personal hatred of individual Jews. I don't think Hagee would check Joe for horns. Might even have a Jewish doctor. On the other hand, his movement (I haven't researched Hagee personally) would like Joe's kids to recite Protestant-oriented prayers in public schools. They'd like Joe's kids to learn an exceptionally brain-dead misreading of Gen 1 and Gen 2 in their science classes. And so on.
Who knew that Galveston, Texas was a hotbed of sodomy? By Hagee's reasoning it must be, because here's what this great man of God had to say about Hurricane Katrina.As for his views of Catholicism and Islam, the less said the better.But, but… he loves Israel! Probably much more than the majority of Israelis, who want a normal country instead of the home ground for the Rapture, love him.
Marcus Vitruvius, The Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch is pretty much the definitive book published in the last few years. It's primarily about religious history in Europe, but there is a significant epilogue about the impact of the Reformation on the United States. It's also pretty balanced and doesn't impose 21st century judgments.
[URL format fixed. --NM]
Sorry for screwing up the link!
Thank god we've got Nancy Pelosi to explain Catholic dogma to us.
Marcus -
That's a pretty broad subject with a lot of bushes to beat. Here I Stand is a classic book on Martin Luther; from a Catholic perspective, anything on the subject by Hilaire Belloc.
TOC, I'm not a Catholic priest here, and my religion works differently. Absolution for past sins is, as another guy put it recently, above my pay grade.
Individuals are judged on their actions. The things they do that are worthy of praise, remain worthy of praise and can be held up as an example. Regardless of their overall record, this remains true.
And that's what this article is about - a specific example made toward a narrow point.
As another commenter pointed out, there's a long history of people not acting like Christians n the manner above. Not to mention the history associated with electoral politics. (Having admitted that this behaviour is in fact unusual, it's pretty stupid for that other commenter to then turn around in the same comment and say it doesn't matter and isn't impressive.)
All that said, TOC may (or may not) be right overall about Hagee. Obama likes to say, well, Jeremiah Wright had some good things to say. I'm sure he did, but no it does not cancel out the hate and filth he has spewed for all those years. The standards don't change for Hagee in terms of his overall judgment - though this incident shows that Hagee is at least a cut above Wright, since he shows some willingness to listen, change his mind, and then admit error.
(#15) AJL's religion is Marxism/Leftism near as I can tell, so this whole thing is way outside his frame.
But the sort of thing Hagee said re: Katrina is a common problem/trap with monotheistic believers who accept the omnipotence of G-d AND treat it as a final answer to how everything works. I criticized Rabbi Lazer Brody for a similar read, albeit not involving the same specific cited cause.
When you have a one-cause frame, any time anything happens you look to fit it into that frame and explain it. The results can be quite weird. AJL has only to look to some of his global warming fanatic/'humans are a curse on the earth' fellow-travelers to find the exact same religious dynamic at work. I hear it frequently.
The cure for that lies in the combination of faith and reason. The current Pope has been pushing this since he his name was Ratzinger, and ultimately there is a necessary synthesis with the ethic of science when applied to events.
We are not passengers in G-d's universe. We are crew.
It's really funny that Joe Katzman's response to my quoting Hagee's despicable statements about New Orleans (why, I still wonder, did God hate Galveston, too?) is to criticize me. Talk about hating the messenger.
Let's just say my definition of a "good man" doesn't include Rev. Hagee. I'd like Joe to explain how a good man can say what I quoted in #15 (and Hagee's various farragoes against competing religions), instead of lazily dismissing my work as Marxist-Leninism in action.
"Talk about hating the messenger."
Exactly, Andrew. Your comments, from start to finish in this thread, are an excellent example. It is not possible for Hagee to have done a good thing, because you hate him. That's all your comments are about.
I have not said that Hagee is a good man. I do not know him or his record well enough to make that judgment. I have said that he has done a good and worthy thing. Which he has. In this episode, he was true to the higher calling of his faith.
So it is a "fine story" that intolerant Protestant pastor John Hagee might be reconciled to intolerant Catholic Bill Donohue. This is a fine story, why exactly, Joe? When Hagee gets around to reconciling with flood victims in New Orleans, that might be good news.
Of course it is possible for a bad person to do a good thing. That hardly seems to warrant the tone of either your original post or your follow-up comments, which seem determined to overlook Hagee in the large, probably because of his affection for the extreme right of the Israeli political spectrum.
Is this horshoes? It's ok I guess for a spiritual leader such as Hagee to be wrong a lot of the times or done what some might consider evil things because he has also "done a good thing"?
[JK: threadjacking attempt deleted]
Andrew, this story is clearly beyond you, in any respect.
I'm officially asking you to step out of this thread.
Vista,
Your inability to read is a source of sorrow to me.
Your link has been removed as non-germane to the topic of this thread, and you are also officially asked to step out of this thread and remain out.
Winds policy will escalate to a site ban if you refuse.
[Post deleted, based on entry author's thread ban.
AJL:
Under the terms published in the WoC comments policy, the power of the entry (top post) author to eliminate participants from the thread that follows that entry is absolute and does not require a second:
Take it up with Joe offline if you wish. It's his thread, so it's his choice.
--NM]
Wow. Did I miss the post where AJL bought out windsofchange.net and can now dictate to Joe Katzman how he gets to behave and whose permission has to be obtained before Joe can moderate his own threads?
Joe almost certainly wrote this post for nearly the exact opposite reason of encouraging ad hom attacks on other people's religion. Funny how that works out sometimes.
Let me speak bluntly regarding recent participant threadbans. I might have a different policy for an entry of mine, but this is not my entry.
Joe has made it clear for this thread: If the only opportunity you can take here -- in a thread about a flawed public figure managing to do a good thing, in a spirit of reconciliation and outreach -- is to insist on telling us how much of a f***nozzle he usually is, and how Joe must be trying to tell you he's wonderful....
Don't bother. You'd be acting beneath the very substance and spirit of Joe's post: in this context, you'd be being a f***nozzle.
Capisce? Bene.
--NM
{H/t to ColdFury's Mike for the term "f***nozzle", though he spells it out.}
[Edited]
Nort nails it.