John McCain and Evangelical Christian endorsements

[oregonpackfan]

While much of the media dealt with Barack Obama and the Jeremiah Wright relationship, there has been minimal media coverage of McCain seeking endorsements from ultra-conservative Evangelical Christian leaders like John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

John Hagee, from Texas, referred to Hitler as God's "hunter" sent to eliminate Jews and send them to the promised land. He blamed Hurricane Katrina on the people of New Orleans for maintaining "a level of sin that was offensive to God." He called the Catholic church "the great whore."

McCain initially called Ohio Pentecostal minister Rod Parsley both a moral compass and a spiritual guide. Parley has been quoted telling his congregation to "lock and load" to destroy the "false religion" that is Islam.

McCain now has suddenly denounced the endorsements of both Hagee and Parsley. It makes one wonder whether he truly does not believe in the Evangelistic preachings or whether it is the politically expedient thing to do.

[SkinBasket]

I would guess the media attention discrepancy is because Obama and Wright seem to have had a much closer relationship than McCain and these other yahoos.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There has been a fair amount of media coverage of these guys. The story just doesn't have any legs. McCain doesn't have enough association with these preachers to interest many people. Most politicians eventually take money and support from kooks.

I was listening to the Alan Colmes radio show, and his producer put together a montage of firey comments from Hagee, interspersed with a quote from McCain thanking him for his support. It fell flat.

The attempt is certainly being made to draw out this story as a counter-balance to Jeremiah Wright, it won't fly. Wright was OBama's pastor for 20 years, he named his book "The Audacity of Hope" after one of WRight's sermons. Obama could no more abandon Jeremiah Wright than he could abandon his grandmother.

[Freak Out]

Hagee is a complete wack job but Mac is no follower of his...all he wanted was the votes he brings. :lol:

[Joemailman]

With all the problems the next President will face, these side issues are ridiculous. The comments made by Wright and Hagee/Parsley do not reflect the thinking of Obama and McCain. McCain sought the endorsements of Hagee and Parsley for political reasons. Obama made a decision that the good outweighed the bad in deciding to stay in Wright's parish. Does anybody really think the the next Presidency will be influenced by any of these preachers?

[Harlan Huckleby]

With all the problems the next President will face, these side issues are ridiculous.

Many people think that Obama's 20 year association with Wright speaks badly about his judgement. So the Wright issue is not ridiculous, it is significant even if you wish it were not. And its more significant because Obama is new, comes from a background that is a bit alien to many Americans, and has little record nationally.

Obama's handling of the incident was troubling: at first he struck a politically winning balance of loyalty to Wright and mild condemnation of Wright's worst remarks (which he said he did not know about.) One month later, when Wright publically called him a phony, he discovered that Wright really was a bad man after all.


Does anybody really think the the next Presidency will be influenced by any of these preachers?

Reverand Wright is more significant than the other guys, its misleading to include him in "these preachers."

Obama's membership in that church doesn't matter to me. I don't think Michelle Obama's "Proud of America" comment is that significant. But Obama lied about both issues. Michelle meant what she said, her comment reads the same in context, and she said it twice in a prepared speech. And Obama knew damn well what Reverend Wright was all about.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Does anybody really think the the next Presidency will be influenced by any of these preachers?

I think it's speaks to their character. It seems like McCain accepted Hagee's support when he thought it would help him win votes. Now, he's disavowing him now that it looks like it will hurt him. I don't think he was influenced much by him though.

I don't doubt for a second that Obama believes in a lot of what Wright preaches. The pastor is the most important factor in choosing a church for most Christians. You have to trust that pastor and believe in what he's preaching. Otherwise, you find another church.

[oregonpackfan]

The entire controversy about the influence of religious leaders upon American Presidential candidates shows the wisdom of our forefathers in declaring the official separation of church and state in drawing up the constitution.

Certainly Presidents are influenced by religious leaders but we do not want a situation like many countries in the world where religious leaders have definitive powers in the country's political actions like a few Arab countries or a few European countries in the past.

[Harlan Huckleby]

:lol:

Give it up, Oregon. We've now been through the trifecta of diversionary tactics employed by Obama defenders to deal with Jeremiah Wright:

1) McCain has kooky men in pointy hats on his team too
2) Ignore the man behind the curtain! Lets stick to the real issues.
3) Seperation of church and state! Wright was giving sermons, not political speeches.

All of these arguments crumble in a light breeze. I won't even bother with the latest one. And they only invite more discussion about the Rev, which is like heroin for Obama-hating assholes like myself.

Here is some free advice to you and JoeMailman and all Obama fans: the smartest way to deal with the Rev situation is to refuse to discuss it. The Rev is gonna hurt Obama some, there is nothing to be done about it. Hoosier appears to have figured this out.

[texaspackerbacker]

Somebody should dig up, just for comparison sake, a summary of the beliefs and statements of Hagee and Parsley versus the statements and beliefs of Wright and Ayres.

Let's examine exactly what is and isn't "extreme views".

Some of you posters who like to think of yourselves as objective and unbiased really ought to have a go at it.

It might also be interesting to research the nature of Obama's relationship with his two versus McCain's relationship with his two.

[Freak Out]

Nader 2008. :flag: :)

[Kiwon]

The entire controversy about the influence of religious leaders upon American Presidential candidates shows the wisdom of our forefathers in declaring the official separation of church and state in drawing up the constitution.

Yikes! You taught for how long?

Do a little research into:

A. September 17, 1787 (The day the Constitution was created)
B. December 15, 1791 (The day the Bill of Rights was effected)
C. October 7, 1801 (The day the Danbury Baptists sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson expressing concern that their religious liberties were at risk in Connecticut).
D. January 1, 1802 (The day that President Jefferson agreed with the Danbury Baptists in a private letter and included, "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.")

You are rewriting history by injecting Thomas Jefferson's personal opinion into the Constitution. The words are not there. Jefferson was one of the principal authors of the Constitution. If the intent were to have this bright, red line between religious faith and the fledgling U.S. Government these words or similar ones would have been put there, probably by Jefferson himself.

The First Amendment to the Constitution written by James Madison was designed to protect the individual's right of religious expression from the potentially hostile State that might want to impede or institutionalize it, not the other way around as commonly believed today.
.................................................. ..........................

Question: Why aren't Liberals bothered by these photos? Is it because they believe that Obama is just pandering to conservatives in Kentucky and doesn't really believe in the standard Christian themes represented in the ads?

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll30/EconGradStud/Obama.jpg

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll30/EconGradStud/Barack.jpg

[MJZiggy]

Who said they don't bother people?

[sheepshead]

No comparison with guys that endorse a guy and spending 20 years in a guys church and appointing him to your campaign. Big, big difference.

[Kiwon]

Who said they don't bother people?

Where are all the mainstream news stories warning of the coming "theocracy?" That would be the central theme if a conservative candidate had put out the same flyer.

The media went nuts over Huckabee's "floating cross" which was actually a bookshelf. But they are silent when Obama's ad place him in church and includes his testimony firmly linking himself to "God, the Lord, Jesus Christ and Christianity." Why?

Why is the media so desperate to see Obama elected?

OPF accused McCain of pandering although he rarely speaks about his personal beliefs. Why doesn't the media nail Obama for the same thing especially since the evidence is overwhelming?

[sheepshead]

With all the problems the next President will face, these side issues are ridiculous. The comments made by Wright and Hagee/Parsley do not reflect the thinking of Obama and McCain. McCain sought the endorsements of Hagee and Parsley for political reasons. Obama made a decision that the good outweighed the bad in deciding to stay in Wright's parish. [b]Does anybody really think the the next Presidency will be influenced by any of these preachers?[b]

Obama and Wright?? Hell yes!

[oregonpackfan]

Kiwon,

McCain indeed has been pandering with respect to his stance on lobbyists. He has allegedly built his reputation in Congress on fighting special interests and the lobbying culture.

This past week he fired his national finance co-chairman, Tom Loeffler, because there had been "a perception problem" for the last few weeks about the prominence of lobbyists in high-level campaing positions.

Loeffler is the 5th of McCain's staffers to leave the campaign because they were also lobbyists. McCain seems to be making a show of removing a few staffers to appease the voters who have taken their time to send petitions to McCain expressing their concern about ties to lobbyists. Once the heat gets turned down and the spin has changed this "perception problem, " it may be back to business as usual.

[oregonpackfan]

Kiwon,

Officially, you are correct in that official separation of church and state was not officially in the Original Constitution. It WAS in the Bill of Rights, however, which was drawn up by our forefathers.

It guarantees not only freedom OF religion but freedom FROM religion. It is the freedom FROM religion that concerns me. There are some ultra-right religious leaders that wish to have direct influence in the nation's political policies. It is these individuals who we need to be wary.

[oregonpackfan]

Here is a recent article dealing with the topic of church pastors endorsing Obama or McCain. The writer appears to be objective, IMO. I will let you decide his(her) impartiality:

Pastors pose problems for McCain and Obama
news-politics-20080525-Problem.Pastors

In this Feb. 27, 2008, file photo Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. John...
1 hour ago

Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, both seeking to use religion to their advantage in the presidential campaign, have learned painful lessons about the risks of getting too close to religious leaders.

Both now realize that sermons given to a narrow audience on Sundays don't always play as well on the national stage, where context can be a casualty. And McCain's rejection of endorsements from two evangelical pastors puts into relief the candidate's problems with that core GOP constituency.

McCain, the Republican nominee-in waiting, and Obama, who is closing in on the Democratic nod, both have been slowed by their respective pastor problems. Whether the controversies will play a role in the months ahead remains unclear, but the two candidates face decisions about how clergy fit into their efforts to reach voters informed by faith.

Clergy who have seen colleagues go from relative obscurity to infamy in the course of a 24-hour news cycle face similar choices in weighing whether to talk about politics and candidates.

"This is the new terrain of religious politics," said David Domke, a University of Washington communications professor and co-author of "The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America." "Politicians have been getting a pass on this for some time, using support from a minister or pastor for their political advantage and not having to answer for what that pastor has said."

Both candidates have reason to pay attention to the faith factor in their White House bids.

Obama, facing false rumors that he is a Muslim, portrays himself as a committed Christian in campaign literature. Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton employ religious outreach directors and speak freely about their faith, signaling that Democrats will not cede the religious vote to Republicans.

But Obama has been hamstrung by the rhetoric of his former longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons blaming U.S. policies for the Sept. 11 attacks and calls of "God damn America" for its racism became fixtures on the Internet and cable news networks. Obama ultimately cut himself off from Wright.

McCain has sought to shore up evangelicals skeptical about his stances on issues like stem-cell research and his past run-ins with movement leaders. But two evangelical pastors McCain did win over — John Hagee of Texas and Rod Parsley of Ohio — were tied to statements causing offense to all three monotheistic faiths.

Hagee has been criticized as anti-Catholic, but McCain rejected his endorsement only after a Web site unearthed a sermon Hagee gave portraying Hitler as a tool God used to deliver Jews to the promised land.

McCain disowned Parsley's endorsement after ABC News reported that he had called Islam an "anti-Christ" religion and the Prophet Muhammad "the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil."

"Religion can be so effective in mobilizing voters," said John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life. "It can also be particularly damaging if it turns out to be controversial."

McCain supporters say it's unfair to equate his endorsements with the Obama-Wright saga. Wright, after all, was Obama's pastor for 20 years, while neither Hagee nor Parsley ever were pastors to McCain. Obama would have known about Wright's incendiary remarks if he spent any time in church, critics say.

Obama backers counter that a double-standard is at work if the pastors endorsing McCain aren't scrutinized, given that McCain sought them out and praised them as exemplary leaders.

There are differences, but also striking similarities in what befell the two campaigns.

"Wright attracted controversy over sermons and things he said in the context of his church and his tradition of black liberation theology," Green said. "It's the same thing with Hagee. His comments about Hitler and the Catholic Church are much less problematic in the context of his religious community."

A Jewish rabbi from San Antonio who supports Hagee made a similar point about context, saying Hagee was merely lecturing on a perspective of the Holocaust shared by some Jewish scholars.

Not long ago, hearing a pastor's sermon required a visit to church. But with churches posting video on their Web sites and selling audio CDs, the messages are one step removed from YouTube and the scrutiny of reporters, bloggers and opposition researchers on political campaigns.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said he was reluctant to weigh in on the Hagee Holocaust controversy because the sermons were nine years old. But as he watched the clips on YouTube and learned that Hagee's church recently distributed the sermons, Yoffie spoke out.

To Yoffie, the episode serves a warning that religious leaders should stick to talking about issues and values when it comes to politics and never endorse candidates.

"(Hagee) threw himself into this controversy he couldn't get out of," he said. "All of a sudden, any comment he made about a values issue was intertwined with the political picture and how it would affect the candidate. It's a good lesson for religious leaders of what to avoid and what happens when you don't."

Pastors may endorse candidates as individuals, but not under the auspices of their congregations.

Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, an Ohio-based evangelical group, said pastors hold greater influence if they preach to their congregations about where candidates stand on issues.

"Sometimes I think these guys are better off keeping their mouth shut," Burress said. "But they are men of conviction that preach the word of God the way they see it, and if everyone in the evangelical community agreed, we'd have one denomination."

Whether McCain's rejection of Hagee and Parsley will hurt him among evangelicals, Burress said it's hard to say. The evangelical community, after all, is much more diverse than often portrayed, and many evangelicals might disagree with aspects of Hagee and Parsley's theology, he said.

Both political parties' tendency to denounce supporters or fire staff members at the hint of controversy bothers Mark DeMoss, a public relations executive and former executive assistant to Jerry Falwell.

DeMoss volunteered to help Republican Mitt Romney's campaign win evangelical support, and he said he will vote for McCain. But DeMoss said he doesn't think the candidate needed to reject the endorsements.

"When does it stop?" DeMoss said.

"When a pastor becomes a pastor, essentially he becomes a pastor for people who like him and agree with him and subscribe to what he teaches," he said. "When a person becomes a president, he's the president of people who agree with him and don't agree with him. I think the net has to be a little wider."

DeMoss said McCain, already facing an uphill struggle, "may really turn off evangelicals and religious conservatives who think he has just taken political correctness to its extreme."

[Kiwon]

Kiwon,

Officially, you are correct in that official separation of church and state was not officially in the Original Constitution. It WAS in the Bill of Rights, however, which was drawn up by our forefathers.

It guarantees not only freedom OF religion but freedom FROM religion. It is the freedom FROM religion that concerns me. There are some ultra-right religious leaders that wish to have direct influence in the nation's political policies. It is these individuals who we need to be wary.

OPF??

Please reread my post. December 15, 1791 and January 1, 1802 are the same dates???

How much dope did you smoke in the '60's?

If you want freedom FROM religion you'll have to change locations because America was not designed and will never be that glorious country you envision.

But I understand your fear. Obama has interjected religion throughout his campaign (see above ad) and that must trouble you. I assume you'll be voting for the Communist Party or the American Atheist candidate this year.

Thinking people just can't trust the country to someone like Obama who has said, "I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

Don't let a religious fanatic like Obama ruin the country. A President Obama will impose his whacked out beliefs on you. A theocratic government is just one vote away. Don't let it happen!!!

[texaspackerbacker]

You're just gonna confuse the lefties with your sarcasm, Kiwon.

Thank you, Oregon, for the article, which was at least some semblance of a comparison.

On Obama's side, we have William Ayres, who actually set off bombs at the Pentagon and NYC Police HQ, and then said as recently as 7 years ago that he wished he had done more. We also have Jeremiah Wright, whose "God damn America" rhetoric is just the tip of the iceberg of his America-hatespeak.

On McCain's side, we have Hagee, who has made remarks against Catholics (what Baptist or Church of Christ leader hasn't?) and Parsley who has made blatant anti-Muslim remarks (that's a bad thing?).

I think we can see a clear pattern here of one pair being hateful even to the point of violence against AMERICA, and the other pair being sadly divisive within America and hateful to our worst enemy.

Is that a fair assessment? Any of you Obamaphiles care to defend his peeps? Or even play the old "moral equivalence" card? If so, please give some details.

[Kiwon]

You're just gonna confuse the lefties with your sarcasm, Kiwon.

"Lefties" and confusion go together.

Have you ever tried to untangle tangled string? It just becomes a big knot.

Let a conservative have a little fun :)

On the other hand, I was just being consistent. Liberals are quick to throw out the "theocracy" fear card every four years when a Christian conservative candidate is running for President. Why shouldn't the same concerns apply to an Obama candidacy, especially these days since global warming/climate change is embraced as a quasi-religious issue?

[MJZiggy]

"Lefties" and confusion go together.

Have you ever tried to untangle tangled string? It just becomes a big knot.



Figures a conservative wouldn't be able to do it...

[LL2]

The thing about evangelical Christians and McCain is that McCain needs them more than the Christians need him. Bush would not have been elected twice without the Christian vote, and that's the truth. If McCain was smart he would've courted some of the more "safer" Evangelical leaders like James Dobson. McCain needs to walk a central conservative line, but at the same time reach out to the Christian voters from time to time. If he doesn't he will not win in the fall.

[oregonpackfan]

Kiwon,

Officially, you are correct in that official separation of church and state was not officially in the Original Constitution. It WAS in the Bill of Rights, however, which was drawn up by our forefathers.

It guarantees not only freedom OF religion but freedom FROM religion. It is the freedom FROM religion that concerns me. There are some ultra-right religious leaders that wish to have direct influence in the nation's political policies. It is these individuals who we need to be wary.

OPF??

Please reread my post. December 15, 1791 and January 1, 1802 are the same dates???

How much dope did you smoke in the '60's?

If you want freedom FROM religion you'll have to change locations because America was not designed and will never be that glorious country you envision.

But I understand your fear. Obama has interjected religion throughout his campaign (see above ad) and that must trouble you. I assume you'll be voting for the Communist Party or the American Atheist candidate this year.

Thinking people just can't trust the country to someone like Obama who has said, "I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

Don't let a religious fanatic like Obama ruin the country. A President Obama will impose his whacked out beliefs on you. A theocratic government is just one vote away. Don't let it happen!!!

Kiwon,

You seem to be lapsing into the mindset that Texas shares: Anyone who disagrees with the current presidential administration's policies is a pot-smoking, leftist, liberal, who hates God and America.

Perhaps you need to remember that dissent is an essential component of democracy. One can still love the country but disagree with certain policies and practices. One can still be a patriotic American but still voice dissent.

You seem to lean to a more totalitarian form of government where free speech and dissent is a threat to the government and needs to be silenced.

Believe it or not, I happen to be a Christian. I am just troubled by alleged Christian leaders like Jeremiah Wright, John Hagee, and Rod Parsley who preach intolerance of different races and creeds in the "spirit" of Christianity.

Perhaps more Christian leaders need to recall the Evangelical phrase "What Would Jesus Do?" If Jesus were alive today, I doubt if he would advocate intolerance of other races or encourage invasive wars of occupation based on falsehoods(which is what the Iraq War is)

If you don't believe a theocracy plays an influential role in American politics , please read Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. It is an incredibly documented and insightful book.

Kevin Phillips is a former Republican strategist who has worked with many Republican leaders. He writes for Time, Harper's Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times. He has also written 13 books including American Dynasty, and The Politics of Rich and Poor, and Wealth and Democracy.

[texaspackerbacker]

Perhaps you need to remember that dissent is an essential component of democracy. One can still love the country but disagree with certain policies and practices. One can still be a patriotic American but still voice dissent.

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

Oregon, close but not quite.

While the FREEDOM to Dissent may be construed as essential--just in case something ever comes up that needs to be dissented from, dissent itself, in virtually every case, represents IDIOCY--kinda like liberalism in general--something that is distinctly unessential.

[digitaldean]

I think this country has strayed too far from common sense. That includes Christians and non-Christians.

Though I am far from perfect, I am a Christian. There is one thing that we who are Christians have failed to do enough of - set the example and lead a life of service and love for our fellow men and women.

Idiots that espouse any racial slurs (regardless of their own race) don't deserve to preach.

If those of us as Christians, led more with our lives and less with our mouths we may gain more to accept Christ than to avoid it like the plague.

Humility, compassion and putting others ahead of one's own interests are marks of a Christian. Not the likes of Hagee and Wright. Deep down they very well may have what it takes. But their actions are marring the message.

[MJZiggy]

Huh. Someone who gets it...

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm still waiting for an answer about how Hagee and Parsley could possibly be considered as bad as Wright and Ayres.

First of all, the only one of the four who has expressed anything that could be called "RACISM" would be Wright.

Ayres is purely about political hate for America. Hagee is completely about divisiveness within Christianity. And Parsley merely pointed out the evils of Islam--the followers of which are overwhelmingly enemies of America and Americans.

NONE of the other three are examples of racism. Even Wright, while clearly expressing racism, has as his primary motivation the "God damn America" stuff--which is political, not racial.

The whole Hagee thing also is misconstrued. He did NOT praise Hitler. He claimed that Hitler was the instrument fulfilling the presumed Biblical prophecy of a Jewish state being established in Biblical Israel. While that may be totally wrong in a Biblical sense, it is a far cry from praising Hitler.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"Lefties" and confusion go together.

Have you ever tried to untangle tangled string? It just becomes a big knot.



Figures a conservative wouldn't be able to do it...

It my best Kelso voice, "Buhhhhhhurn!"