McCain's Radical Preacher

Here's some of Pastor John Hagee's thoughts on the Jews:

It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.

Basically, we got what was coming to us. Under the circumstances, it's hardly surprising that Hagee might look favorably on a foreign policy aimed at prompting the destruction of Israel at the hands of a Russo-Arab coalition, though it is a bit odd that he's named his pressure group designed to advance this agenda "Christians United for Israel." Even odder, many of the erstwhile leaders of the American Jewish community have chosen to embrace the person in question.

John McCain, naturally, is "very proud to have Pastor John Hagee’s support." Meanwhile, Hagee seems to hate Catholics about as much as Jews, and Muslims quite a bit more so. McCain has a lot to be proud of.

Comments

I can't wait to see if they ever read back Pastor Hagee's foul remarks to McCain and demand he denounce them, or reject them, hell say something beyond "I'm proud to have Pastor Hagee's support."

Yep.

Teflon McCain.

He's breaking the campaign finance law he wrote, and calling out Obama for breaking a pledge to stop his grassroots money machine.

So much for the maverick.

I doubt you'll see any of this in the Times or WashPo.

Posted by Rhoda | February 29, 2008 12:58 AM

I dunno...

Now this Pastor Hagee fellow is certainly a loon, and a dangerous loon. But from what I've read, his entire movement was created, organized, funded, and promoted by some of the craziest of the Jewish neocons. And I don't know if you can really call someone who basically dances to Podhoretz's tune an "anti-Semitic" dangerous loon.

An analogy might be if it were discovered that some ultra-radical black preacher who promoted a total racial segregation plus "Back to Africa" movement were actually being funded, organized, and controlled by the leaders of the KKK. You couldn't really call him "anti-white" in the usual sense of the word...

Posted by RKU | February 29, 2008 1:08 AM

Is this an invitation by Matthew to really take on Obama over his own radical pastor?

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 1:26 AM

I certainly wouldn't defend those statements coming from a radical fundamentalist christian preacher, but the idea that bad things happened to the Israelites because of failure to live up divine expectations is straight out of the biblical prophets.

Posted by Led | February 29, 2008 1:29 AM

Oh, but as Johnny would tell you -- he hates the sin, but he just loves the sinner.

But as we're not of the Body, and all Hellbound and everything, we wouldn't know about that.

(It must be lots of fun to be a True Believer. And profitable!)

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | February 29, 2008 1:34 AM

Matt,
Good for you to bring to light these "end-of-the-world Christians", their hypocritical support of Israel, and the connection to the Republican Party. Hagee and his like are every bit as bad as Farakhan, have as many followers across the country as Farakhan, but are never subjected to the same scrutiny as Farakhan. Why? In the end, their philosophical positions are every bit as racist and abhorrent.

Posted by David Reese | February 29, 2008 1:37 AM

Got to resurrect (no pun intended) this one from downstream. It's a classic:

John Hagee - objectively pro-Gozer.

Posted by ajay | February 28, 2008 11:29 AM

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | February 29, 2008 1:42 AM

Hagee's Jewish statements are just the tip of the iceberg as far as his looneyness. Catholics are The Great Whore, gays caused Katrina, all Muslims are programmed to kill, etc.

Posted by John Patrick | February 29, 2008 1:50 AM

I can't speak to the all of Hagee's statements on all topics, but if you read the Hebrew Bible this kind of rhetoric is pretty standard stuff. Its hard to trash a guy for an interpretation of history that he's basically gotten from the Jewish holy book.

Posted by Thursday | February 29, 2008 2:02 AM

I mentioned this in the other Hagee thread, but it was way far down.

I actually read Hagee's book, Jerusalem Countdown. Because I like reading psychotic mythologies. After Hagee I devoured some L. Ron Hubbard.

The Arab-Russo alliance won't destroy Israel, in Hagee's eschatology, because God will smite all of the countries involved into total oblivion. The Antichrist (head of the EU) and China fill in the power vacuum. Antichrist rebuilds the Temple, proclaims himself God, yada yada yada, eventually China marches west to Israel and faces off with the Antichrist's armies at Har Megiddo, or Armageddon. Which ushers in the second coming of Jesus and the final battle between the forces of evil and the (previously raptured) forces of (self-)righteousness.

There are obviously a lot of problems with Hagee's thinking, if you want to call it that. He doesn't seem to understand that Iran is not populated by Arabs, for one thing. He doesn't know that there is no oil in Israel, his stated reason for both Russia and China to invade. He's cracked, and a lot more deeply than the common quotes would suggest. McCain should be a laughingstock for taking him seriously.

Posted by Zakk | February 29, 2008 2:11 AM

So, McCain has been attending Hagee's church since 1988, wrote pp. 274-295 of his first book about Hagee, and borrowed the title of his second book from one of Hagee's sermons?

Wow, I did not know that.

Thanks!

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 29, 2008 2:24 AM

No, Thursday: it is EASY to "trash a guy for an interpretation of history that he's basically gotten from the Jewish holy book."

See, lots of people read the same "holy book" (whichever one) and extract different interpretations of history from it. They can't all be right. So Hagee is either a chuckleheaded clown himself, or the people who interpret the "holy books" differently are misguided fools.

Sane people are of course not obliged to judge between different camps of believers. But it would be nice if Hagee's "interpretation" were in fact accurate -- i.e. if he were a chuckleheaded clown BECAUSE he reads his "holy books" correctly.

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | February 29, 2008 2:43 AM

Tim K, Obama's said his pastor is like an uncle who says some things he disagrees with from time to time. While his pastor is focused on trying to promote values in the black community, his church has many white members and Obama has thoroughly disowned Farrakhan. McCain has just publicly embraced someone who believes Armageddon is at hand in the Middle East and will involve the U.S. and Israel vs. the Arab states (all of 'em) and Russia. I know which one concerns me more.

Posted by John M. | February 29, 2008 2:47 AM

I would rather Jews refuse to deal with scumbags, but it seems extremely practical to ally with someone who plans to help you through real world political support and harm you through eventual divine intervention. If these Left Behind theologians are right, we're pretty well fucked whether we use them now or not.

Posted by aleks | February 29, 2008 4:13 AM

I don't believe America is well-advised playing the Jewish-Marxist game, frequently a deadly game - of requiring leaders and people to make public denunciations of anyone that has opinions that deviate from the politically correct line.

Assholes like Hagee, Farrakan, the typical Islamoid Wahabbist Saudi Rent-a-Mullah preaching hatred of infidels and violence towards them, or the Jews manipulating ignorant Christian Zionists like Hagee are only important of the candidate believes as they do, or are strongly influenced by them (possibly the Obamas with their 20-year ties to a racist preacher).

In most cases, the denunciations are just pro-forma Jewish-Marxist political theater and a way to impose Correct-Think on the masses.

That is why I like Ron Paul's response in refusing to denounce and return the money of some of his nutbags. "I disagree with them, they don't influence me, but I'll happily take their money and votes."

That should be the American response. A candidate has to explain where he or she stands on what views of certain prominent nutballs supporting them - but not repeat the evil folly of rehabilitated Trotskyites formally and personally denouncing and repudiating Bukharin for pressured new propaganda for the masses to consume.

Posted by chris ford | February 29, 2008 4:20 AM

Whoops, after my 4:20 Post I did a little more reading on Hagee and found he is not some loony Christian Fundie nutbag but someone vastly more powerful and connected than Farrakan or Obama's black separatist preacher.
McCain and other leading Republicans have curried his favor well before this endorsement.

I have done a complete 180 from my previous post.

McCain does need to denounce the guy, and carefully explain what views of Hagee McCain rejects, and which he accepts.

The worrisome aspect of Hagee is that he is a Christian Zionist who is nurtured by Jewish neocons and by close supporters in the Israeli gov't including Netanyahu.

Hagee believes in unconditional American support of Likud policy because, in his opinion, Israel is the only modern nation created by the express will of God.

A self-described "complete believer in the triumph of Zionism", Hagee supports a joint US-Israel war against Iran as "soon as possible", US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital and sole right of Jews, complete ethnic transfer of all Palestinians inside Israel and on the West Bank "back to where the Arabs came from".

Hagee is a Dispensentialist who believes that the purpose of Israel is mainly to save all Christians because the gathering of all Jews there and the rise of the AntiChrist will trigger the Apocalypse and Jesus's Return to save all evangelical souls. 95% of humanity is out of luck - mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Pentacostalists, Hindis, atheists, Mormon heretics all burn in hell.

But disagreeing with other Dispensentialists in his "Two Covenent" theory that since Jews are Gods special people, wiser and more noble, they still have God's special protection under the covenent they really didn't break when they ordered Christ's execution and got their lobby to the Romans to agree. Because Christ's execution by the High Sanhedrin was doing Gods bidding, Hagee (with many Fundies disagreeing with him) believes Jews go straight to heaven without converting and accepting Christ due to the Covenent never being broken and no curse ever put on the Jews by God..

This is a guy who broadcasts to 8 international TV networks, 151 independent TV stations and 82 radio stations from his 50,000 ft2 "Outreach" studio while making a million and a half in compensation, while immediate family gets another 300K for their "services." He gets VIP Plus treatment when he does his annual visits to Israel on par with what propagandized US Senators get, including Head of State Meetings.

Hagee heads Christians United For Israel. His kickoff National Gathering for CUFI.ORG in summer of 2007 was attended by Tom Delay (a close friend and strong backer), the head of the RNC, Ken Mehlman, Sam Brownback, John McCain, and the Israeli deputy Ambassador. He has access to the White House and has lobbyied there before about widening the War to Iran to "save Israel".

In Texas, Hagee has contacts with AF Fundie generals at bases near his megachurch.

IMO, conclusions:

1. The anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon stuff Hagee does is small potatos compared to his Zionist activities.

2. He is immensely more powerful and connected than Louis Farrakan, or Obama's preacher, is.

3. McCain was in his orbit long before this endorsement, shares his "Bomb Iran" views. McCain has some explaining to do about Hagee and his clout with Republicans in the White House and Congress through his political mentor Tom Delay - plus Brownback, Mehlman, Lieberman, and McCain.

4. The extent to which Jewish Zionists have manipulated the guy to in turn influence McCain and his need for donor bucks. What Hagees ties are with AIPAC and PM to be Netanyahu, where McCain stands on this.

5. Fundie US Military personnel ties to Hagee in Texas.

6. Hagee's position that Israel, not America, deserves each American's unconditional support even over America (even if Israel's leaders position conflict with US interests and endangers US citizens) raises loyalty issues.

Imagine if Obama appeared on stage with a Mullah endorsing him who was later found to have said American Muslims owe their highest loyalty to foreign Muslim leaders because they have the direct blessings of Allah that America lacks!

7. Tom Delay was a snake. Snakes tend to nest together.

That said, I think it is still a good general rule not to insinuate and advocate for every political leader to denounce and publically reject any view of any supporter that interest group advocates demand the ritual humiliation and discrediting of. In most cases, the leader is not a believer in, nor responsible for the personal views of followers, nor should they be held accountable to denounce each and every supporter the media sets up for a PC show trial or some anti-Muslim, Christian, Roe v, Wade, etc. fear-mongering.

Hagee is so influential and some of the policies he advocates are so dangerous that he is an exception.

Posted by chris ford | February 29, 2008 5:57 AM

"The Arab-Russo alliance won't destroy Israel, in Hagee's eschatology, because God will smite all of the countries involved into total oblivion. The Antichrist (head of the EU) and China fill in the power vacuum. Antichrist rebuilds the Temple, proclaims himself God, yada yada yada, eventually China marches west to Israel and faces off with the Antichrist's armies at Har Megiddo, or Armageddon. Which ushers in the second coming of Jesus and the final battle between the forces of evil and the (previously raptured) forces of (self-)righteousness."

Ummm, wow.

As a side note, no conversation about China invading the Holy Land is complete without mentioning Hong Xiuquan, the nutcase who thought he was Jesus's little brother and killed millions of people in order to set up a Christian empire in China.

Posted by Reality Man | February 29, 2008 6:28 AM

Christian nutcases good. Muslim nutcases double plus ungood.

Posted by Invigilator | February 29, 2008 6:41 AM

I realize this has been said many times before, but: Steve Sailer is one seriously creepy dude.

Posted by my goodness | February 29, 2008 6:57 AM

Of the many battles won by Satan in Christian history, surely none was bigger than the controversial inclusion of the book of Revelation. If there's anything further afield from Jesus's teachings than that goofball sci-fi social commentary-cum-prophecy, I am not aware of it.

Posted by anonymous | February 29, 2008 7:15 AM

I think the real clincher about Hagee is that he's pro-nuclear attack on America. Really:

But Hagee doesn't stop there. He adds that Ezekiel predicts fire "upon those who live in security in the coastlands." From this sentence, he concludes that there will be judgment upon all who stood by while the Russian-led force invaded Israel, and issues a stark warning to the United States to intervene: "Could it be that America, who refuses to defend Israel from the Russian invasion, will experience nuclear warfare on our east and west coasts?" He says yes, citing Genesis 12:3, in which God said to Israel: "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you."

He says there will be a nuclear attack on America, and that we'll deserve it. Is this not the frozen limit of insanity?

Also (blogwhore) he seems to be a racist: he held a "slave sale" fundraiser for his church, announcing it with the words "Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone Sunday night."

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 29, 2008 7:26 AM

When McCain et. al. start in on O-man's Farrakan-admiring pastor, we should point out that McCain is supported by a pastor who advocates a nuclear attack on Iran.

Posted by bob h | February 29, 2008 7:32 AM

I've thought quite a bit about why the media does not skewer people like McCain over their associations with people like Hagee (who I will collectively call "nutcases"), despite trying to manufacture issues about people like Obama who have already disassociated themselves from people like Farrakhan.

I actually think it comes down to this: the media sees it as understood that people like McCain are in bed with these nutcases, and people like Obama are not. So, they think it is fair game to test whether people like Obama are really doing what is understood (disassociating themselves from nutcases).

The problem is that the media are dead wrong: in the world of real voters, it is not understood at all that people like McCain are in bed with nutcases, and people like Obama are not. In fact, if anything there are more people in the real world who think it is liberals who have all the nutcase friends, and conservatives who only have normal supporters. So, the media is doing the real world a disservice by trumping up false "gotcha with a nutcase" issues with liberals, as opposed to those conservatives who are in fact in bed with nutcases.

Posted by DTM | February 29, 2008 7:41 AM

A quick followup:

This is all part of a general problem I have detected with the media. Despite their behavior, I actually believe most of these people are center-left types. But they are also extremely jaded, and have come to believe that the American people are fundamentally conservative and predisposed to embrace even the ugliest aspects of the modern conservative coalition.

Again, the basic problem is that the media is wrong. The American people are not inclined to embrace this crap, but rather they are simply not well-informed about it. So what the media is interpreting as acceptance is actually a lack of awareness, and ironically the reason why so many Americans remain unaware of all this is that the media isn't even trying to making them better informed.

Posted by DTM | February 29, 2008 7:49 AM

You've completely missed Hagee's point. Christians United for Israel is simply putting the importance of Israel where it belongs; at the top of the list of every truly God-fearing believer.

If the "apple of God's eye" was Sri Lanka, then the group would be called Christians United for Sri Lanka.

I see alot of mis-quotes and arrogance in most of these comments, so I doubt that any of you have really prayerfully analyzed or even fully read Hagee's points on the matter. People much smarter and influential than you seek God's wisdom in worldly matters. If it weren't so tragic, your opinions would be comical.

John Hagee isn't ushering in the destruction of anything, nor preaching hatred of anyone/any race. The God of Abraham has assigned His Name and His Word to Israel. The Jews have Jehovah-God, and the gentiles (by way of the Jews) have salvation through Jesus Christ, His Son. Proverbs 30:4

Believe me, No; Believe God, Israel is in good shape. Israel will be the "praise of all the earth", because God said so. We all place our bets in this life. I'm going with God on this one.

Posted by MCC | February 29, 2008 8:04 AM

You've completely missed Hagee's point. Christians United for Israel is simply putting the importance of Israel where it belongs; at the top of the list of every truly God-fearing believer.

If the "apple of God's eye" was Sri Lanka, then the group would be called Christians United for Sri Lanka.

I see alot of mis-quotes and arrogance in most of these comments, so I doubt that any of you have really prayerfully analyzed or even fully read Hagee's points on the matter. People much smarter and influential than you seek God's wisdom in worldly matters. If it weren't so tragic, your opinions would be comical.

John Hagee isn't ushering in the destruction of anything, nor preaching hatred of anyone/any race. The God of Abraham has assigned His Name and His Word to Israel. The Jews have Jehovah-God, and the gentiles (by way of the Jews) have salvation through Jesus Christ, His Son. Proverbs 30:4

Believe me, No; Believe God, Israel is in good shape. Israel will be the "praise of all the earth", because God said so. We all place our bets in this life. I'm going with God on this one.

Posted by MCC | February 29, 2008 8:04 AM

DTM asks:

why the media does not skewer people like McCain over their associations with people like Hagee (who I will collectively call "nutcases"), despite trying to manufacture issues about people like Obama who have already disassociated themselves from people like Farrakhan.

You know, I think this is a complex issue. I see five main factors: 1) RACISM. 2) RACISM, given that 3) RACISM, is complicated by 4) RACISM. But also, 5) RACISM.

The thing is, as you may have noticed, Obama is black. Farrakhan is black. So all you have to do is show a video clip of one, then a video clip of the second, and the old white people who watch CBS start to see a disturbing pattern emerge. The story has nothing to do with anti-semitism. The basic question: "Is Nice Black Guy really a front for Scary Black Guy?"

McCain is white, and Hagee is white. But then, so is everyone, right? So no big deal.

What I'm ashamed of is that if you had asked me six months ago whether racism would be a big obstacle to Obama's candidacy, I would have said, "No, I don't think there's all that much racism in America these days." Confessions of a stupid white guy. We'll overcome it this time, but jeez.

Posted by Ted | February 29, 2008 8:10 AM

When McCain et. al. start in on O-man's Farrakan-admiring pastor, we should point out that McCain is supported by a pastor who advocates a nuclear attack on Iran.

Obama's campaign seems to have a first-class rapid response team, so I imagine that's exactly what will happen.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 29, 2008 8:24 AM

but it seems extremely practical to ally with someone who plans to help you through real world political support

Hagee advocates using further "preemptive" strikes in the Middle East to provoke the massive attack on Israel that he believes signals the beginning of the End Times. Not only would this seem to me to cross the line into "tempting God" (Deuteronomy 6:16), what if God doesn't actually do the miraculous heavy lifting required to protect Israel from a hornet's nest stirred up by the US? Seems a pretty bizarre definition of "help," even in the real world.

Posted by mds | February 29, 2008 8:29 AM

Ah, MCC, you're such a kidder. Thanks for trying to cheer everybody up, but we all know Satan is going to win in the end. You might as well throw your lot in with him now and hope for a better place in the hierarchy. Me? I'm off to eat some babies.

Posted by Captain Noble | February 29, 2008 8:32 AM

Hagee is a complete and utter fool. I hesitate to single out any one person's religious beliefs as ridiculous because to a non-believer (which I am not), pretty much any religion has ridiculous beliefs. Still, Hagee's belief system is transparently incoherent and self-contradictory and I denounce and reject him. All that being said, I kind of agree with Thursday on this one - this doesn't seem to be the greatest quote to attack the guy with. In isolation, it doesn't seem as bad as it does in context of his other beliefs. I am no expert in religious Jewish thought, but with the exception of "continuing to this very day.", isn't this the sort of thing that a religious Jew would believe? E.g., that the exile in Babylon was due to the Kingdom of Judah's disobedience, or that the Northern Kingdom was destroyed for rejecting G-d?

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 8:33 AM

For what it's worth, I think this thing about Obama's church will fail, and will "succeed" only among those people who weren't going to vote for him anyway.

Some of my preachers growing up said some crazy & sick things, but I'd write nice things about them in my autobiography -- which, thankfully, is not forthcoming.

Posted by El Cid | February 29, 2008 8:41 AM

I can't speak to the all of Hagee's statements on all topics, but if you read the Hebrew Bible this kind of rhetoric is pretty standard stuff. Its hard to trash a guy for an interpretation of history that he's basically gotten from the Jewish holy book.

This is really creepy.

The Jewish holy book also says that the Jews are God's chosen people, that God won't abandon them, that God has selected them out from the nations, that God's covenant will always hold, etc. The Torah is quite clear that God doesn't want to see all of his people destroyed in a cataclysm.

One very common Christian anti-Semitic reading of the Torah has been to emphasize the theme in the deuteronomistic history and in the prophets of Israel's sin and God's retribution, while ignoring all the stuff about how Israel is always set right before God.

It's such a terrible reading of the Bible as a whole that the only people who repeat it, usually, are anti-Semites. It's sad to see how ignorance of the Bible, combined with being raised in the Christian nation, has led to the same racist misreading.

Hagee's a bigot, but it's ok for a white person to be a bigot, and for a white candidate to embrace bigots. How nice.

Posted by DivGuy | February 29, 2008 8:43 AM

Ted,

I won't deny race is playing a part in the Obama-Farrakhan nonsense, but this is a bigger problem than that. For example, white Democrats will often be asked to comment on the nuttier statements of white liberal entertainment figures like Michael Moore or Rosie O'Donnell, while Republicans largely get a pass no matter what the likes of Coulter or Limbaugh may say. Or consider the media playing along with the MoveOn/"General Betrayus" faux-scandal.

In that sense, I think the role race played in the Obama-Farrakhan dynamic was giving the media an excuse for drawing that particular connection despite Obama having previously disassociated himself from Farrakhan. But the general pattern of the media requiring liberal politicians to denounce liberal nutcases with whom they have no association while not asking the same of conservative politicians who actually have associations with conservative nutcases existed long before this particular episode.

Posted by DTM | February 29, 2008 8:47 AM

By the way, that should have read ". . . giving the media an excuse IN THEIR MINDS for drawing that particular connection. . . ." In truth, their behavior in this episode has been inexcusable.

Posted by DTM | February 29, 2008 8:50 AM

but with the exception of "continuing to this very day.", isn't this the sort of thing that a religious Jew would believe?

Indeed, Jews do attribute the events you describe to punishment for disobedience. However, the persecution heaped on Jews for the past couple of millenia (primarily by Christians) is not usually blamed on disobedience, or a failure to worship the one true god. And "continuing to the present day" would obviously include the Shoah, which is a nasty can of worms to open.

See, Hagee's primary definition of "disobedience" is "not converting to Protestant, gentile Christianity." And most Jews have a hard time finding that one in the covenant.

Posted by mds | February 29, 2008 8:51 AM

I guess my main concern was that a little more context would be nice for people who are too lazy to click on the links and may surf across this site in six months, pre-general election. If this was all they saw, they might think Matt was making too big a deal out of things. Thinking about it a little more, that's probably not that realistic, and anyone who takes this one blog post as the definitive answer on Hagee probably doesn't really care either way.

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 9:02 AM

Ah, MCC, you're such a kidder. Thanks for trying to cheer everybody up, but we all know Satan is going to win in the end.

It's even worse than you suspect. Charles Darwin kicked both God's and Satan's asses long ago.

It's a bit weird to see some commenters here who seem otherwise reality-based accepting the white-Christianist framework that the Bible possesses quantifiable factual or metaphysical validity.

Posted by James Gary | February 29, 2008 9:11 AM

DTM:
It's just the media and their liberal bias.

(/snark)

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 29, 2008 9:16 AM

It's a bit weird to see some commenters here who seem otherwise reality-based accepting the white-Christianist framework that the Bible possesses quantifiable factual or metaphysical validity.

It certainly isn't only white people who think the bible has such forms of validity.

The Bible obviously has factual validity. It's obviously not inerrant, but a lot of the stuff in there is true, and a lot of it can be read in such a way as to glean historical knowledge.

As to metaphysical validity, I have to go to work and have no desire to get into another "theism" debate, but I'll just say that none of us can live as an ethical subject without implicitly consenting to certain metaphysical truths that are not scientifically quantifiable or verifiable. That's not a brief for the bible or any particular interpretation of it, but just a note that the new atheists don't understand philosophy.

Posted by DivGuy | February 29, 2008 9:21 AM

Jews do attribute the events you describe to punishment for disobedience.

But keeping in mind that this only extends to the exile in Babylon. Ascribing the Holocaust to Jewish disobedience, which Hagee does, is an extremely fringe belief in modern Judaism.

That's what Alexis originally meant by excluding "continuing to this very day," that this didn't apply to the Holocaust -- but that's a huge exception. Saying that Hagee agrees with [some] Jews on ascribing their suffering to disobedience, except that he blames the Holocaust on us and we don't, is very much like saying that Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play except for one thing.

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 29, 2008 9:25 AM

Do you know what "erstwhile" means?

Posted by LP Steve | February 29, 2008 9:28 AM

Of the many battles won by Satan in Christian history, surely none was bigger than the controversial inclusion of the book of Revelation. If there's anything further afield from Jesus's teachings than that goofball sci-fi social commentary-cum-prophecy, I am not aware of it.
Posted by anonymous | February 29, 2008 7:15 AM
Abso friken lootly. I've thought the same thing for awhile now, and I recently found out that my feelings on Revelation are not some fringe idea, apparently, Martin Luther thought the last book was 'void of Christ'

Posted by Northern Observer | February 29, 2008 9:33 AM

1. Reverend Hagee is not the only pastor with some rather curious positions. Franklin Graham (son of Billy) has proposed to the Government of Israel that they raze the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and rebuild the temple of Solomon. Reverend Graham believes that the existence of the temple is required for the return of Joshua of Nazareth as apparently somewhere in the Christian bible it is stated that the latter, upon his return, will conduct a prayer service therein.

2. Rabbi Oveida, founder of the Shas party in Israel, has stated that the Holocaust was actually inflicted by god as punishment for the Jews of Europe abandoning the Hebrew bible in favor of secularism. I guess, under this notion, the State of Israel should have given Eichmann a medal instead of trying and executing him on the grounds that he was only a lowly toiler carrying out the wishes of the almighty.

Posted by SLC | February 29, 2008 9:39 AM

That's what Alexis originally meant by excluding "continuing to this very day," that this didn't apply to the Holocaust -- but that's a huge exception. Saying that Hagee agrees with [some] Jews on ascribing their suffering to disobedience, except that he blames the Holocaust on us and we don't, is very much like saying that Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play except for one thing.

Yes, I was excluding that, but also, I wasn't sure what the attitude is toward other events between the Babylonian exile and the present day, such as the Hellenic conquest or the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. I'm not trying to defend Hagee's statement as written, I was merely noting that if you look at the whole thing and don't parse it too closely, it sounds a lot like what a lot of people learn in sunday school. I don't want to criticize Matt because it's an interesting addition to the anti-Hagee material, but (just to explain myself) I was only hoping for a little more context.

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 9:43 AM

One very common Christian anti-Semitic reading of the Torah has been to emphasize the theme in the deuteronomistic history and in the prophets of Israel's sin and God's retribution, while ignoring all the stuff about how Israel is always set right before God.

It's such a terrible reading of the Bible as a whole that the only people who repeat it, usually>/b>, are anti-Semites.

Notice the weasel words. Once you go down the road of accusing someone of anti-Semitism for not having a nuanced enough interpretation of the Bible "as a whole", you're pretty far gone.

The point is that at many points the rhetoric of the Hebrew Bible can be pretty harsh, no, and therefore that people who adopt similar rhetoric should not be presumed to be anti-Semites. You have to have, like, other supporting evidence. That may be forthcoming in this case, but Matt's Hagee quote in this post, which is what I was reacting to, is not enough.

Posted by Thursday | February 29, 2008 10:10 AM

One very common Christian anti-Semitic reading of the Torah has been to emphasize the theme in the deuteronomistic history and in the prophets of Israel's sin and God's retribution, while ignoring all the stuff about how Israel is always set right before God.

It's such a terrible reading of the Bible as a whole that the only people who repeat it, usually>/b>, are anti-Semites.

Notice the weasel words. Once you go down the road of accusing someone of anti-Semitism for not having a nuanced enough interpretation of the Bible "as a whole", you're pretty far gone.

The point is that at many points the rhetoric of the Hebrew Bible can be pretty harsh, no, and therefore that people who adopt similar rhetoric should not be presumed to be anti-Semites. You have to have, like, other supporting evidence. That may be forthcoming in this case, but Matt's Hagee quote in this post, which is what I was reacting to, is not enough.

Posted by Thursday | February 29, 2008 10:11 AM

As a white guy, why am I supposed to be concerned with 'black nationalists'? I always thought 'Black Panther' was a cool name for a club and those guys looked awesome in berets.

Ranting fundamentalists raging for the end of the world and final judgment where they get to go to a shiny place in the sky and everyone else suffers for eternity in hell bugs me. It reminds me of Heaven's Gate nuts and Jim Jones followers. Those people caused actual damage.

Posted by An Outhouse | February 29, 2008 10:13 AM

No problem. I don't know how most Jews think about the Hellenic conquest and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem -- in the congregations I've attended, I think people tend to reject the idea of divine punishment going back the whole way. (Partly because the idea of the Holocaust as divine punishment is so repulsive.)

And Hagee definitely has suggested that the Holocaust was a divine instrument to drive the Jews to Israel:

Herzl and his fellow Zionists were God's fishermen, calling the sons and daughters of Abraham home. Herzl was deeply disappointed that the Jews of the world did not respond in greater numbers. God then sent the hunters. The hunter is one who pursues his target with force and fear. No one could see the horror of the Holocaust coming, but the force and fear of Hitler's Nazis drove the Jewish people back to the only home God ever intended for the Jews to have -- Israel.

The idea that I'm not supposed to make my home in the U.S. also creeps me out.

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 29, 2008 10:15 AM

I was merely noting that if you look at the whole thing and don't parse it too closely, it sounds a lot like what a lot of people learn in sunday school.

Yeah, and Jews have suffered quite a lot for what people have learned at church. All the Jews' fault, of course, as they'd realize if they accepted the New Testament as part of the Bible "as a whole."

Anyway, Thursday will probably grudgingly see the point about Mr. Hagee, now that Mr. Weiner has added another quotation. Or will dismiss it with further sophistry. Place your bets.

Posted by mds | February 29, 2008 10:28 AM

Scary stuff, SLC.

Posted by Jennifer | February 29, 2008 10:41 AM

But from what I've read, his entire movement was created, organized, funded, and promoted by some of the craziest of the Jewish neocons. And I don't know if you can really call someone who basically dances to Podhoretz's tune an "anti-Semitic" dangerous loon. - RKU

That's what those Jewish neo-cons have convinced themselves. But people who think they are so clever usually are not. The Jewish neo-cons think Hagee's their tool, but they are actually a bunch of tools.

An analogy might be if it were discovered that some ultra-radical black preacher who promoted a total racial segregation plus "Back to Africa" movement were actually being funded, organized, and controlled by the leaders of the KKK. You couldn't really call him "anti-white" in the usual sense of the word...

Not quite. The preacher in question would have to be white considering Hagee is not Jewish. The analogy would be some ultra-radical segregationist promoting a "Back to Africa" movemenet ... with that movement being funded, etc., by politically well connected African-American leaders with ties to political parties within certain African states, etc.

The question would be whether the ultra-radical segregationist could be considered a friend of African-Americans because of the source of his funding, etc. I would answer, no.

Posted by DAS | February 29, 2008 10:44 AM

"Ascribing the Holocaust to Jewish disobedience, which Hagee does, is an extremely fringe belief in modern Judaism."

I nominate this for understatement of the century.

"Not quite. The preacher in question would have to be white considering Hagee is not Jewish. The analogy would be some ultra-radical segregationist promoting a "Back to Africa" movemenet ... with that movement being funded, etc., by politically well connected African-American leaders with ties to political parties within certain African states, etc."

Plus advocating a bunch of countries in Africa getting nuked by god's will, in addition to the US if we don't defend Senegal or wherever.

I was kind of wondering why McCain wasn't hitting Obama on his retired preacher, probably his biggest weakness electorally, instead of just repeating Clinton's talking points. I mean... wow. Did Bush of all people have spiritual advisers this nutty? This isn't just run-of-the-mill crazy stuff, this is escape from the asylum and start a militia in the Pacific Northwest enforcing the "true Constitution" crazy. It's rare to see someone both so hateful and so delusionally loony tunes. He sounds like he's been playing too much "Civilizations" where getting nuked isn't that big a deal.

Posted by Reality Man | February 29, 2008 12:01 PM

I don't think it's odd for Jews to embrace him if you read it with total cynicism. They know this Armageddon ain't going to happen, and while it's not happening why not reap the benefits of some rich Christian idiot's 'friendship'? Good deal I think.

Posted by M | February 29, 2008 12:13 PM

I'm with MCC. Matt Yglesias is certainly lacking in the prayerful analysis department. I think he really needs to pick it up. Perhaps he could begin a few posts with "our father" and end them with "amen." He should also say something about the issue of how much harder it is for a rich man to go to heaven than a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

Also use Thou more often.

Posted by roger | February 29, 2008 12:19 PM

They know this Armageddon ain't going to happen, and while it's not happening why not reap the benefits of some rich Christian idiot's 'friendship'? Good deal I think. - M

The Jews who embrace people like Hagee are, at least amongst fellow Jews, brutally honest about this.

What they fail to see is the pernicious influence someone like Hagee can have: "you want my support, you do what I want you to do" ... even if Israel doesn't consciously embrace Hagee's agenda and all us Jews reject his eschatology, people do tend to know on which side their bread is buttered, and subconsciously will begin to adopt the agenda of Hagee and his ilk in order to maintain his friendship.

And while Hagee's eschatology is buncomb, that his agenda is designed to bring Israel to the brink of destruction in an all out war and may very well do what it is designed to do is a very real threat to Israel. People like Hagee are not our "friends" and too many of my fellow Jews have yet alas to learn this.

Remember, that the best stool pigeon is one who fancies himself a bit of a con artist: right wing Jews (believing in anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish "cleverness") fancy themselves to be clever and cynical players who'll embrace Hagee, et al., and reap, for us Jews and for Israel, the benefits of Hagee's 'friendship'. But, in fact, it is they who are getting played into implimenting Hagee's agenda and even adopting it as if it were their own.

Posted by DAS | February 29, 2008 12:35 PM

Hagee is a complete and utter fool. I hesitate to single out any one person's religious beliefs as ridiculous because to a non-believer ... pretty much any religion has ridiculous beliefs.

Bingo. They're all nonsense. This "Your irrational, unsupported religious beliefs are INSANE, but my irrational, unsupported religious beliefs are perfectly reasonable" argument is pretty hilarious.

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 12:44 PM

FWIW, since Mixner used my words to make his own point, I want to disagree with his statement "They're all nonsense" and agree with DivGuy when he says:

As to metaphysical validity, I have to go to work and have no desire to get into another "theism" debate, but I'll just say that none of us can live as an ethical subject without implicitly consenting to certain metaphysical truths that are not scientifically quantifiable or verifiable. That's not a brief for the bible or any particular interpretation of it, but just a note that the new atheists don't understand philosophy.

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 1:36 PM

Alexis,

I agree that one cannot really live at all without "implicitly assenting to certain metaphysical truths," but that hardly lends credence to the truth claims of religions. Religion is not philosophy.

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 2:03 PM

It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.

Some of what I've read about Hagee concerns me, but this quotation is totally benign.

This is a recurring motif drawn from the Bible itself, possibly the most common motif: Jews will suffer God's wrath, which they've invoked through disobedience. I'm not going to pull the Bible out from under the leg of my wobbly end-table to double check, but for examples, try: Genesis, Exodus, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Samuel, one of the books of Chronicles (forgot which) and most of the books named after prophets (Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc.).

Posted by Shinyk | February 29, 2008 3:57 PM

Yeah, and Jews have suffered quite a lot for what people have learned at church. All the Jews' fault, of course, as they'd realize if they accepted the New Testament as part of the Bible "as a whole."

It's been years since I used to know this sort of thing (I'm long since agnostic, thankfully), but I seem to remember the overwhelming majority of examples of the "Jews suffer because of disobedience to God" motif coming from the Hebrew Bible, not the Christian additions.

The only New Testament examples I can think of are a single verse in Matthew (his blood be upon our children), a single verse in John (something about Jews being the sons of Satan) and much of Revelations (most of which is ripped from the old testament book of Daniel, anyway).

Posted by Shinyk | February 29, 2008 4:23 PM

I think that (a) the quoted passage of Rev. Hagee is not without merit. Moreover, he can make up for it by taking some extreme pro-Israel positions, so there.

However, if I understand correctly, there are quite a few folks who will go straight to the Lake of Fire, and it is not just Jews, atheists, blasphemers, sodomites etc. but also Catholics. So actually William Donahue, the leader of Catholic League, urged McCain to repudiate (renounce) Hagee. And how can Hagee make up for calling the Pope a Beast or something like that?

One thing that amazes me is that nobody gives a damn about the number of the natures of Christ anymore. Just human, just divine, both, both but not separable, yeah, those were good causes to wage wars about.

Posted by piotr | February 29, 2008 4:41 PM

but I seem to remember the overwhelming majority of examples of the "Jews suffer because of disobedience to God" motif coming from the Hebrew Bible, not the Christian additions.

"There exist examples in scripture of Jews suffering because of disobedience to God" is not equivalent to "All examples of Jews suffering up to the present day are because of disobedience to God," no matter how much Hagee defenders pretend it is in this thread.

Again, over the past two millenia, Jews have been subjected to grave persecutions even while keeping the Law, frequently from (nominal) Christians, for whom "They're not Christian" or "They killed our Lord" was justification enough, without having to look up New Testament verses. (Nowadays, according to Hal Lindsey, it's because of the sinister Federal Reserve.)

Also, please note the following from upthread:

One very common Christian anti-Semitic reading of the Torah has been to emphasize the theme in the deuteronomistic history and in the prophets of Israel's sin and God's retribution, while ignoring all the stuff about how Israel is always set right before God.

So forgive me if I continue to doubt that Hagee truly has the best interests of Jews at heart.

Posted by mds | February 29, 2008 4:48 PM

The truth of a proposition does not depend on whether or not you would like it to be true. Hagee's religious beliefs about the nature and fate of Jews, atheists, Israel, the Pope or whatever else it may be should be rejected because they are not supported by evidence, not because they are unpleasant. Lots of propositions are unpleasant, but that's not a reason to conclude that they are false.

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 5:00 PM

Mixner-

From a metaphysical standpoint, Hagee's general beliefs are no more "false" than your acceptance that your senses are accurately describing "reality". There is no evidence for either proposition. Hagee takes it on faith that the Christian God exists and reasons from that starting point; at some point in your metaphysical reasoning, you accepted some similar belief about the nature of reality and began your reasoning from there.

An individual's reasons for condemning Hagee and his beliefs will be closely tied to their particular ethical system - a Kantian would have different reasons than a utilitarian.

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 5:30 PM

Alexis,

From a metaphysical standpoint, Hagee's general beliefs are no more "false" than your acceptance that your senses are accurately describing "reality". There is no evidence for either proposition. Hagee takes it on faith that the Christian God exists and reasons from that starting point; at some point in your metaphysical reasoning, you accepted some similar belief about the nature of reality and began your reasoning from there.

This nonsense again. It always seems to crop when people try to defend religion.

It's your position that all beliefs about what is true ultimately rest on premises that are "taken on faith," is it? Believing that the Earth is billions of years old rather than just a few thousand years old is a matter of faith, in your view, is it? So how do you decide which to believe? How do you decide which one to have faith in? Why is one faith a more reliable guide to the truth than another? How can anyone claim to know anything if all belief is really a matter of faith?

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 5:44 PM

"There exist examples in scripture of Jews suffering because of disobedience to God" is not equivalent to "All examples of Jews suffering up to the present day are because of disobedience to God," no matter how much Hagee defenders pretend it is in this thread.

1. I'm not defending Hagee, just saying this single quote from the Yglesias post is supported by the Hebrew Bible.

2. Jeremiah says exactly that: that Israel will suffer for its disobedience until God ends its punishment (for which he gives no timetable that I remember).

Also, please note the following from upthread: One very common Christian anti-Semitic reading of the Torah has been to emphasize the theme in the deuteronomistic history and in the prophets of Israel's sin and God's retribution, while ignoring all the stuff about how Israel is always set right before God.

That's true of the Torah, but the problem with that post from upthread is that, in the Hebrew Bible (Tanak?), Israel is not only not "always set right before God," it's almost never "set right before God." 2 Kings ends with both Kingdoms of Israel in slavery, which persists through the latter books. Isaiah, Ezekial and Jeremiah contain no redemption from slavery (though all contain the hope of eventual redemption). The further you get into the Hebrew Bible, the bigger of a downer it becomes.

Again, over the past two millenia, Jews have been subjected to grave persecutions even while keeping the Law, frequently from (nominal) Christians, for whom "They're not Christian" or "They killed our Lord" was justification enough, without having to look up New Testament verses.

I agree, but that doesn't pertain to this specific quote, which is what I'm addressing.

So forgive me if I continue to doubt that Hagee truly has the best interests of Jews at heart.

Never said he did, just said you need a quotation that proves he doesn't, which, from what I've read about the guy, should be easy, but isn't the one Yglesias provides. Google Christian Dispensationalism and cross-reference that with this guy if you want to find legit criticism. Hagee speaks in the same sort of code as they do, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was one of those, and boy are they bizarre.

Posted by Shinyk | February 29, 2008 5:53 PM

This nonsense again. It always seems to crop when people try to defend religion.

It's your position that all beliefs about what is true ultimately rest on premises that are "taken on faith," is it? Believing that the Earth is billions of years old rather than just a few thousand years old is a matter of faith, in your view, is it? So how do you decide which to believe? How do you decide which one to have faith in? Why is one faith a more reliable guide to the truth than another? How can anyone claim to know anything if all belief is really a matter of faith?

Whether you believe the earth is 5 billion years old or 6000 years old ultimately depends on faith.

I assume that you believe that the Earth is 5 billion years old, but that is not what you take on "faith." I'm guessing that your faith is that your senses (and the sense of all humans) accurately reflect the totality of reality. It simply cannot be proven that this is true.

As an existentialist, I don't have a universal system for suggesting to others how they should choose what to believe, but for the sake of the discussion, I suggest that you believe whatever is most useful for you.

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 6:06 PM

My formatting didn't really come out the way I wanted in the post above. My argument starts with the line:

"Whether you believe the earth is..."

One other quick thing - I'm already off-topic, and I don't want to open the epistemological can of worms, but I don't think you can ever really "know" anything.

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 6:10 PM

Alexis,

Whether you believe the earth is 5 billion years old or 6000 years old ultimately depends on faith. I assume that you believe that the Earth is 5 billion years old, but that is not what you take on "faith."

Yes. I believe the earth is billions of years old because the evidence from science supports that conclusion. But if you believe this scientific answer is a matter of faith, and is no more likely to be true than the answer from biblical creationism, why do you believe the answer from science rather than the answer from creationism (or any other answer)?

I'm guessing that your faith is that your senses (and the sense of all humans) accurately reflect the totality of reality. It simply cannot be proven that this is true.

But you just said that all beliefs about what is true rest on faith. So your belief that "it simply cannot be proven that this is true" is an expression of your faith. By your own argument, you don't know whether "human senses accurately reflect the totality of reality" can be proven or not. Indeed, by your argument, nobody knows anything, because there is no such thing as knowledge. There is only belief, and all belief is faith. "Scientific knowledge" is a misnomer. It should really be "Scientific faith." You really believe that, do you?

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 6:41 PM

I don't think you can ever really "know" anything.

Your statements are confusing. What do you mean by really know something? As opposed to some weaker type of knowing? "Knowing," but not "really knowing?" What's the difference? Or are you just saying that you think no one can know anything, period? What do you think it means for someone to "know" or "really know" something, anyway?

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 6:49 PM

My opinion:

What I meant by "really" was a poor attempt to distinguish between strict and loose definitions of "know." Sure, you can know things, like your name and age, but you can't _know_ things, in sense of being certain that they are metaphysically true. In that sense, I can not even know that I exist- I accept it because it doesn't seem to make sense not to, otherwise I would never get out of bed in the morning.

Also, science and religion are simply two different views of reality. Science rests on basic assumptions about the way things are, the most basic being that observations are evidence that serves to prove theories and laws. Religion takes a different starting point, but may included that assumption.

It seems like a perfectly rational assumption to me, and is certainly the most useful for a great number of people, particularly scientists.

But there is no proof that this assumption is correct. Our senses could be deceived by a malicious or mischievous deity. You could be plugged into a simulation such as that portrayed in the Matrix. You could be in the midst of a particularly vivid dream. And so on and so on.

I do not believe any of those possibilities are true, but I cannot prove that they are not. For most people, it doesn't really matter - acting under the belief that we live in the world of the matrix and that you can fly if you put to your mind to it would not be a very useful metaphysical view. For some people, certain cosmologies are more useful than others.

To return to your question - you cannot prove that you are not a figment of my imagination. You can not prove that I am not a figment of your imagination. You cannot prove anything without taking something on faith. If you disagree, please prove something to me, based purely on evidence and making no assumptions about anything.

Science is not faith, it is a system for proving things based on faith in a few postulates. Scientific knowledge is not a misnomer, because if you have faith in the belief system behind science, you can know scientifically know things. However, knowing something scientifically does not mean it is true.

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 7:20 PM

Alexis,

Your arguments are just horribly confused. You don't define your terms, so it's hard to know what you're trying to say. For example:

What I meant by "really" was a poor attempt to distinguish between strict and loose definitions of "know." Sure, you can know things, like your name and age, but you can't _know_ things, in sense of being certain that they are metaphysically true.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What's the difference between "true" and "metaphysically true?" What's the difference between your "strict" and "loose" definitions of "know?" Until you explain these distinctions, it's hard to know what you mean.

Science is not faith, it is a system for proving things based on faith in a few postulates. Scientific knowledge is not a misnomer, because if you have faith in the belief system behind science, you can know scientifically know things.

If the postulates of science are a matter of faith, then any belief produced by science is a matter of faith. On your account, the whole thing is faith. The belief that our senses are reliable is faith, and the belief that we can generate true beliefs by applying reason to the evidence of our senses is also faith.

You still haven't explained why you believe the answer from science about the age of the earth rather than the answer from creationism, or any other answer. You said "I suggest you believe whatever is most useful for you [emphasis added]" but you haven't explained what you mean by "useful." Useful for what? And what if your belief about what is true conflicts with your belief about what is useful? Which belief should your favor, and why? Or are you just using "useful" as a synonym for "true?"

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 7:53 PM

I apologize that I can't explain my grand theory of the cosmos in a few blog posts, but I've been trying to respond directly to your questions, not produce a essay on the subject.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What's the difference between "true" and "metaphysically true?" What's the difference between your "strict" and "loose" definitions of "know?" Until you explain these distinctions, it's hard to know what you mean.

For the purposes of my arguments, true means correct based on your beliefs. For example, for a contemporary scientist it is true that the earth revolves around the sun. Truth in this sense is something that is logically consistent with your beliefs.

Metaphysically true means it is an accurate statement of reality. I do not believe that metaphysical truths are currently available. You cannot prove that the sun revolves around the earth.

My loose definition of know is the general colloquial sense. Using this definition, I know that the capital of France is Paris.

My strict definition is being utterly certain that you are correct about something. Using this definition, I do not know that Paris is the capital of France, because I have to take it on faith that my observation of the world accurately represents reality.

If the postulates of science are a matter of faith, then any belief produced by science is a matter of faith. On your account, the whole thing is faith. The belief that our senses are reliable is faith, and the belief that we can generate true beliefs by applying reason to the evidence of our senses is also faith.

Yes

You still haven't explained why you believe the answer from science about the age of the earth rather than the answer from creationism, or any other answer. You said "I suggest you believe whatever is most useful for you [emphasis added]" but you haven't explained what you mean by "useful." Useful for what? And what if your belief about what is true conflicts with your belief about what is useful? Which belief should your favor, and why? Or are you just using "useful" as a synonym for "true?"

I don't have any belief about the age of the earth. From what I have heard that according to the best evidence we have from observations, the earth is 4 to 5 billion years old, but I'm not up to date on the latest science. I don't think creationism or intelligent design is compatible with science, but I don't disbelieve or believe them. I don't find that it makes any difference in my life.

In the post, useful means "If you use the belief does it help you?" For example, if you are a scientist studying chickens, it is useful to believe in the postulates of science and the conclusions that logically follow therefrom, such as evolution. You use those postulates and conclusions in your work. On the other hand, a belief that you can fly if you jump off a a building is probably not a useful belief, because you are almost certain to get hurt. Unless you can fly, in which case, please show me and I will adjust my own postulates.

Look, I have two semesters of college philosophy. I'm not gonna turn out a great philosophical theory anytime soon. But, I don't understand the depth of your resistance to the basic argument I am making: that it cannot be proven that your perceptions of the outside world are accurate. I didn't come up with it - I got it from Hume and Descartes, and I haven't seen a convincing refutation of their basic points.

You certainly haven't attempt to refute that basic point, so I challenge you to prove something, anything, that doesn't rely on at least one premise for which there is no evidence and must be taken on faith.

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 8:47 PM

Alexis,

I don't have any belief about the age of the earth.

Really? I don't mean the exact age, but whether it's billions of years old, or merely thousands. You don't have a belief about that? What about whether the earth is flat? Or whether it's made of cheese? Or whether it's only a few inches in diameter? Do you have beliefs on any of those questions? Assuming you do, and you think those beliefs are a matter of faith, why do you hold those particular beliefs rather than a different set of beliefs?

In the post, useful means "If you use the belief does it help you?" For example, if you are a scientist studying chickens, it is useful to believe in the postulates of science and the conclusions that logically follow therefrom, such as evolution. You use those postulates and conclusions in your work. On the other hand, a belief that you can fly if you jump off a a building is probably not a useful belief, because you are almost certain to get hurt. Unless you can fly, in which case, please show me and I will adjust my own postulates.

But this argument contradicts your own premises. Under your premise that all belief is a matter of faith, your belief that jumping off a building will hurt you is a matter of faith. And your belief that the "postulates of science" will be "useful" to your study of chickens is also a matter of faith. Indeed, your belief that science is "useful" at all is a matter of faith. So how do you decide which beliefs are "useful?" Any "logical conclusion" you may draw about the "usefulness" of a belief is, according to you, a matter of faith, so logic doesn't help you. Indeed, logic relies on logical axioms, which also must be accepted on faith, according to you. It's all faith. So what basis do you have for holding any beliefs about anything at all? Why favor one faith over any other faith?

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 10:04 PM

But, I don't understand the depth of your resistance to the basic argument I am making: that it cannot be proven that your perceptions of the outside world are accurate.

It's hard to know what the word "proven" could even mean to you. What does it mean to "prove that your perceptions of the outside world are accurate" if any conceivable method of proof would necessarily rely on faith, and if the belief that there even are such things as "perceptions" and an "outside world" are a matter of faith? You're not denying only that a particular proposition can be proved, you're denying that there is any such thing as proof at all.

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 10:21 PM

Metaphysically true means it is an accurate statement of reality.

But your belief that there even is such a thing as "reality" is, according to you, a matter of faith. So your belief that there even is such a thing as "metaphysical truth" is also a matter of faith. You might just as well believe that there's no such thing as reality and no such thing as "metaphysical truth." So why don't you believe that instead? And please don't say that your belief in metaphysical truth is "useful," because that belief also founders on your "all belief is faith" premise.

Can't you see that unless you grant a privileged epistemic status to reason, unless you recognize a categorical difference between reason and faith, it is meaningless to talk about truth or knowledge or proof at all?

Posted by Mixner | February 29, 2008 10:41 PM

Really? I don't mean the exact age, but whether it's billions of years old, or merely thousands. You don't have a belief about that? What about whether the earth is flat? Or whether it's made of cheese? Or whether it's only a few inches in diameter? Do you have beliefs on any of those questions? Assuming you do, and you think those beliefs are a matter of faith, why do you hold those particular beliefs rather than a different set of beliefs?

I'm afraid we would just get bogged down in definitional issues again, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll try to answer your questions.

I believe that scientists are trustworthy when they say that their observations show the age of the earth is 4-5 billion years. I also believe that it is possible, if unlikely, that my perception of reality is an illusion of some sort, and that there may not even be an Earth. I believe that if I got on a plane and flew east or west, I would perceive the Earth to be round. I have never observed anything that suggests that the Earth is made of cheese or only several inches in diameter.

Any beliefs that I do have are based either directly or indirectly on faith. My assertion is that there is no objective reason to choose to hold any particular set of beliefs rather than another. The only reasons to hold beliefs are subjective, and each individual is the best judge of their own subjective reason for holding a particular belief. My subjective reason for holding beliefs is how useful they are for me. If you have a different reason for holding certain beliefs, I have no basis for criticizing your reasons. I can point out if your general system of beliefs is internally inconsistent, but that's your problem, not mine.

But this argument contradicts your own premises. Under your premise that all belief is a matter of faith, your belief that jumping off a building will hurt you is a matter of faith.

Where is the contradiction? I never claimed that usefulness was an objective way to evaluate beliefs or actions. I only said that it seems like the right way to me, but if it doesn't work for you, choose something else.

And your belief that the "postulates of science" will be "useful" to your study of chickens is also a matter of faith. Indeed, your belief that science is "useful" at all is a matter of faith. So how do you decide which beliefs are "useful?" Any "logical conclusion" you may draw about the "usefulness" of a belief is, according to you, a matter of faith, so logic doesn't help you. Indeed, logic relies on logical axioms, which also must be accepted on faith, according to you. It's all faith. So what basis do you have for holding any beliefs about anything at all? Why favor one faith over any other faith?

I'm not a pure existentialist, and I won't pretend to understand that entire philosophy, but I think it's fair to say that it is the basis for my personal philosophy. So, I reject the idea that there is an objective reason to hold any belief at all or favor one faith over another. I exist, I choose, I am an individual, I create meaning for myself by my choices. I don't see in point making objective judgments about what beliefs someone else has.

From this standpoint, the reasons that I have for believing something, or not believing it, are personal and can not be the basis for anyone else's beliefs. I make the choices I do for my own reasons, because I think they are right. If you choose to act in a similar way, it is because it is your choice, not because my beliefs or actions are objectively correct or a guide for anyone else's behavior.

I'm going to bed. I'll check in the morning to see if there's been a response, but I'm disappointed that you haven't responded to any of my questions. It probably wouldn't make any sense for me to continue this discussion unless I have some sense of your arguments.

The most important questions I have for you is:
Is your perception of the world outside of your body accurate?
If it is, can you prove this, or do you accept it on faith?

If it is not, how can you claim to be sure of the nature of the world outside your body?

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 11:05 PM

It's hard to know what the word "proven" could even mean to you. What does it mean to "prove that your perceptions of the outside world are accurate" if any conceivable method of proof would necessarily rely on faith, and if the belief that there even are such things as "perceptions" and an "outside world" are a matter of faith? You're not denying only that a particular proposition can be proved, you're denying that there is any such thing as proof at all.

I deny that there is such a thing as proof at all. Nothing can be proven. People simply accept certain things on faith and use whatever tools (logic, more faith, etc.) they subjectively find appropriate to go from there. There is nothing to say what tools are most appropriate - it is completely subjective.

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 11:20 PM

But your belief that there even is such a thing as "reality" is, according to you, a matter of faith. So your belief that there even is such a thing as "metaphysical truth" is also a matter of faith. You might just as well believe that there's no such thing as reality and no such thing as "metaphysical truth." So why don't you believe that instead? And please don't say that your belief in metaphysical truth is "useful," because that belief also founders on your "all belief is faith" premise.

Can't you see that unless you grant a privileged epistemic status to reason, unless you recognize a categorical difference between reason and faith, it is meaningless to talk about truth or knowledge or proof at all?

Ultimately, it is meaningless. Reason has no privileged epistemic status; truth, knowledge and proof are subjective - they are fun to discuss, but ultimately have no purpose other whatever you choose to give them. Only choices have meaning, and only your choices have meaning for you.

Whether I believe in reality only matters to the extent it affects the choices I make. My perception of reality only matters to the extent my choices affect my perception. Thus far, I have been unable to choose to disregard the laws of physics, so I don't try, but that does not give me any certainty about an objective reality.

If I choose not to believe in reality, I would be rejecting my own existence, which for personal reasons I use as the basis for my particular world view. I simply cannot conceive of making that choice, but I do not claim that it is a conception that someone else could have.

Posted by Alexis | February 29, 2008 11:38 PM

"He adds that Ezekiel predicts fire 'upon those who live in security in the coastlands.'"

Presumably he means San Francisco, that hot bed of liberals, gays, and artists.

I've had a lot of people warn me that the next "terrorist incident" will just happen to be in San Francisco. just coincidently the one place all the Republicans and other freaks can't stand.

I'm sure bin Laden really hates San Francisco above all other US cities.

Right.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 1, 2008 1:29 AM

The only thing that is more or less obviously true is that in order to be ethical, you basically have to commit yourself to some set of ethical beliefs (or "truths" if you would like, but make sure you understand that is "truths" in the broadest possible sense).

I also personally agree it is quite likely that ethical beliefs are not completely verifiable in the same sense as the descriptive claims of natural science, although that is not as obvious.

I entirely disagree that being ethical requires commitment to some set of unverfiable metaphysical beliefs. In fact, I think people get into a lot of trouble when they think they can derive their ethics from their metaphysics--those efforts, in my view, have largely failed.

Posted by DTM | March 1, 2008 11:49 AM

Alexis,

You write so much but say so little. Your persistent refusal to state your belief about the age of the earth shows, I think, that you understand the basic incoherence of your position. You claim that all belief is faith, that reason and science and religion are all just varieties of faith. When asked why you favor one faith-based belief over another faith-based belief, you claim to be guided by what is "useful." But, by your premise, your beliefs about what is "useful" are themselves a matter of faith, so this doesn't answer the question. Your argument is circular. Your own examples contradict your argument. You said, for example, that

a belief that you can fly if you jump off a a building is probably not a useful belief, because you are almost certain to get hurt.

But, according to you, any belief you have that you will get hurt by jumping off a building (let alone a belief that this outcome is "almost certain") is a matter of faith. It depends on the evidence of your senses and reason, which you claim are just a variety of faith. So this is not an answer. Ditto for any other belief you may have about what is "useful."

I think, in fact, that you are being utterly disingenuous here about what you really believe, and why. I'll bet that in 999 cases out of a thousand, your beliefs are determined by science and reason rather than some alternative. The age of earth. How many legs you have. The sum of two plus two. The color of the sky. Whether it's safe to jump off a cliff. And a million other things. You do in fact grant a privileged epistemic status to science and reason, because you simply couldn't function as a human being if you did not. So the question then becomes, in the other 1 out of a thousand cases, why do you reject the answer from science and reason, and favor the answer from religion instead (or astrology, or occultism, or New Age, or whatever other irrational belief system it may be)?

Posted by Mixner | March 1, 2008 5:20 PM