aumd03 2 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 It's damage control. Both McCain and Obama get an "F" on their associations with religious leaders. As if we needed any more reason for separation of church and state. I fail to see how this is a separation of church and state issue at all??? Separation of church and state applies to the government endorsing one religion over another, not an endorsement from a church leader, or the personal religion of a candidate. In the same breath, I don't think our founding fathers would have been keen on endorsement from the pulpit, however, it is their right to promote their social and political beliefs. To push separation to the point of that politics is devoid of religion is itself a promotion of an agnostic or antitheistic philosophy or religion. I did think Bush's plan to support community programs through church charities was clearly a church/state issue however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,492 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Am I the only one that think both associated with Hagee and Wright for political purposes? Being a member of and 8,000 member church couldn't be looked at as anything but an asset for Obama. Hagee, as unbelievable as it may be, has a moonbat following that helped doom us in 2004 and is still alive and well for the most part. Why not exploit them for the 15% of the nation that they represent? That's 15% of the vote. All in all, I don't think either candidate holds the views of their former religious allies. Winner winner chicken dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTiger1 0 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 McCain rejects endorsement of a second controversial pastor (CNN)  Hours after his rejection of Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement, John McCain rejected the backing of Pastor Rod Parsley, who said that Islam was a “conspiracy of spiritual evil.†"I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America,†he told the Associated Press. “And I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn't endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement." The decision to cut off Parsley could have the bigger impact on the presidential race: in 2004, the Ohio pastor was a major figure in an unprecedented evangelical turnout operation that helped an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative pass overwhelmingly, and which was widely believed to have helped President Bush carry the critical swing state state – and the presidency  by a slimmer one. The leader of the World Harvest Church in Columbus also founded the Center for Moral Clarity  an organization which has held that adultery should be treated as a crime – during the last presidential cycle. Serious question on all of this...does these rejections hurt McCain with any of the evangelical base? It's seems he's having to walk a fine line. The flip-side to that question is, "Does his seeking out these nuts for an endorsement help him with moderates who don't care for the hate-filled brand of religion these two push?" There are plenty of Christian leaders out there who could "validate" him in the eyes of the republican base without being lunatics. Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes and Joel Osteen are three that come to my mind who have excellent Christian bona fides but don't spew the vitriol that Hagee and Parsley do. I have wondered why more candidates for whatever office don't go after the endorsement of guys like you mention or someone like Max Lucado. Even though I don't see eye to eye with all of them on every point, they don't spew hate and filth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,511 Posted May 23, 2008 Author Share Posted May 23, 2008 A lot of times, the more credible and less vitriolic pastors don't do endorsements. That should tell us all something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 McCain rejects endorsement of a second controversial pastor (CNN)  Hours after his rejection of Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement, John McCain rejected the backing of Pastor Rod Parsley, who said that Islam was a “conspiracy of spiritual evil.†"I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America,†he told the Associated Press. “And I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn't endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement." The decision to cut off Parsley could have the bigger impact on the presidential race: in 2004, the Ohio pastor was a major figure in an unprecedented evangelical turnout operation that helped an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative pass overwhelmingly, and which was widely believed to have helped President Bush carry the critical swing state state – and the presidency  by a slimmer one. The leader of the World Harvest Church in Columbus also founded the Center for Moral Clarity  an organization which has held that adultery should be treated as a crime – during the last presidential cycle. Serious question on all of this...does these rejections hurt McCain with any of the evangelical base? It's seems he's having to walk a fine line. The flip-side to that question is, "Does his seeking out these nuts for an endorsement help him with moderates who don't care for the hate-filled brand of religion these two push?" There are plenty of Christian leaders out there who could "validate" him in the eyes of the republican base without being lunatics. Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes and Joel Osteen are three that come to my mind who have excellent Christian bona fides but don't spew the vitriol that Hagee and Parsley do. I have wondered why more candidates for whatever office don't go after the endorsement of guys like you mention or someone like Max Lucado. Even though I don't see eye to eye with all of them on every point, they don't spew hate and filth. I don't know. I think that whoever recommended Hagee and Parsley really did McCain a disservice. Pastors that scream things like "Great Whore" and "We get off on warfare" tend to make me very nervous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 A lot of times, the more credible and less vitriolic pastors don't do endorsements. That should tell us all something. True. Didn't Billy Graham give them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTiger1 0 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Am I the only one that think both associated with Hagee and Wright for political purposes? Being a member of and 8,000 member church couldn't be looked at as anything but an asset for Obama. Hagee, as unbelievable as it may be, has a moonbat following that helped doom us in 2004 and is still alive and well for the most part. Why not exploit them for the 15% of the nation that they represent? That's 15% of the vote. All in all, I don't think either candidate holds the views of their former religious allies. No, you're not. I have thought all along that both used them political purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Am I the only one that think both associated with Hagee and Wright for political purposes? Being a member of and 8,000 member church couldn't be looked at as anything but an asset for Obama. Hagee, as unbelievable as it may be, has a moonbat following that helped doom us in 2004 and is still alive and well for the most part. Why not exploit them for the 15% of the nation that they represent? That's 15% of the vote. All in all, I don't think either candidate holds the views of their former religious allies. Winner winner chicken dinner. The only problem on obamas end is that he stayed there for 20 years. At anytime he could have left for another large or small church that wasn't as radical in certain preachings to avoid the controversy, but he stayed. Why? He knew he was going to have high political aspirations. Wright has acknowledged that he told obama before the election started that he knew obama would have to distance himself. It sure sounds like they both knew the preacher was quite controversial. Was he just so comfortable there he didn't want to leave? It really doesn't make sense to stay if you don't prescribe heavily to the teachings. Thats the way it looks to a whole lot of people at least. I have heard specualtion that mccain was a little too eager to garner some sort of religious backing and jumped too quickly when a couple came up. It looks to me like that is what happened. He should have looked into it a bit more before accepting the endorsement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 The only problem on obamas end is that he stayed there for 20 years. At anytime he could have left for another large or small church that wasn't as radical in certain preachings to avoid the controversy, but he stayed. What radical preachings were going on for twenty years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 So does this mean that Hagee will now get an hour of power with Bill Moyers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 And just because Hagee sees Catholics as non-fundamentalists, does not make it right...or wrong. It's his beliefs. It is not controversy. Wright's belief that aids was created by the gubment to kill black folks TRUMPS Hagee's belief that catholicism is not a correct interpretation. It's not that Hagee doesn't subscribe to Catholic theology. That you keep insisting that that's the source of controversy demonstrates your inability to understand. Calling the Catholic Church an 'apostate church' a 'whore' and a 'false cult system' goes beyond a different interpretation. All religions are free to interpret the Bible their own way. But once again you were so busy proclaiming your superior Christianity that you failed to see the big issue of the difference between Hagee and Wright. My threads weren't meant to be a contrast and comparison study between the two. You and a few others deflected the discussion of Hagee by turning it into one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinCrimson 61 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Can I ask... CCTAU, why do you feel the need to call other posters "asshats" simply because they disagree with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,350 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Can I ask... CCTAU, why do you feel the need to call other posters "asshats" simply because they disagree with you? No. You may not. When you read all of the threads and attack those that call me names, then your librul ass can ask me a question. Thank you for you one-sided support. Ant TA, many fundamentalists subscribe to the cult theory. And if you look back over catholic history, at one point in history they could almost be described that way. But today, many catholic churches are becoming more like the fundamental churches while keeping many traditions. But the comparison between Hagee and Wright are not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,511 Posted May 23, 2008 Author Share Posted May 23, 2008 My threads weren't meant to be a contrast and comparison study between the two. You and a few others deflected the discussion of Hagee by turning it into one. That's my fault. I've split the topic and put the theology discussion in All Things Considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 But the comparison between Hagee and Wright are not even close. Then stop trying to make the comparison. Ant TA, many fundamentalists subscribe to the cult theory. And if you look back over catholic history, at one point in history they could almost be described that way. Which point would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 The only problem on obamas end is that he stayed there for 20 years. At anytime he could have left for another large or small church that wasn't as radical in certain preachings to avoid the controversy, but he stayed. What radical preachings were going on for twenty years? Well, the entire theology wright follows is radical in general. It is a definite minority among black churches and and the founder of the black liberation theology has stated that wrights preachings follow his beliefs more closely than any other church. Thats not even taking into account the over the top stuff that obama claims to have no knowledge of. The biggest premise being pushed by liberals on this thread (mostly) is that obama used his association with the church for the advantage he would receive in his political career. That is directly contradicted by the fact that wright went to obama before the election started and told him that he understood that he would have to distance himself from the church now that he would be running for presidency. Iow, both knew that being in the church would be a liability in a big election like for the presidency. The argument could be made that obama used them for a political election adavantage then dropped them because that advantage disappeared in a presidential election, but that doesn't make a lot of sense either. If true it doesn't speak well of Obama either, imo. Why not just pick a church without the controversy to begin with? Wright is a loon in many ways, plain and simple. Obama sat in his curch for twenty years. So did a lot of other people. That doesn't make them bad people. It does disqualify him from being president in my book. That alone would make me leery of his true agenda and doubt the sincerity of much of what he says. I am not bowled over by his promises of "change". I believe that he is just another politician saying what he thinks will win him the election. Kinda like for 20 yrs he stood by wrights side and now that he fears that it could cost him the presidency, he throws him under the bus to some extent. That pissed wright off so bad he couldn't keep his mouth shut for a while there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Can I ask... CCTAU, why do you feel the need to call other posters "asshats" simply because they disagree with you? I think over the last two months I have the lead in names from CCTAU: unoffical count at 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,350 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Can I ask... CCTAU, why do you feel the need to call other posters "asshats" simply because they disagree with you? I think over the last two months I have the lead in names from CCTAU: unoffical count at 12. You are correct. You are the "official" asshat. Add that to your list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Can I ask... CCTAU, why do you feel the need to call other posters "asshats" simply because they disagree with you? I think over the last two months I have the lead in names from CCTAU: unoffical count at 12. You are correct. You are the "official" asshat. Add that to your list. 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.