David Corn reports: "Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a 'war' against the 'false religion' of Islam with the aim of destroying it." Since McCain's managed to get away with not disavowing John Hagee, who can be tagged with anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish sentiments, I'm pretty sure that mere bigotry against Muslims isn't going to bring the heat. The press loves McCain, so it's hard to tag him with any of this stuff. It's rendered doubly hard by the fact that Barack Obama's campaign needs to keep fighting Hillary Clinton.
« In Play | Main | The Return »
Spiritual Guide
12 Mar 2008 05:48 pm
Comments (56)
I've visited World Harvest Church. Simply appalling, at all levels (spiritual, intellectual, aesthetic). Sample: if God loves you you'd be rich. And the best way to show your love for God is to donate to the church... The Democratic campaign really should target Parsley; he's said a lot of outrageous things on a lot of fronts. Make the GOP defend their fanatics.
Sample: if God loves you you'd be rich.
It's as good a guess as any.
Sorry Matt, but wouldn't any sincere Christian view Islam as a "false religion"? I mean, if their claims are valid, why not become a Muslim? Certainly, urging war against people outside of one's illusory "elect" is highly objectionable. Of course, McCain wants the war, but for a different religion: the transcendent state.
"Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a 'war' against the 'false religion' of Islam with the aim of destroying it." Since McCain's managed to get away with not disavowing John Hagee
Yeah, and the Pope says that Islam is a "defective" religion, and seeks the conversion of all Muslims (not to mention all other non-Catholics) to Catholicism, which would also "destroy" Islam. When may we expect Ted Kennedy to "disavow" the Pope?
To the obtuse: The problem is not with the "false religion" part, but with the "wage war" part.
The Hagee stuff probably won't work against McCain. Indeed I don't think it SHOULD work against McCain, since politicians are not responsible for the of their supporters and all the denounce-and-reject crap is the real problem. However, it is worth pushing as a tu quoque to the inevitable Jeremiah Wright crap we are about to be inundated with.
To the stupid: You don't get to define what "the problem" is, even assuming there is only one, and the Catholic Church is also pursuing a "war" against Islam.
the Catholic Church is also pursuing a "war" against Islam.
I think it was Napoleon who asked: "And how many divisions does the Pope have?"
Oh, quit pimping the "Clinton must surrender" line, Matt. All these attacks against McCain can be made into perfectly serviceable "contrast" ads in May even if they won't air now. The nominee (probably Obama) can spend a lot of time pointing out how Saint John loves giving anti-Catholics a tongue bath, wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, and loves to give Bush his extra-special full-body man hug. The voters will draw the appropriate conclusions. Matt could also do a useful service in fighting the McCain fluffing that he notes in the MSM by actually naming names and calling specific people out (Matthews, Williams, Russert, Jesus, all of MSNBC). Unless he's already a Village hack and prizes his upward social and professional mobility more than fighting the good fight. Talk's cheap, so we'll see.
I think it was Napoleon who asked: "And how many divisions does the Pope have?"
Probably at least as many as John Hagee. He certainly has more influence.
The nominee (probably Obama) can spend a lot of time pointing out how Saint John loves giving anti-Catholics a tongue bath, wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years
And McCain can spend a lot of time responding that the nominee (probably Obama) loves giving their own favored religious authorities a tongue bath, and plans to maintain a military presence in Iraq for an indefinite period into the future.
The Hagee stuff probably won't work against McCain. Indeed I don't think it SHOULD work against McCain, since politicians are not responsible for the of their supporters and all the denounce-and-reject crap is the real problem.
I disagree with this only because Hagee's views were well-publicized and McCain actively sought his support and endorsement. If Hagee endorsed McCain on his own, and didn't appear with him, sure McCain isn't responsible for his views. Alternately, if Hagee had a track record as a reasonable voice, leading McCain to seek his support, and then went on to say something crazy and at odds with his previous public persona, I would not attach blame to McCain.
But McCain knew Hagee's position, and courted his support because he wanted votes from people who agree with the pastor. That certainly implies an endorsement of his views, and suggests some level of access and influence a McCain White House. That's what's disturbing, and why these issues matter.
Well aren't you touchy, and very solicitous of the honor of Saint John! Dude, if you can't tell the difference between belonging to a guy's church and actively seeking out the assistance of a known bigot, or the difference between gradually pulling out and Victory Forever!, then neither I nor anyone else can help you....
The pope quote is from Stalin.
I have nothing else useful to add. (As usual, perhaps)
heedless:
Your "nothing else useful" is infinitely more valuable than much else here. Blessings!
But McCain knew Hagee's position, and courted his support because he wanted votes from people who agree with the pastor.
Er, where did McCain "court" Hagee's support? I guess by this novel construction of "courting" we may say that Obama "courted" the support of Louis Farrakhan, since Obama's own pastor and "spiritual adviser," the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr, thinks Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness."
To the stupid: You don't get to define what "the problem" is, even assuming there is only one,
Obviously, if McCain opponents are complaining about something, McCain opponents get to decide what they're complaining about.
and the Catholic Church is also pursuing a "war" against Islam.
When has Benedict XVI called for "armies" or "war" against Islam, as Parsley has? This would be a very odd thing to do, given not only modern Catholic opposition to religious war, but to the efforts of recent popes to make room for Jews and Muslims among the saved.
Probably at least as many as John Hagee. He certainly has more influence.
If you'd read the link, you'd realize that we weren't talking about Hagee. And Parsley was calling for our nation to make war against Islam. Our nation happens to have many divisions.
Does Obama have to keep attacking / parrying Clinton? Can't he, instead, start campaigning against McCain? Show leadership, show he can win the general.
consumpt,
Obviously, if McCain opponents are complaining about something, McCain opponents get to decide what they're complaining about.
Obviously, pithlord's "problem" with the statement in question may not be the same "problems" that other "McCain opponents" have with it. The fact that David Corn specifically cited the "false religion" comment suggests that he considers that a problem, contrary to pithlord's claim.
When has Benedict XVI called for "armies" or "war" against Islam, as Parsley has?
Where has Parsely called for armed combat against Islam? Where has he said that he meant "war" in the sense of violent conflict rather than in the sense of spiritual warfare or a war of ideas?
If you'd read the link, you'd realize that we weren't talking about Hagee.
So I just imagined the statements "McCain's managed to get away with not disavowing John HAGEE" and "The HAGEE stuff probably won't work against McCain," did I? You're the one who needs to read more carefully. In any case, James Gary's comment is a complete nonsequitur in either case, since neither Parsley nor Hagee have any divisions.
This would be a very odd thing to do, given not only modern Catholic opposition to religious war, but to the efforts of recent popes to make room for Jews and Muslims among the saved.
Er, no Catholic Pope, in recent history at least, has claimed to be able to "make room" for Jews and Muslims among the saved. They claim that only God has the power to save, not Popes. The Pope has called Islam "defective," and said that Muslims are "gravely deficient" compared to Catholics in the means of salvation. The Catholic Catechism, which represents the definitive teaching of the Catholic Magisterium, states that:
Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament
Note the word "necessary." Not "helpful" or "useful," but "necessary."
Lets just hope next week McCain doesn't piss off Buddhists, those dudes are MEAN.
It doesn't help that Obama has a Muslim either.
Why is this so surprising? The Media rolled for Bush in 2000 against Gore, and then again versus Kerry, and now for McCain against Barack. Or Hillary. Or FDR, for christsakes.
When I see CNN or MSNBC or the editorial page of the NY Times to call, no shits, for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, that will be the day McCain (or Bush) gets his just desserts from the Media.
Someone in yesterday's WSJ (David Wessel?) suggested a great running mate for McCain that could neutralize some of these anti-Catholic accusations: Bobby Jindahl, the Catholic governor of Louisiana, who happens to be an Indian-American Rhodes Scholar. I think that's a brilliant idea: Jindahl's youth balances out McCain's age, and by nominating a member of America's wealthiest per-capita ethnic group, the campaign donations will flood in. Plus, it's about time we get some Indian-Americans in Washington. If we are going to pursue diversity, might as well include more members of high-achieving minority groups.
Jindal, IMO, needs to serve his term in Louisiana for some more time before running with McCain - he just started his term. I also don't think campaign donations from Indian Americans would flood in any time soon - I don't recall Jindal ever being popular with Indian Americans the way Hillary Clinton is.
Hagee gets a pass because he's ultra-pro-Israel. As Haaretz reported in 2006:
"New Christian pro-Israel lobby aims to be stronger than AIPAC
"By Shlomo Shamir
"NEW YORK - Televangelist John Hagee told Jewish community leaders over the weekend that the 40 million evangelical Christians in the United States support Israel and that he plans to utilize this power to help Israel by launching a Christian pro-Israel lobby."
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/04/jerusalem-syndrome.html
Granted, it's all in the service of bringing about the Apocalypse or Rapture or Armageddon or whatever, but the Israel Lobby folks are willing to take their chances on that as long as they can get some of Hagee's followers' money and votes in the here and now. (Although, from what I've been told, there usually isn't much money left over after Rev. Hagee takes his cut.)
To Fred, Indian-Americans are a very succesful minority group (and probably have the highest concentration of masters and phds in the US), but don't forget a lot of them are mooslims and clinton will probably call mccain a muslim-lover if he chooses jindal as a running mate.
To Fred, Indian-Americans are a very succesful minority group (and probably have the highest concentration of masters and phds in the US), but don't forget a lot of them are mooslims and clinton will probably call mccain a muslim-lover if he chooses jindal as a running mate.
To Fred, Indian-Americans are a very succesful minority group (and probably have the highest concentration of masters and phds in the US), but don't forget a lot of them are mooslims and clinton will probably call mccain a muslim-lover if he chooses jindal as a running mate.
Mixner doesn't know his Catholic theology very well and his reading comprehension of the passage from the Catechism is low.
Anyway, the whold thing is stupid. Whatever the demerits of a McCain administration, it will not be anti-Catholic and any apocalypse he promotes in the Middle East will be strictly secular in motivation. I see zero point in requiring politicians to denounce their supporters for views no one thinks the politician has. It is just left-Reynoldsism, the ultimate in infantile disorders.
Obviously, pithlord's "problem" with the statement in question may not be the same "problems" that other "McCain opponents" have with it.
Yes, that is obvious, and that's why Pithlord gets to define what his problem is. However, you're also wrong about Corn.
The fact that David Corn specifically cited the "false religion" comment suggests that he considers that a problem, contrary to pithlord's claim.
Corn's full sentence was
Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.
You cannot logically infer from that statement that Corn would be upset that Parsley declared Islam a false religion without also wanting our entire nation to fight a war aimed at destroying it. The "problem" is obviously a package deal. Declaring Islam a "false religion" would be an eccentric choice of words but not really newsworthy.
When has Benedict XVI called for "armies" or "war" against Islam, as Parsley has?
Where has Parsely called for armed combat against Islam?
Answer the question, you illiterate ass. You said "the Catholic Church is also pursuing a 'war' against Islam." When was the last time the Catholic Church used 'war' or any synonym to describe it's evangelizing mission? If it was not during the lifetime of the current pope, you're guilty of libel.
Where has he said that he meant "war" in the sense of violent conflict rather than in the sense of spiritual warfare or a war of ideas?
A war of ideas just isn't consistent with the way Parsley talks. For example, here he definitely means literal armies of arms-bearing belligerents.
Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America."
There is no way that "armies" in that quote refers to combatants in a war of ideas. National armies do not fight wars of ideas--they fight literal wars. But I'm not going to argue this any longer--any reasonable person who actually read Corn's article (and would know it's about Parsley, not Hagee) would know that you're wrong about this. If you want to just sit there being wrong about it, that's your problem.
I would be surprised, though, if you actually found any instance of Parsley fighting this "war of ideas" you imagine for him by coming up with arguments trying to convince Muslims to switch to Christianity.
So I just imagined the statements "McCain's managed to get away with not disavowing John HAGEE" and "The HAGEE stuff probably won't work against McCain," did I?
Those are referring earlier incidents, making inferences about what happened in those incidents to what will happen in this one. If you're talking about the "'war' against the 'false religion' of Islam with the aim of destroying it.", which you pretend to be, then you're talking about Parsley. Please stop flaunting your illiteracy.
You're the one who needs to read more carefully.
What I need to learn is not to bother pointing out obvious errors you make because you just make 50 more errors to back them up. That's, like, every interaction I've had with you ever.
In any case, James Gary's comment is a complete nonsequitur in either case, since neither Parsley nor Hagee have any divisions.
But Parsley is calling on America, and America has divisions. The Pope, on the other hand, opposed the war in Iraq, and doesn't seem to be calling on anybody with divisions to attack anyone right now.
Er, no Catholic Pope, in recent history at least, has claimed to be able to "make room" for Jews and Muslims among the saved.
I didn't put that phrase in quotes--unlike you when you quoted "'war'" as Catholic policy.
They claim that only God has the power to save, not Popes. The Pope has called Islam "defective," and said that Muslims are "gravely deficient" compared to Catholics in the means of salvation.
Yeah, compared. Gravely deficient, not incapable. Earlier popes would probably have said incapable. Of course, the new popes won't admit to any change here--and they aren't without a defensible argument. "defective" implies there is some truth to it--just not as much as in Catholicism. See the link below for more.
Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament
Yeah, sure. I'm going to argue Papal proclamations without someone who can't even understand Mother Jones.
Suffice it to say "who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament" left later popes a large enough loophole to drive a freight train through, which they proceeded to do as well documented here.
Any remaining claims of yours will be contradicted by reading above, reading this link, or reading David Corn's article. I leave enumerating any remaining contradictions you make as an exercise to the reader. Which, obviously, would leave you disqualified.
Anyway, the obvious objective difference between McCain-Hagee and Obama-Wright is that Obama carefully chose Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. as his personal pastor out of the dozens of ministers he had gotten to know on the South Side. As Obama explains on pp. 274-295 of his autobiography, he grilled Wright about whether Wright's church was too bourgeois for him, but Wright's radicalism passed with flying colors. Wright himself describes his church as espousing the "black liberation theology" of James H. Cone, and Wright says it's similar to the better-known "liberation theology" that emerged in Nicaragua in 1977-1981 -- i.e., the quasi-Marxist revolutionary ideology popular among the Sandinistas.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080309_obama.htm
Now, many here may think that's a great reason to vote for Obama, but, clearly, at some point in the general election campaign, Obama is going to have to address the issue of his radical leftist past. And he's either going to break your hearts or he's going to lose the election.
The difference between McCain-Hagee/Parsley and Obama-Wright is that Hagee/Parsley are themselves directly offensive and embraced by McCain (the latter as spiritual advisor), whereas you need a degree of redirection or two to get from Obama to Farrakhan or Sandinistas.
Now that Matt has finally read Obama's "Dreams from My Father," there should be nothing to stop him from refuting my interpretations of the book ... except that this gifted generator of opinions can't seem to think of a single thing to say about his candidate's 442 page memoir other than that Obama is a good writer!
Bobby Jindal is a rising star, and deservedly so. But he just got inaugurated about six weeks ago, and has plenty to do in Louisiana, including helping to keep LA in the "R" column in November. That will be a lot easier to do if Obambi continues to struggle in his attempts to put The Queen of the Monsters away.
Attempts by people like Matt to attack McCain through people like Hagee (or others Obama through Wright, etc) are simply ridiculous, exactly "left-Renoldsism, the ultimate in infantile disorders." I keep waiting for someone to bring out some quotes about Catholicism or Judaism from Martin Luther or John Calvin. Reject and disavow?
I don't give a damn about Obama's pastor. I don't give a damn if Obama wanted to be a Black Panther and is going to hunt Sailerites all over the world once he becomes president. He remains the least militaristic man standing for president and is not going to "bomb bomb Iran." As long as he does not go senile or get involved in a sex scandal with a underage male page, he remains the least dangerous man running for President.
What Steve doesn't understand is the difference between being a "radical leftist" back in the day and embracing a nut case preacher TODAY.
Obama did the former. McCain does the latter.
Significant difference. Whether that difference can be played correctly in the general election depends on the competence of the campaign spin meisters.
Sailer,
Uh, your facts are wrong. Liberation Theology didn't suddenly appear with the Sandinistas - You must be an Elliot Abrams devotee, and you must not be a Catholic. Try it got it's big boost after Vatican II. You can google when that was and recalibrate the facts to fit your arguments.
Now I get to spend a quiet moment and remember John XXIII. A really great Pope. It's been down Pope hill since he died.
And peace be with you!
The connection between Obama's church and Nicaragua in 1977-1981 was made by Obama's pastor on the Hannity & Colmes show on 3/1/07:
Sean Hannity began by asking Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. about the "Black Value System" espoused by Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ. Wright responded:
"WRIGHT: The black value system, which was developed by the congregation, by laypersons of the congregation, 26 years ago, very similar to the gospel (INAUDIBLE) developed by laypersons in Nicaragua during the whole liberation theology movement, 26, 28, 30 years ago, yes."
What exactly was going on in Nicaragua 26 to 30 years before this debate in 2007? Well, 1977-1981 were the years of the Marxist revolution in Nicaragua. The Soviet-allied Sandinistas made use of the "liberation theology" promoted by leftist Catholic clerics of the Jesuit and the Maryknoll orders. In fact, three radical liberation theology priests served in the Sandinista cabinet. During a dramatic 1983 visit to Managua, Pope John Paul II had to speak out sharply against liberation theology. He later suspended Marxist priests serving in the Sandinista regime.
So, the black liberation theology of Obama's church is, according to Obama's minister, "very similar" to the "liberation theology" espoused by old Marxist revolutionaries in Nicaragua.
Interesting.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080309_obama.htm
"What exactly was going on in Nicaragua 26 to 30 years before this debate in 2007?"
Not what is stated in this caricature of events. The Sandinista movement was initially an attempt to get rid of a hated dictator. They were open to input from all sides after having won, but were driven into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union by US hostility (blocade for no valid reason, arming of contras, you name it). Managua when I visited it was poor but free.
And pope John Paul II did not have to speak out against liberation theology (or for that matter, he did not have to promote the ultra-rightist group Opus Dei). This was a deliberate choice to break the progressive movement within the church. It is often forgotten how close to the far right the pope was.
When I see liberation theology described as a "far-left" fringe movement, I realize how far we have come since the days when it was possible to be religious without hating the poor.
I find it strange that the kinds of people who object most to Church and state mixing, when discussing the Religious Right, suddenly throw that away when talking about Left-wing religious. In particular if we're talking about "other people."
Catholicism wasn't uncomfortable with liberation theology because the movement liked poor people. Some of the discomfort was an at times unfair fear they were leaning toward Communism. Other discomforts came in part because an element of Liberation theology really was focused too much on this world. That element was intent on political and ideological goals, including even joining rebel groups. The idea of remaking the US political system through a largely theological vision would not make most US liberals comfortable. When it's in the Colombia or Honduras though it can seem more tolerable due to distance.
On another matter Catholics are not at "war" with Islam and it'd take a fairly poor understanding of reality to see it that way. Seeing Islam as "defective" doesn't mean it's time to hammer them. And the idea Catholics are at "war" in an evangelical competition sense is even a little hard to buy. Catholics at present are terrible at evangelization. In per-capita terms Judaism has more converts than Catholicism in the US. Although Catholics are more intense in Africa to "out-evangelize" Islam this is largely about trying to assure polytheist/animists pick Catholicism over Islam. The amount of Catholic missionary activity in mostly Muslim nations like Iran, Morocco, or Pakistan is minimal at best.
And, responding to Mixner, McCain may not have "courted" Hagee before the fact, but after Hagee offered his support McCain accepted it, and has said publicly and repeatedly how proud and happy he is to have Hagee on his side.
Also, SS, I'd much rather have a liberation theologian who wanted to kick out Somoza than an evangelical like Hagee who admits that he wants to bring about the end of the world.
Thomas R., you are right to point out the discomfort some had with the political nature of liberation theology, and also right to say that the conflating of this theology with communism was unfair.
But I think - and most liberation theologists thought - that when the church passively or actively supports a status quo of dramatic inequality, as in Latin America, it is also political. It was this politically negative role of the church that liberation theologists wanted to change.
As for Pope John Paul II himself, he can hardly have been disturbed by the presence of politics in religion. An ardent anti-communist, quite happy to use the influence of the church whether in Poland or in Nicaragua, he can hardly be accused of having adhered to a church-and-state separation doctrine.
The connection between Obama's church and Nicaragua in 1977-1981 was made by Obama's pastor on the Hannity & Colmes show on 3/1/07:
So Obama likes a pastor who likes liberation theologians from back in the day, who themselves liked the Sandinistas.
I count three levels of redirection, there. Obama connected to Wright connected to liberation theologians connected to Sandinistas. Obama likes somebody who likes somebody who likes somebody who did some bad stuff while fighting somebody else who was also bad.
McCain likes Parsley as a "spiritual advisor", Parsley himself wants the armies of America to fight a war to destroy Islam. McCain likes somebody who likes evil.
The difference here is that I don't have to pull out my graph theory textbook to understand the McCain situation.
Mixner:
Where has Parsely called for armed combat against Islam? Where has he said that he meant "war" in the sense of violent conflict rather than in the sense of spiritual warfare or a war of ideas?
Have you been as careful to give the benefit of the doubt to people calling for jihad against unbelievers?
Wow, you guys are really bizarro on this post!
I don't know how the Pope was dragged into this mess, but just to clear the air: Benedict visited the blue mosque and created a liason with moslem leaders in order to prevent a war, not create one.
As far as liberation theology goes, the Catholic encyclopedia online should explain that one away.
The interesting thing, with this post, is that both Obama and McCain have spiritual leaders whom have said "questionable" things. One would think that they would cancel each other out.
Spitzer = Clinton
Clinton = Spitzer
I, for one, would like to see Sailer get some traction on the liberation theology bit. We could use an extended discussion on what really went on in Latin America in the '70s and '80s. Maybe we can get the McCain camp to start taking pot-shots at Oscar Romero and Ignacio Ellacuria for their horrible "liberation theology." It would turn the myth that Latinos vote as an ethnic bloc into a reality. Bring it on.
McCain stood on the same stage as Hagee and welcomed his support. What more could he have done? kissed him? fellatio?
Besides, how many Muslims are going to vote for McCain?
I'm an Anglican, not a Catholic, and therefore I'm not obliged to believe what the current Pope or his predecessor said about liberation theology. I think that it had a great deal of truth to it, as well as some problems (in the theological sense). In the political and social sense, I think its influence was almost entirely positive, and was something which was long overdue.
That said, Thomas R. is right in pointing out that sometimes it placed too much emphasis on this world and not enough on spiritual realities. He is also right in conceding that the conflation of liberation theology with Marxism was false and unfair. Liberation theology was in its political manifestation essentially socialist, but not necessarily Marxist. It was always in its nature a Christian movement, and that rules it out from being doctrinaire Marxist by definition. It inspired a variety of non-Marxist leaders including the government of General Velasco in the 1960s (who received the enthusiastic support of both Gustavo Gutierrez and much of the Peruvian church) as well as the present day governments of Venezuela and Brazil. And yes, the Sandinistas, for whom Marxism was only one of several influences on their thinking.
Thomas R., liberation theology wasn't the first Christian movement to advocate remaking the society and state on a model of Christian virtue. Far from it. It wasn't even the first such Catholic, 20th century movement. There were plenty of Catholic movements in the 1920s and 1930s which strove for a corporatist state based on an idealized vision of the medieval period. Some of them even had the support of Rome. Liberation theology was simply a left wing variant of the Christian movements which had generally been on the right in the 1930s. Indeed, there were a good many activists throughout Latin America who were on the corporatist, neo-feudal right in the 1930s who then gravitated to liberation theology in the 1960s.
Personally, I would be happy to see the US and Nicaragua both remade, to a certain extent, along lines of Christian virtue. I'm in favor of redistributing land to Nicaraguan peasants and factories to Argentine workers for much the same reasons that I'm in favor of banning abortion in America.
1: Pace "Pithlord," most liberals do have a problem with the declaration that some religion is false. It's illiberal to say such things in public. Citizenship in the City of Man is supposed to transcend all of that. When it doesn't, the guardians of respectable opinion get nervous. That Corn writes it in scare quotes, and Yglesias cites it, is proof enough of that.
2: Actual membership in a congregationalist Protestant church, especially one chosen in adulthood, does fairly indicate strong theological and political agreement with the opinions of its leader. Obama can't hide behind a magisterium, or family tradition (Muslim on one side, atheist on the other), or geography (he moved to Chicago). He chose that church, and continues to choose it. If Obama disliked the ideology of his church's leader, the correct and traditional response, given weak congregational Protestant ecclesiology, would be to find a preacher with whom he could agree. It's why there are so many Protestant denominations. Using your reverend's sermons to entitle your books is also, as they say in police work, a clue. So, with all due respect, the man from whom Obama chooses to accept, not just political support, but spiritual guidance, is more significant that McCain's accepting an endorsement from someone to whose congregation he doesn't belong.
3:
It would turn the myth that Latinos vote as an ethnic bloc into a reality. Bring it on.Which Latinos? There are plenty of anticommunist Latinos in the US, too. Not every Latin American immigrant is or was a supporter of liberation theology. Nor is every "Latino" even a Catholic. Have you not noticed the churches and church vehicles marked Iglesia Pentecostal? In Northern Virginia, home to an enormous number of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, they're thick on the ground.
1: Pace "Pithlord," most liberals do have a problem with the declaration that some religion is false. It's illiberal to say such things in public. Citizenship in the City of Man is supposed to transcend all of that. When it doesn't, the guardians of respectable opinion get nervous. That Corn writes it in scare quotes, and Yglesias cites it, is proof enough of that.
2: Actual membership in a congregationalist Protestant church, especially one chosen in adulthood, does fairly indicate strong theological and political agreement with the opinions of its leader. Obama can't hide behind a magisterium, or family tradition (Muslim on one side, atheist on the other), or geography (he moved to Chicago). He chose that church, and continues to choose it. If Obama disliked the ideology of his church's leader, the correct and traditional response, given weak congregational Protestant ecclesiology, would be to find a preacher with whom he could agree. It's why there are so many Protestant denominations. Using your reverend's sermons to entitle your books is also, as they say in police work, a clue. So, with all due respect, the man from whom Obama chooses to accept, not just political support, but spiritual guidance, is more significant that McCain's accepting an endorsement from someone to whose congregation he doesn't belong.
3:
It would turn the myth that Latinos vote as an ethnic bloc into a reality. Bring it on.Which Latinos? There are plenty of anticommunist Latinos in the US, too. Not every Latin American immigrant is or was a supporter of liberation theology. Nor is every "Latino" even a Catholic. Have you not noticed the churches and church vehicles marked Iglesia Pentecostal? In Northern Virginia, home to an enormous number of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, they're thick on the ground.
Pace "Pithlord," most liberals do have a problem with the declaration that some religion is false.
This charge has been answered adequately above. Given how often violent wars have been waged against "false religions", "false prophets", "heretics", "pagans", "antichrists", if someone refers to to another group of people using such terms while also calling for armies to wage war against said group of people, this is relevant even without any imaginary motives you assign to liberals.
Actual membership in a congregationalist Protestant church, especially one chosen in adulthood, does fairly indicate strong theological and political agreement with the opinions of its leader.
To how many degrees of redirection? Just because I like a person doesn't mean I'm obligated to like everyone liked by everyone liked by everyone liked by that person. So, with all due respect (in your case not much) McCain is way closer to both Hagee and Parsley than Obama is to Sandinistas.
To how many degrees of redirection? Just because I like a person doesn't mean I'm obligated to like everyone liked by everyone liked by everyone liked by that person. So, with all due respect (in your case not much) McCain is way closer to both Hagee and Parsley than Obama is to Sandinistas.The Sandinista reference is useful to the extent that it illustrates what "liberation theology" is about. No one is claiming Obama spent the '80s running guns to Nicaragua. So yes, of course, McCain is closer to Hagee and Parsley than Obama is to Manuel Ortéga. Yet, Obama is tremendously closer to Rev. Wright than McCain is to Hagee or Parsley, and in the subordinate position of a (however imperfect) follower who chose the Reverend's church, the Reverend's theology, and submits to the Reverend's spiritual guidance. So what Wright says, believes, and does do tell us something about Obama, who, as an adult convert, and as a Protestant with weak Protestant ecclesiology is responsible for the church he chose in the way that a from-birth member of a strongly corporate body is not. The opinions of the man who hears your sins and receives (presumably) ten percent of your income are more indicative of where your heart is, or where you wish it was, than the opinions of a man who gives you his money.
Secondly, we don't have to agree, or even to like each other, but do we need to be unpleasant to our interlocutors? Thank you for refraining from gratuitous put-downs.
Consumpt,
Yes, that is obvious, and that's why Pithlord gets to define what his problem is.
He didn't say "my problem." He said "THE problem." Again, you need to read more carefully.
You cannot logically infer from that statement that Corn would be upset that Parsley declared Islam a false religion without also wanting our entire nation to fight a war aimed at destroying it.
Of course I can. But since pithlord falsely asserted that “the problem” was not the claim that Islam is a “false religion,” in direct contradiction of Corn’s explicit statement of that alleged problem, your claim above, like so much of what you write, is utterly irrelevant to the point at issue.
Answer the question, you illiterate ass.
No, you answer the question, you slimy moron. Where has Hagee, or Parsley, said that he meant "war" in the sense of violent conflict rather than in the sense of spiritual warfare or a war of ideas?
There is no way that "armies" in that quote refers to combatants in a war of ideas.
No shit, Sherlock. But since the statement refers to Christopher Columbus it is utterly irrelevant. Show me where Parsley has called for violent conflict against Islam. Stop evading, stop trying to change the subject, and answer the question.
But Parsley is calling on America, and America has divisions.
No, Parsley is not “calling on America.” Nowhere have you provided a shred of evidence that Parsley is advocating violent conflict against Islam by the armed forces of the United States. You’re just making things up.
Yeah, compared. Gravely deficient, not incapable. Earlier popes would probably have said incapable. Of course, the new popes won't admit to any change here--and they aren't without a defensible argument. "defective" implies there is some truth to it--just not as much as in Catholicism. See the link below for more.
More nonsequiturs. So what if “gravely deficient” does not mean “incapable?” The point is that the Pope says, at a minimum, that the prospects of salvation for Muslims are very much lower than the prospects of salvation for Catholics. He is asserting the gross inferiority of the religion of Islam compared to the religion of Catholicism.
Suffice it to say "who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament" left later popes a large enough loophole to drive a freight train through, which they proceeded to do as well documented here.
You are utterly confused. The “who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament” condition implies that salvation may be possible for non-Christians who have not “had the possibility” of asking for baptism. But the statement flatly denies even the possibility of salvation for anyone who has freely chosen not to become a baptized Christian because they are simply not persuaded that the Christian gospel is true. According to the Catholic Church, anyone to whom the gospel has been proclaimed, and who has had the possibility of becoming a baptized Christian, but who chooses to follow a different religion instead, or no religion, cannot be saved. That's why the Catechism states that baptism is necessary for salvation for such people, rather than merely helpful or useful.
And the idea Catholics are at "war" in an evangelical competition sense is even a little hard to buy. Catholics at present are terrible at evangelization. In per-capita terms Judaism has more converts than Catholicism in the US. Although Catholics are more intense in Africa to "out-evangelize" Islam this is largely about trying to assure polytheist/animists pick Catholicism over Islam. The amount of Catholic missionary activity in mostly Muslim nations like Iran, Morocco, or Pakistan is minimal at best.
The Catholic Church has largely given up on trying to win converts in the developed world for now. It has realized that it simply cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. But in the developing world, where poverty and ignorance make for easy prey, the Catholic Church is very active in trying to convert people to its brand of nonsense. It is definitely waging a "war" against Islam and its other competitors in poor nations. This isn't terribly surprising, since the Catholic Church has always regarded itself as the one "true" Church and has always had the ultimate goal of bringing all of humanity into the Catholic religion. It no longer has any direct political or military power, but it has never abandoned its goal of "destroying" all other religions by converting their adherents to Catholicism.
"An ardent anti-communist, quite happy to use the influence of the church whether in Poland or in Nicaragua, he can hardly be accused of having adhered to a church-and-state separation doctrine."
TR: Well yes the Church believes it has a role in the public sphere. A full separation of Church and State in all places is rejected by the Catholic Church. To accept it the Vatican would have to open up a synagogue or end its ability to make Concordants.
However the idea of fusing the state to the Church to the point that priests are political figures had declined after WWII and especially after Vatican II. Likewise interpreting the faith in largely political terms was never precisely desirable.
It's true though that John Paul II's experience with Communism caused him to overreact at times. Some of the people he disrespected were perfectly orthodox and not problematic. Still ending the practice of priests running for political office I think was a good idea. It wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the reaction against Liberationism. On balance I think his concerns were more justified than not, even with some mistakes done for them.
"where poverty and ignorance make for easy prey, the Catholic Church is very active in trying to convert people to its brand of nonsense." Mixner
This kind of statement can't be rebutted because it's already coming with such a strong set of assumptions and biases no rebut would be tolerated. Still what do you say about the growth, by conversion, of Pentecostalism in the developed world? Pentecostals didn't even really exist 120 years ago now they have large churches in places like Sweden. Is Pentecostalism so much more sensible than Catholicism? Why?
In addition to that what about South Korea? Catholicism there is growing and it's a developed nation. Is this because they're out to get the horde of Korean Muslims? For that matter Catholicism has Evangelized most to people who'd been polytheist or animist. If Catholics are out to smash Islam why aren't they flooding Yemen or Pakistan? Those places are poor and uneducated.
You could respond "this just shows their out to phase out all the tribal religions of the world" and I think that could be correct. But it'd be just as correct of Islam or even Buddhism. Except that no Catholic nation in 50 years or more has done that in the extremist way Muslims did in Sudan or Buddhists did in Myanmar. You might want Christianity or Catholicism to be worse based on past events, but it's not and you'd have great difficulty proving otherwise. And besides we were discussing relations with Islam anyway.
"An ardent anti-communist, quite happy to use the influence of the church whether in Poland or in Nicaragua, he can hardly be accused of having adhered to a church-and-state separation doctrine."
TR: Well yes the Church believes it has a role in the public sphere. A full separation of Church and State in all places is rejected by the Catholic Church. To accept it the Vatican would have to open up a synagogue or end its ability to make Concordants.
However the idea of fusing the state to the Church to the point that priests are political figures had declined after WWII and especially after Vatican II. Likewise interpreting the faith in largely political terms was never precisely desirable.
It's true though that John Paul II's experience with Communism caused him to overreact at times. Some of the people he disrespected were perfectly orthodox and not problematic. Still ending the practice of priests running for political office I think was a good idea. It wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the reaction against Liberationism. On balance I think his concerns were more justified than not, even with some mistakes done for them.
"where poverty and ignorance make for easy prey, the Catholic Church is very active in trying to convert people to its brand of nonsense." Mixner
This kind of statement can't be rebutted because it's already coming with such a strong set of assumptions and biases no rebut would be tolerated. Still what do you say about the growth, by conversion, of Pentecostalism in the developed world? Pentecostals didn't even really exist 120 years ago now they have large churches in places like Sweden. Is Pentecostalism so much more sensible than Catholicism? Why?
In addition to that what about South Korea? Catholicism there is growing and it's a developed nation. Is this because they're out to get the horde of Korean Muslims? For that matter Catholicism has Evangelized most to people who'd been polytheist or animist. If Catholics are out to smash Islam why aren't they flooding Yemen or Pakistan? Those places are poor and uneducated.
You could respond "this just shows their out to phase out all the tribal religions of the world" and I think that could be correct. But it'd be just as correct of Islam or even Buddhism. Except that no Catholic nation in 50 years or more has done that in the extremist way Muslims did in Sudan or Buddhists did in Myanmar. You might want Christianity or Catholicism to be worse based on past events, but it's not and you'd have great difficulty proving otherwise. And besides we were discussing relations with Islam anyway.
Comments closed March 26, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Someone in yesterday's WSJ (David Wessel?) suggested a great running mate for McCain that could neutralize some of these anti-Catholic accusations: Bobby Jindahl, the Catholic governor of Louisiana, who happens to be an Indian-American Rhodes Scholar. I think that's a brilliant idea: Jindahl's youth balances out McCain's age, and by nominating a member of America's wealthiest per-capita ethnic group, the campaign donations will flood in. Plus, it's about time we get some Indian-Americans in Washington. If we are going to pursue diversity, might as well include more members of high-achieving minority groups.
Posted by Fred | March 12, 2008 6:14 PM