A tale of two extremists

In 2000, John McCain excoriated George W. Bush for kicking off his campaign in South Carolina at Bob Jones University, visiting the campus and delivering a speech to the student body. McCain assailed the appearance, arguing that Bush’s uncritical speech at BJU — a school with a record of anti-Catholic bigotry — was tantamount to an endorsement of the school’s policies. The McCain campaign even made “Catholic Alert” phone calls denouncing Bush for the appearance.

Eight years later, McCain’s tolerance for anti-Catholic bigots has changed considerably.

We talked yesterday about evangelist John Hagee, who endorsed McCain this week, and whose support McCain has been anxious to trumpet. Given some of Hagee’s bizarre ideas, it seems odd the media has been willing to give McCain a pass on his new buddy.

But yesterday afternoon, there was a new, even more salient angle to consider: McCain hadn’t just cozied up to a radical mega-church evangelist, he’d teamed up with a notorious anti-Catholic extremist.

The president of the Catholic League today blasted Sen. John McCain for accepting the endorsement of Texas evangelist John Hagee, calling the controversial pastor a bigot who has “waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church.”

Hagee, who is known for his crusading support of Israel, backed McCain’s presidential bid Wednesday, standing next to the senator at a hotel in San Antonio and calling McCain “a man of principle.”

But Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement today that Hagee has written extensively in negative ways about the Catholic Church, “calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.'”

“Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee,” Donohue said.

It just so happens, I was thinking of the same comparison.

Louis Farrakhan had a few kind words to say about Barack Obama. In response, Obama repudiated Farrakhan, made no effort to reach out to him (formally or informally), and said he wanted nothing to do with the Nation of Islam leader. Nevertheless, campaign reporters covered Farrakhan’s “endorsement” with great enthusiasm, and Obama was pressed on the “issue” at this week’s debate.

Which leads to an interesting contrast. While Obama repudiated Farrakhan, McCain dropped everything to appear alongside Hagee. While Obama made no effort to reach out to Farrakhan, McCain sought Hagee’s support and said he was “very honored” to accept it. While Obama said he wanted nothing to do with Farrakhan, McCain said he hoped to capitalize on Hagee’s endorsement to curry favor with the evangelical community.

At least one state Republican Party issued an official press release this week touting “Anti-Semites for Obama.” Would it now be equally fair for a state Democratic Party to issue a press release on “Anti-Catholic Leaders for McCain”? The key difference seems to be that Obama rejected the bigot who offered him support, while McCain did the opposite.

If Obama had treated Farrakhan with equal veneration, his campaign would be over today. And yet, McCain won’t even criticize Hagee’s virulent anti-Catholic animus.

Keep in mind, it’s not just Donohue who’s noticed. Catholics United has also denounced Hagee and implored McCain to reject his endorsement. Regrettably, that seems unlikely.

Look, this need not be complicated. Hagee hates Catholics, hates Muslims, hates gays, believes Jews are responsible for bringing persecution upon themselves, believes U.S. foreign policy should actively help bring about the Rapture, believes Americans’ sins led to Hurricane Katrina’s destruction, and in general, is an all-around nut. McCain has been confronted with his friend’s ideas, but doesn’t seem to care.

Eric Kleefeld asked, “Will the same media outlets who have hammered Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan’s uninvited endorsement now ask John McCain to denounce and reject the support of John Hagee, which was actually sought and publicly accepted?”

I kind of doubt it. Indeed, as far as I can tell, most print news outlets didn’t bother to pick up on Donohue’s criticism at all today.

If Obama had accepted Farrakhan’s support in a similar fashion, and then refused to distance himself from Farrakhan’s ideas, I suspect we’d hear about little else. Call it a hunch.

The hypocrisy is stunning, but what’s new? I think this story would have a better shot at moving forward if the main critic was someone other than Bill Donahoe. He’s gotten considerable publicity for his own controversial comments and may not have the credibility to dent McCain on this issue.

  • Steve: Your outrage is correct. The Abrams report last night that had a piece on candidates’ “friends” and it paired McCain with Cunningham. It never mentioned Hagee and I wondered why. One reason I suppose is that it was organized before the Hagee endoresement happened; and two, Hagee is Christian and rebuking a Christian leader for any reason would ignite self-rightous outrage accusing that the network had taken the secular side and was waging war against Christianity. Of course that’s hogwash, but nevertheless, no one wants to get sprayed with hogwash. Not exactly a profile in courage. I think Dan Abrams would be willing to take on Hagee but he probably does not want it to be a two-minute drive-by segment. Just my guess.

  • Note to Donahue: What goes around, comes around.

    Thoughts from Hillary: It’s one thing to denounce. It’s not the same thing as rejecting. And it certainly isn’t the same as spitting in his face. McCain needs to spit in Hagee’s face.

  • Seems to me McCain has to denounce Hagee and reject Donahue in the same speech. I wonder if the American Freethought Association has endorsed anyone yet;>

  • Farakhan and Hagee’s tirades turn me off so much that I can’t say I understand their philosophies well, but there has been a blurring of an important line here that I’d like to bring up:

    We need to make a better distinction between dogma and bigotry here lest we lose the meaning of the word bigot and make bigotry more palatable.

    This is not alarmist. Due to a failure to clarify words, affirmative action was made synonymous with quotas (it wasn’t when it was introduced) and terrorism, which used to mean exclusively violence against civilians to influence governments. It now encompasses any action aginst government, not necessarily violent in nature.

    In this same way, it is not bigoted for a Catholic to believe with all his heart that a protestant is going to burn in Hell for eternity and vice versa. There need be no animosity involved at all; quite the contrary. A protestant may personally, miserably grieve on behalf of loved ones who embrace the Pope and the saints instead of talking with Jesus directly and a Jew or Muslim may worry themselves silly about a son or daughter who has been “born again.”

    Hagee and Farakhan may take their dogma to the level of bigotry in that they hate all non-adherents and want nothing to do with them and may actively seek their punishment or suffering as bigots do to their hated classes. I don’t know enough about either man to say.
    What I wish to make clear is that someone professing as a matter of his faith that everyone not of his faith is bound for Hell is not necessarily a statement of hatred. It may be a statement designed to help others, in his or her eyes. The “help” may be thoroughly unwelcome, but the motives should not be automatically labeled as “hostile.”

    To misunderstand people is to be forever at war with them.

  • The problem isn’t that the main critic is Donohue, Donohue makes news all the time criticizing liberal politicians and celebrities. I suspect it is more likely the reluctance to air anything negative about a Christian leader, even a nut like Hagee.

  • McCain will have to answer for it later.
    Either in a national debate where his opponent can contrast…
    Or at voting box when Catholics will have ample reason to vote against him.
    Or even deeper:
    The current lack of bad McCain press is not necessarily a horrible thing.
    All of this crap piles up behind a dam. When you support someone who slanders massive amounts of people it doesn’t simply seep away. It can’t. The more the dam has to hold back, the more certain that it will eventually give way. I’d rather have it give way in late October rather than now…

    Timing in politics is nearly everything.

  • Weary @ #6:

    I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools for 12 years, and to a Catholic college. Catholics don’t believe that non-Catholics are going to burn in hell, just that it may be a bit harder for them to get there without the advantages of the Catholic sacraments.

    I just wanted to clear that up.

    I can’t say the same for the likes of Hagee and other far-out protestant types.

  • I wondered how long it would take Nixon’s Southern Strategy to come back around and bite the Whore of Babylon in the butt.

    I grew up in a very rural, cattle-country small town, in central coastal California. It was full of rock solid old-line Protestants. You could count the Jews and Blacks on two hands if you had all your fingers. When our new pastor (a Monsignor, the diocesan vicar-general) arrived, in the ’40s, he was greeted by a burning cross on the rectory lawn. When I was downtown handing out campaign literature for Harry Truman, people (mostly proud Masons) used to come out of the stores and bars and card rooms to push leaflets at me showing the pope holding puppet strings to the capitol dome.

    Nationwide, during the ’50s and ’60s, as mostly labor-based and formerly immigrant Catholics moved upward economically and integrated socially, they became more conservative and Republican-leaning. Johnson’s Voting and Civil Rights Acts had made the Democratic Party officially hostile to race bigots. Once Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortion in 1973, single-issue Catholic voters became ripe for recruiting as zealous Republican partisans. They became irrational allies with the evangelicals and knuckledraggers who had previously scorned them. True believers.

    McCain may sell his soul cheaply for the Know Nothing votes (think of “the hug“) and Obama may not. But these character differences sit upon a long history of religious hatreds which I believe will be the undoing of the Republican party. Ultimately, Nixon’s southern strategy will prove as much a failure as his “secret plan” for Vietnam.

  • With Hagee’s endorsement, I wonder if next the honorable Senator McCain will be courting the endorsement of the evangelical leader who sends his minions to G.I. funerals to condemn America’s tolerance of homosexuality.

    It seems Senator McCain is all too willing to shore up his extreme base at what will be, for certain, a great cost to our mainstream pursuit of gaining back our nation from an economic and foreign policy that supports the military-industrial complex at the expense of middle class American bankruptcy, decent Americans in uniform killed, and gas prices over $4 a gallon. You go McCain! (Not so much.)

  • The Hagee issue is complicated because Hagee gave a rousing speech at the 2007 AIPAC conference. Obama gave at least one AIPAC speech.

    Candidiate Obama shoulld stay away from Hagee but this is a good issue for the blogoshpere.

  • In response, Obama repudiated Farrakhan…

    I think he just “denounced” him and called Hillary’s “reject.” Is “repudiate” a re-raise?

  • Unfortunately there won’t be any chance for anyone to question McCain about it, really, between now and the Republican convention, which is 6 months from now. MSM reporters could if they wanted to, of course, but they won’t, because for the next six months the Republican nomination fight – and therefore, by some weird logic, McCain himself – won’t be “news”. And if Obama wins (or Hillary drops out) next week, the same will go for him – basically no need to face hostile questions for the next six months. By then there will be a whole new set of controversies and messages for them to spin.

    So I have to disagree with ROTFL about this. In the modern age, controversy doesn’t build up behind a dam. If a story isn’t picked up within 24 hours it just disappears (except in some blogs with long memories, of which CBR is one of the best). If anyone tries to bring up Hagee in September, which is doubtful, McCain can rightly say something like “That’s old news – I’ve already dealt with it”, whether or not he really has.

    I don’t know if anyone’s thought about these implications of the new political calendar. With primary season basically over by February and conventions not until late Aug/early Sept, we have six months of radio silence for the two candidates, when they can target specific (and potentially controversial) supporters and fundraisers more or less outside the glare of media attention. It’s under the MSM radar, but very much appreciated by the targeted groups. (Side note: the lengthening of the tween-season has happened at both ends – before Karl Rove decided to milk 9/11 by moving the Repub convention to Sept in ’04, the conventions were traditionally in July and August).

    Any ideas for solutions? Maybe the Obama-McCain debates should start in May?

  • Allegedly Kerry lost a good chunk of the Catholic vote in 2004 when leaders in the church condemned him for not being adequately against abortion. I wonder if those same leaders will decide to tell their followers that McCain is no good because he accepts the support of people who hate Catholicism. This could be yet another brick pulled out of what used to be the foundation of the Republican base.

  • Further to my #17, the Swift Boat thing was entirely a product of the radio-silence phenomenon. The rumors were circulated and refined on rightwing blogs in spring of ’04, when no one in the big-time media or political worlds was watching. Then the TV ads hit in Aug ’04, when voters were starting to pay attention but big-time media and political types were still on vacation. By the time the Kerry people started to respond, it was already September and the damage was irreversible.

    Will Democrats remember this and learn the lessons? Not holding my breath.

  • toowearyforoutrage (#6) is quite right; I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to talk about religious “bigotry,” at least not in this context. Hagee and other evangelicals genuinely, sincerely believe that anyone who does not share their religious perspective is going to be tortured in hell for all eternity, and believe it with as much certitude as you or I might believe that a person who never wears a seat belt is running an unnecessarily high risk of being killed in a car crash. From that perspective, it would be inhumane not to try to warn people away from “false” religions that will lead them to eternal tornment. Obviously, Hagee has given his critical reasoning skills an extended leave of absence in order to believe this, but he is probably quite sincere in his misguided beliefs, just as I was as an evangelical in my younger (and more ignorant) days.

    I also think that “bigotry” is a misnomer for hostility to religious beliefs because the term is generally used to refer to discrimination on the basis of some immutable, fundamental, and morally neutral aspect of a person’s identity– e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation. Religion is none of these. Religious beliefs must be actively chosen (even if the “choice” is simply adopting one’s parents’ religion by default), they can change over the course of a life, and they are not morally neutral because religions make moral claims, some of which can be assessed as superior to others (e.g., religious views which advocate suicide bombing or polygamy are less morally commendable than others). So while you’re right to criticize Hagee as a nut, the concept of religious “bigotry” presumes a view of agnosticism and equality (even interchangeability) among religious beliefs which most theists would themselves reject.

  • it’s no secret that christian zionists’ love of israel isn’t for the jewish people but because it’s the stage for the second coming and subsequent exspoliation of all things non-christian. supporters of israel seem willing to take that risk, considering the odds, but nonetheless it would make me nervous to elect a president with such close ties to those with a belief in the inevitable ‘reorganization’ of the holy lands.

  • op99 said:

    In response, Obama repudiated Farrakhan…

    I think he just “denounced” him and called Hillary’s “reject.” Is “repudiate” a re-raise?

    High stakes stuff. Now Hillary has to play Texas Hold’em.

    I think Obama’s next raise is to actually pummel Farracon.

  • It was race-baiting by Tim Russert, plain and simple. And it is hyprocrisy to the extreme. I was watching Hannity and Colmes, and Hannity wouldn’t even go there. Shameless and pathetic to go after Obama, and even worse to ignore McCain.

    No, we aren’t “past race” yet. Not even close.

  • Whatever one thinks about Ralph Nader, he got it right in his recent comment to the effect that if the Democrats can’t landslide this election, they should pack it in and reinvent themselves. McCain’s record, pronouncements and endorsements (like Hagee’s) should make him radioactive to a large majority of Americans. The Dems have to bring these up, again and again. And, they have to do it in a manner that conveys how serious it will be to have someone like this in the White House, especially after what’s gone on the last 7 years. This means no corny alliterations, wisecracks, semantics or other empty debate tactics. McCain’s own words and the record of the Bush administration will do him in, but only if the Democrats do their homework and make the case.

  • [Ralph Nader] got it right in his recent comment to the effect that if the Democrats can’t landslide this election, they should pack it in… -The Waz

    Yet knowing that, and knowing that he’ll siphon more votes from Democrats who would support an agenda more similar to his than the Republicans, he still jumps in the race.

    Fortunately, most people aren’t buying his brand anymore and he’ll only get lunatic voters who would’ve just stayed home if he weren’t on the ballot anyway.

  • Just some interesting sidenotes on John Hagee. Are any of the readers familiar with the recent scandals involving Oral Robert’s University? Lawsuits re:lurid sex activity involving the pastor’s wife and political endorsements by Richard Roberts (Oral’s son and president of the university) resulted in his stepping down as president of said school.Another recently filed suit contends the University was running over a billion dollars through a side account at ORU ,yet the University claims to be in the red.Now,the Board of Regents included Pastors John Hagee,Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn,(the last three of whom are being investigated by Charles Grassley). Copeland endorsed Huckabee. Hagee, is also the head of Christians United For Israel. $1 Billion dollars worth of dirty laundry,perhaps?

  • For clarification,the pastor and wife involved in ORU lawsuits are Richard Roberts and his wife,NOT John Hagee and his wife. My sentence structure may have given an impression,otherwise. Sorry.

  • Will Democrats remember this and learn the lessons? Not holding my breath.

    John Kerry was an extraordinarily lame nominee, and I sorely wish I could have my campaign contributions refunded. Obama’s proven himself to be a fighter. He’s not going to stand idly by while the Republicans attempt to destroy him with lies and innuendo. He’ll fight back vigorously, and that’s one of the reasons I caucused for him, and was elected a delegate to my county’s Democratic convention in April.

  • From Merriam Webster:
    bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    Judging both Hagee and Farrakhan by their own language, I think the term above applies.

    James Dillon:
    Hagee and other evangelicals genuinely, sincerely believe that anyone who does not share their religious perspective is going to be tortured in hell for all eternity, and believe it with as much certitude as you or I might believe that a person who never wears a seat belt is running an unnecessarily high risk of being killed in a car crash. From that perspective, it would be inhumane not to try to warn people away from “false” religions that will lead them to eternal tornment.

    Perhaps I am slow this morning, but I can think of few examples when those who attack, denigrate or are intolerant toward an “other” did not do so from a place of genuine and sincere belief. That some do so in name of God or in the promotion of a religion makes this form of bigotry that much more pernicious in my eyes.

    IMO, if a person of one religion truly is “worried silly” about another person’s choice of faith (or lack thereof), let them pray that the object of their worry sees the light or let them live an example of why they believe their faith is the “true” way to worship God. Hagee and Farrakhan choose to attack and tear down other faiths / forms of expressing faith by describing them in ways could not possibly draw adherants of those faiths / forms of worship to them (Farrakhan’s declaration that Judaism is “gutter religion” for example). This type of language is not designed to “save” Jews or win them as converts to Islam. It is designed to justify prejudice toward Jews and is offensive regardless of the “sincerity of belief” from which it springs. I believe that the deeper hatred at which such comments hint has nothing to do with religion. Nor do I buy that Hagee loves Catholics but hates Catholicism. Intolerance rooted in “Christian” faith is intolerance nonetheless.

  • TuiMel,

    I would note that your dictionary definition emphasizes that bigotry generally applies to groups such as racial or ethnic minorities– i.e., classes for which the three criteria I identified above would apply. Religious groups lack these criteria, so I don’t see that the dictionary definition supports your argument that “bigotry” can be appropriately or correctly used with regard to statements against specific religious groups or beliefs as it can with respect to racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation groups.

    I was not talking about Farrakhan in my post above, I was talking about Hagee and explicitly restricted my comment to the context of the anti-Catholic “bigotry” that Steve ascribes to him in the post. Much of Farrakhan’s ranting about Jews probably can fairly be called bigotry, precisely because it is grounded ultimately in hatred toward Jews as an ethnic or social group rather than the merits of their faith (though he obviously insults that as well). And again, as I noted above, your criticism of Hagee for “intolerance” begs what is, from his perspective, an important question by assuming that all religious beliefs are fundamentally equally valid. I doubt you would suggest that a person who sees a group stranded on a raft heading toward a waterfall has no obligation to do more than pray and hope that they see the danger in time– I think we would all agree that such a person is under some moral obligation to warn of the impending danger. From Hagee’s perspective, the danger of eternal damnation is no less real or serious– in fact, it is much more so– than any mortal danger you can envision in which any decent bystander would act to save a stranger from harm. This, unfortunately, is what liberals often fail to understand about the evangelical mentality.

  • Why do we have fair-weather ‘friends’ @15 and @28? What does Kerry have to do with this? In what way aren’t Democrats responding this time? What lesson are they supposed to learn?

    With friends like these, who needs enemies?

    Of course, we have both these guys andenemies, so…

  • James Dillon:
    The definition gives examples of groups “as a racial or ethnic group” not an absolute limitation. FWIW, I remain ok w/ CB’s application of it in this post.

    You are correct; I do not understand the “evangelical mentality.” My exposure to evangelicals is limited to (1) adults who do not publicly trash other faiths / religions or even trumpet their own faith, and (2) those who (in my youth) warned me that I would burn in hell because – unlike them – I had not accepted Jesus as my “personal savior.” They did this even as they engaged in behavior that they admitted was much less “Christian” than my own. You see, Jesus would forgive them, but he would not accept me.

    With apologies, I find your “raft heading for the waterfall” analogy to be silly and unconvincing. You compare a situation that is can be empirically proven to be life-threatening to one of – well faith, i.e., Hagee’s worry that Catholics will suffer eternal damnation. Extending your logic, perhaps I might “save” those poor folks in the raft by yelling at them, “Your raft sucks!” or “Your guide is a whore!” Could I meet my moral obligation to warn them by saying insulting or inflamatory things about their raft? Again, I cannot excuse the manifestations of Hagee’s faith – regardless of how “sincerely” he may hold it. In my opinion, his actions are those of a – to use JM’s own rhetoric – an agent of intolerance. I am comfortable with my conclusion that Hagee is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

    Finally, I am certain that Fred Phelps and his clan sincerely hold their beliefs that God is punishing America because it “tolerates” gay people. I can accept that they think they are doing God’s work when they picket the funerals of dead soldiers and by doing so torment families in a time of terrible grief. Would I still describe Phelps & Co as bigots and haters dressing up in the clothing of “savers”? You’re damn right I would.

  • TuiMel,

    Would you describe a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her opinion that all Republicans are liars and cheats as an anti-Republican bigot? That would probably describe a third or more of the commenters on this site. Is there such a thing as an anti-Republican bigot? If not, why not?

  • TuiMel @ 29:
    Exactly! It’s just about as sincere as “concern trolling”. Liberals don’t “fail to understand” jack.

  • Would you describe a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her opinion that all Republicans are liars and cheats as an anti-Republican bigot?

    You omitted the “intolerance” from your question / example. Was that intentional?

    To answer the question posed, no I would not. Nor would I say that North Carolina basketball fans are bigotted agains Duke fans. Or, in my case, that U of Washington fans are bigotted against U of Oregon fans. Are you now asserting that Hagee is simply venting or engaging in hyperbole?

    Perhaps I am drawing the wrong conclusion. You seem willing to excuse Hagee (though maybe not Farrakhan vis a vis Judaism/Jews?) for his very public and consistent negative “comments” about Catholicism because he is devout in his belief that he is doing the right thing, the moral thing. I think his actions qualify as religious bigotry and to deny that it is such is to start down a slippery and dangerous slope where “conviction” (or devout faith) could be (and has been) used to justify just about anything. I’m not going there with you, and apparently I am not persuading you not to go there on your own. So be it.

  • Note to Damp above: indeed, to denounce is not the same as to reject, it’s stronger. Reject is to push away or repel. To denounce is to publicly brand someone as blameworthy or evil (and of course that implies rejection). If all you do is reject someone, that’s nothing like a public excoriation. Most people on most blogs don’t understand the difference. Even Clinton didn’t, because she tried to score a cheap point.

  • Obama should have renounced his pastor as well!!

    BTW guys I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama’s Fundraising and other current happenings on the campaign. I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
    Check out the article “Follow the Money” on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165, “Bush’s Twin and the G.O.P.” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=172 and “Barack Obama’s Apotasy” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101

    Check their “Political Analysis” and “Humor” sections for other striking perspectives and comedic analysis on both parties.

  • Comments are closed.