Daily Archive

The other day, in a piece by a “freelance writer” on a site called “Media With Conscience,” we were told:

…Pastor John Hagee, televangelist to 99 million viewers and pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, established the [Christians United for Israel] CUFI in 2005 following the publication of his book, “The Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World.” Hagee envisions CUFI as the Christian version the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby whose political clout has a significant influence on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

The late Molly Ivins, a Texas political commentator and author, described Hagee as a “pre-millennial dispensationalist, whose theology focuses on selected apocalyptic passages of the Book of Revelation.”…

…According to Judaism, the Mount is where the final Third Temple will be rebuilt before the coming of the Jewish Messiah. Unfortunately for CUFI, the Second Coming of Jesus is on hold until the temple’s completion, and that cannot happen until Islam is destroyed—Hagee’s holy grail

Predictably then, the good pastor opposes any peace plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supports Israel’s persecution and “imprisonment” of 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and advocates pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iran. John Hagee lives, and CUFI exists, to light the fires of the Apocalypse using Israel as the match…

So we are now to tie the thousands’ year old conflict in the Middle East to a Texas-based congregation’s interpretations of the Book of Revelation? And that writer believes Pastor Hagee’s off the theological beam?

And maybe he is. And maybe what had gone on also from the time Roman legions under Titus and later Severus crushed Jewish nationalist rebellions and the emperor Hadrian expelled the Jews from Jerusalem in AD 135, until our very recent AD 2005 — including all that had also taken place owing to the introduction of still another “element” into the mix, around 622 — has had precious little to do with the current conflict also? Clearly, it is now centered ’round the founding of that Pastor Hagee’s CUFI, three years ago.

Yes, please, God, do spare us.

And lots of energy has been wasted of late also going on about that pastor’s purported “anti-Catholicism”. However, now he says he has been mischaracterized by media:

…Many in the media have mistakenly accepted characterizations of my statements which simply are not true. I never called the Catholic Church the “anti-Christ” a “false cult system” “the apostate church” or the “great whore” of Revelations. This is a serious misinterpretation of my words. When I use these terms, I am referring to those Christians who ignore the Gospels and embrace the false doctrines of Jew-hatred and anti-Semitism…

Media mischaracterizing quotes? Media engaging in libel? — “The Daily Express today takes the unprecedented step of making a front-page apology to Kate and Gerry McCann.” I know, you too are probably stunned to discover that such happens.

However, even assuming the pastor meant precisely what is asserted, this blog’s attitude is a [shrug] “So what?” Oh, we should all be concerned because he endorsed Sen McCain for the presidency? Yet is that actually a surprise? Does one think that by a process of elimination he could have possibly endorsed either Sen Obama or Sen Clinton?

“If I valued the honourable gentleman’s opinion,” Mr Churchill once said, “I might get angry.” So whatever it really is, Pastor Hagee’s entitled to his. And he’s entitled to his ministry — as espoused from his pulpit in his church based in a city (San Antonio) which is, interestingly, named after a saint.

Yet there is no point (nor does this blog have the time or inclination) in arguing fine points of ultimately unprovable, belief-rooted Christian doctrine. Indeed, in our dangerous world today, in which Western civilization is under such pressure, one would have thought any sort of “hair-splitting” over Christian doctrinal interpretations would hardly have to be necessary.

But speaking only for myself, of course, I find that I much prefer the 2,000 year old tradition — which created our Western civilization; and helped pass down to us “American” words of today like “senate” and “capitol” — convened by Peter and those who actually walked this earth with Jesus Christ. Its belief was first summarized as succinctly as possible in the reign of Constantine — and is now offered in languages no one then could have imagined would have ever existed, and in places on this planet no one then ever could have dreamed of — in phrasing still used in Christian churches (because not all are Roman Catholic) in our present:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen…

Obviously terrifying, that Catholic Christianity.

_____________________________

P.S. Btw, this Roman Catholic also often finds “The Catholic League’s” Bill Donohue’s flailings incredibly trying. It is not that Sen McCain might not have some questions to answer; but by the same token in accepting an endorsement it is hard to believe the Senator was looking deliberately to alienate around 25% of the U.S. electorate. One suspects the Senator was being opportunistic — “…McCain seems pretty clueless when it comes to understanding evangelicals. Going to Hagee smacked of a campaign adviser who said, “Hey, there’s this big evangelical guy down in San Antonio, let’s go embrace him.” — knowing he’s got a real electoral fight on his hands in November, and knowing he needs all the help he can get, particularly from evangelicals.

Anyway, I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb here to suggest also that a Roman Catholic church that survived a Diocletian, will probably somehow manage also to cope with any criticisms of it from one Pastor Hagee.

Reuters:

The Federal Reserve slashed a key U.S. interest rate by three-quarters of a percentage point on Tuesday, a substantial cut but smaller than many in financial markets had expected, as part of an effort to hold off a deep recession and financial meltdown…

“Financial meltdown?” People, calmdown. It’s not 1932.

Well, at least not yet anyway.

CNN:

A majority of Democrats would like to see Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton win their party’s presidential nomination, according to a national poll out Monday.

Fifty-two percent of registered Democrats questioned in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say the senator from Illinois is their choice for president, with 45 percent supporting Clinton…

Not a word is mentioned on blacks being polled, only that “…“Clinton does best among women, older voters and whites…” Yet knowing Sen Obama has the strong support of upwards of 80% of black Democrats, and that they also make up a much larger percentage of the Democratic party electorate than they do of the national electorate, his 52% support among “registered Democrats” is therefore none too impressive.

Interesting, also, the very last line:

…The survey has a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

So it could also be completely backwards?

_____________________________

Fox News (and, as it is courtesy of the Associated Press, please do not look at the illustrating photo):

As Barack Obama wrapped up his ambitious speech on race, politics and the historical origin of his longtime pastor’s heated sermons Tuesday, advisers questioned whether he had achieved a simple and practical objective: halting the “loop.”…

However:

…A Rasmussen survey taken from March 14-16 of 1,200 likely voters showed 56 percent of those interviewed were less likely to vote for Obama because of Wright’s comments…

Thus the damage has been done. And it seems huge, given that it would appear that nearly all of those “56 percent” are probably not black.

…Democratic strategist Tanya Acker, an Obama supporter, said she had no idea whether the speech would put the controversy to rest, but she downplayed the fact that Obama never explicitly disavowed Wright.

“What he tried to do is explain that some of those statements … he was really addressing a bitterness in the African-American community,” she said. “That may make other people feel uncomfortable, but it is truly there.”

What is also “true” is that Americans are not electing an “African-American president.” They are electing an American. All told, considering that “bitterness” within “the African-American community” apparently cannot seem to be shared with us “other people” in a reasonable and even constructive manner, it appears daily ever less likely Sen Obama will this November become the first U.S. president whose ancestry is (at least partly) black African.