Why the Media Rejected John Hagee’s Apology


When Bill Donohue accused Rev. John Hagee
of anti-Catholicism, the liberal media accepted his opinion as authoritative. After Donohue accepted Hagee’s letter of regret and announced “case closed,” the same media accused Donohue of lying to help John McCain’s candidacy.
Donohue’s veracity is unquestioned if it allows the media to bash a Christian leader aligned with the Republican Party. But his credibility evidently collapsed the moment he absolved Pastor Hagee.
First of all, let’s grant that the question of political motivation would naturally arise after such a turn of events. Did Donohue, in fact, make up with Hagee for political reasons? A moment of reflection on the history of the Hagee affair should be enough to lead any fair-minded person to a negative conclusion.
Why? As I heard Donohue tell a reporter from the San Antonio Express, “Why would I criticize Hagee in the first place if I was trying to help John McCain?” This is a complete refutation of the charge that Donohue was politically motivated, clear to anyone who understands the basic laws of cause and effect.
Donohue was fully aware that his criticism of Hagee would hurt the McCain campaign. Yet he did it anyway: For over a week he released almost daily statements repeating his charges against Hagee and calling upon McCain to respond.
Fair-minded people will acknowledge Donohue’s acceptance of Hagee’s apology. But Obama supporters, anxious to keep the controversy alive, have already gone to absurd lengths to accuse Donohue and Hagee of hypocrisy.
Take the example of the Palm Beach Post, a newspaper with its own history of anti-Catholic statements. Calling Hagee’s apology “insincere” and “lame,” the editors offer the following unintentionally hilarious comment:
It frustrates the Obama campaign that the Rev. Wright has refused to back down from rhetoric that sounds so anti-American. At least that refusal displays a kind of integrity. The same can’t be said for the Rev. Hagee’s apology (emphasis added).
In the minds of the Palm Beach Post‘s editors, compared to Hagee, Rev. Jeremiah Wright possesses “a kind of integrity.” Hagee publicly expresses regret for offending Catholics, while Wright, at the National Press Club, repeats with apparent relish his racist, anti-American diatribe… and the Post pronounces Wright a man of character and virtue!
It’s one thing to read tortured logic in a liberal newspaper, but it’s quite another to find it in a column by an esteemed Catholic law professor like Doug Kmiec. Kmiec’s endorsement of Obama took the pro-life community by surprise, but next to calling Obama a “Catholic natural,” nothing he has said up to now surprised me more than his saying that Obama “is not pro-abortion, but of the view that the civil law best leaves this question to the mother in consultation with their own clergyman and doctor.”
Here Kmiec reveals how he has been able to justify for himself his support for a candidate who supports not only abortion-on-demand but infanticide. He has embraced the reasoning of pro-abortion Catholic politicians that being “pro-choice” is not the same as being “pro-abortion.”
Indeed, Kmiec is forced to accept this distinction, because a document from the bishops on “The Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters,” which he had previously cited, reads: “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.”
Kmiec’s attempt to justify his endorsement and the arguments of the Palm Beach Post represent both sophisticated and clumsy attempts to fit Obama into a palatable moral universe. If Wright’s stubborn pride is a problem for Obama, it will be dubbed “integrity.” If Obama’s support for abortion and infanticide is a problem for Catholic voters, it will be declared somehow “not pro-abortion.”
Meanwhile, the plain-talking Donohue is not going to let Obama’s Catholic supporters get away with it. While on Fox & Friends last week to discuss the Hagee affair, Donohue “broke” the story about the media blackout on Obama’s support of infanticide — the practice of providing no medical care to babies born alive after failed attempts to abort them. Donohue told me privately that no one he talked to on the Fox staff was aware that Obama held this position. (Kmiec has not addressed infanticide in any of his Obama apologias.)
How can Senator Obama, who has made health care for all a central theme of his campaign, deny that care to a helpless newborn? Many voters, not just Catholics, will need an answer to that question before they can even consider voting Obama into the White House.
 

 

Deal W. Hudson

By

Deal W. Hudson is president of Catholic Advocate, an organization which engages and encourages faithful Catholics to actively participate in the political process to support elected officials and policies that remain consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Formerly publisher and editor of Crisis Magazine for ten years, his articles and comments have been published widely in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, and U.S. News and World Report. He has also appeared on TV and radio news shows such as the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, NBC News, and All Things Considered on National Public Radio. Hudson worked with Karl Rove in coordinating then-Gov. George W. Bush's outreach to Catholic voters in 2000 and 2004. In October 2003, President Bush appointed him a member of the official delegation from the United States to attend the 25th anniversary celebration of John Paul II's papacy. Hudson, a former professor of philosophy for 15 years, is the editor and author of eight books. He tells the story of his conversion from Southern Baptist to Catholic in An American Conversion (Crossroad, 2003), and his latest, Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States, was published in March 2008. He is married to Theresa Carver Hudson, also a Baptist convert, and they have two children, Hannah, 21, and Cyprian, 13, who was adopted from Romania in 2001.

  • Mike L.

    Great article Deal. From your linked AP article about Obama, I read in his own words, his rationale for rejecting the born-alive infant protection:

    Abortion opponents see Obama’s vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

    “It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute,” Obama said in the Senate’s debate in March 2001.

    What a shame this is on the Democrat party to be on the verge of nominating this man as their candidate for POTUS. What a shame it is for anyone, let alone Christians, to even consider him worthy of their vote.

  • Amy M

    Great article.

    So sad to read about Doug Kmiec’s support of an infanticide candidate.

    United we stand, divided we fall. Kmiec is leading the divide. Divided our power in politics on the abortion issue is dilluted.

    In the past, Catholics who voted for pro-choice candidates were not the faithful. They were the cafeteria folks who didn’t take their faith seriously.

    Now, they’re joined by Kmiec and Co. who have used their athletic minds to use the USCCB’s statements to justify their support of a pro-choice candidate.

    I’m relieved to hear that he was denied Holy Communion.

  • Andy K.

    …is, by my estimations, one of the most confused men in America.

    How does one go from endorsing Romney to Obama, anyway? At least Catholic Obama supporters are consistent with their logic: “I like everything else about this candidate (especially since he has a “D” next to his name when he appears on tv), so why should his support of murdering babies stop me from voting for him?” They’ve supported Obama over all of the pro-life candidates from the get-go, so it’s no surprise that they’re still doing it now.

    But the conclusion that both Romney and Obama are preferable to McCain is hilarious in an “lol wut?” kind of way. We’ve all known since the get-go the Romney’s pro-life credentials were problematic given his public positions prior to his presidential run (and he also supported abortion in cases of rape and incest, even after his apparent pro-life conversion), but beyond the abortion issue, he was a pretty weak candidate from a Catholic perspective. He supports direct euthanasia quite vigorously even now, and he attacked McCain for his support of his resistance to torture and for his “amnesty” plan – issues that, from a Catholic standpoint, firmly FAVOR McCain (particularly the former, as it is non-negotiable teaching).

    Sure, McCain isn’t perfect as a pro-life candidate, as I’ve mentioned before, but he seems vastly preferable to Romney given various non-negotiable church teachings, and to say that Romney is preferable to Obama, but Obama is preferable to McCain seems to be incredibly illogical to me.

    Personally, I think Kmiec is possessed by style and oratorial wit – it’s something that Romney and Obama both possess in spades, and it’s easy to overlook fatal flaws in candidates when they’ve got you wrapped up in rhetoric (even when their proposed policies don’t match up).

  • Christopher

    All pro-choice advocates deny being pro-abortion. It’s hypocritical to deny the very rights they’re fighting to protect. Why would they do such a thing, unless they’re ashamed?

    And now pro-life Catholics have adopted the slogan in support of a pro-choice candidate?

    Priests for Life explain the hypocracy on their website.

    http://www.priestsforlife.org

    Kmiec ought to read it.

  • Hank

    I am not the liberal media. I am Catholic. I reject Hagee’s apology because it is calculated to win Catholic votes and totally motivated by politics. One of the tasks of McCain’s Catholic Committee is to clean up the Hagee mess and render his endorsement of MCain acceptable to Catholics. The phony apology is not cutting it. Even if the liberal media embraced Hagee’s “apology,” Catholics would still see it for what it (and Hagee) is.

  • Sam

    He was hoping for a federal judgeship appointment with Bush.

    He was hoping for a federal judgeship appointment with Romney.

    Now he’s hoping for a federal judgeship appointment with Obama.

  • Sara Miller

    Hank,

    Who are you to reject ANYONE’S apology. If you’re Catholic, then forgiveness is the Christian way. Only God can judge the contents of Hagee’s heart. I forgive him just as I would want him to forgive me if I had offended him. Case closed.

  • Hank

    Can only God judge the content of Senator Obama’s heart, also? I ask because I’ve read many harsh judgments about the content of Senator Obama’s heart here at insideCatholic.com.

  • Sara Miller

    Right, only God can judge the content of Obama’s heart.

    “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”

    We should love Obama and pray for him, but as Catholics, we don’t have to nor should we vote to put a radical pro-abortion President in the White House. We need to vote our faith.

  • Sara Miller

    Hank,

    If you’ve read “harsh judgments” about Senator Obama on insidecatholic.com, you need to understand where people are coming from. It isn’t Christian to judge and we must do our best not to. Many Catholics agree with the Church that a person like Obama, who professes to fight for the rights of the little folks, ought to be fighting for the rights of our littlest, most innocent folks, who aren’t old enough to have a voice in politics. Protecting the fundamental right to life is the first step if you want the support of the Church and faithful Catholics. If the faithful have been loud in their rebuke, it’s because we’re indignant about the hypocracy and injustice of Senator Obama’s position on this VERY important issue.

  • Andy

    “I reject Hagee’s apology because it is calculated to win Catholic votes and totally motivated by politics. One of the tasks of McCain’s Catholic Committee is to clean up the Hagee mess and render his endorsement of MCain acceptable to Catholics. The phony apology is not cutting it.”

    Did you even read this article? Deal pretty thoroughly eviscerates that entire argument.

    “Can only God judge the content of Senator Obama’s heart, also? I ask because I’ve read many harsh judgments about the content of Senator Obama’s heart here at insideCatholic.com.”

    No one is talking about the content of Obama’s heart here, only the content of his policies. If Hagee is insincere in his apology, that will bear out; barring that, we have no choice but to accept it. However, Obama is unrepentant and still pressing his abortion and infanticidal views. If he were to repent and alter his policy, his criticism on this issue would disappear as well.

  • Sara Miller

    Dear Hank,

    You seem to be on the fence about whether or not Obama is the right candidate for a Catholic. I advise you to speak to your parish priest, or even your bishop, about this and listen to his moral guidance. Then, kneel before the Blessed Sacrament and pray to our Lord and ask him to help you discern the truth.

    I’d like to share my story with you. I was young and unmarried when I had my twins, and they were unplanned. I could never would have had the confidence and fortitude to ‘do the right thing’ if it weren’t for my faith, the support of the Church, and the witness of fellow Catholics. Because I had always been told the TRUTH about abortion, I knew that I needed to ‘own up to’ the responsibility of my choices. I’m so glad I did. My children are setting the world on fire. They know the story of their birth. Unlike many, they appreciate the fundamental right to life. They have been a blessing, not a “punishment”, as described by Senator Obama. All you need to do is look into their eyes and the smiles on their faces, and the sin of abortion becomes crystal clear.

    I urge you to support life!

  • JM

    I was just telling someone this morning that children weren’t a “punishment”, but a blessing. Wow!

  • Todd

    I think it’s time to pile off Hank, people.

    It’s within the realm of prudential judgment to accept an apology, but to question its motivation in context. This is an election year, and just about anything in the public eye has political relevance, including a sincere apology.

    “If you’ve read ‘harsh judgments’ about Senator Obama on insidecatholic.com, you need to understand where people are coming from.”

    I think we know. Some people are passionate about protecting the unborn. Some people are passionate about opposing the candidacy of a pro-choice person. Either is a valid stance. Passionate people can easily step over the line into questionable, if not sinful, behavior. Such behavior is fair game for criticism.

    I have no problem accepting Rev Hagee’s apology literally. But I reserve judgment on its context.

  • Tito Edwards

    Forgiveness is a virtue that even many practicing Catholics have difficulty with. And even then, when we do apologize and ask for forgiveness, most times it isn’t forthcoming from alleged practicing Catholics.

    How are we as Catholics going to change America, much less the world, if we don’t forgive. Or follow any other precepts of our faith?

    To blunt an apology for political gain is never a good reason. No reason is good for that matter to deny forgiveness.

    Yes, McCain is not the best candidate to endorse, but when it comes to pro-life issues (which trumps everything else), he is the closest thing to holding the Catholic position on life.

    Being Catholic is never easy. But it is worth our time to practice it to have a place in Heaven.

  • M. Scallon

    Hank and Todd seem to be on the same page. They are our ‘doubting Thomases’, but that’s okay. I think Pastor Hagee is sincere. He is a Christian and knows the Word, so obviously, he knows when he hasn’t been treating his neighbor as himself. We’re all guily of that sin from time to time. McCain’s camp is guilty. Obama’s camp is guilty, conservatives, liberals, etc.

  • John M.

    We need to love our neighbor, as Jesus Christ asked us to.

    In the context of national politics and the foundation of America as the land of opportunity, with rights for all, there is no greater and more important right than the right to life. While other issues are relevant, our actions on earth will affect us for eternity. The vote, I believe must ultimately support those who support life.

  • David W.

    …and I too have my reservations and questions about Mr. Hagee. I hate to cast aspersion on the man, and I’ll accept his apology, but that doesn’t mean I’m ready to forge an “alliance” with Evangelical Protestants, who despite being co-belligerents in the Culture War, continue to denounce the Church (using code phrases like “traditions of men) and lead Catholics from the Faith.

  • Mark S.

    As a Catholic, I rely on the Catechism of the Catholic Church to guide me. #820-822 addresses Ecumenism. The Church calls us to dialogue and collaborate with non-Catholic Christian “in various areas of service to mankind. The “holy objective” is “the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Chuch of Christ…”

  • Todd

    David has nailed my biggest doubt when it comes to evangelicals. When Rev Hagee and his evangelical comrades cease luring Catholic and mainstream Protestant youth to their megachurches, we’ll have a better take that this apology is authentic.

  • Steve Newark , usarownow@aol.com

    May I take advantage of this blog to encourage leaders such as yourself to cause dear Sally Quinn to end her unworthy attempts at describing religious belief in her “On Faith” column in the Washington Post. Thoughtful readers can only be offended by her meretricious attitudes towards religious believers. The column ay wish to be provoking when it truly is insulting. Give a look if you haven’t already. Believers will be greatful.

  • Mark S.

    We can only achieve unity by dialoging and collaborting with the fundamentalists. They have many misunderstandings and misinformation about the Catholic Church. They will never learn the truth about our Church if we show distrust and hard feelings towards them. We need to act as Christ asked us to act towards our brothers and sisters, in love and forgiveness. We need to help them understand Christ’s greatest gifts through the Eucharist and sacraments and they can help us understand the benefits of daily Bible reading. We need to interact with them, in order to be witnesses to the faith.

  • Mark S.

    Steve, I will sent my comments to the Washington Post, but have you contacted the Catholic League about Sally Quinn’s column?

  • Larry Stevens

    I just hope Obama appreciates the sacrifices Kmiec is making for him, most importantly, the moral sacrifice.

  • Phil

    Mr. Hudson

  • Lilly

    Phil,

    Wouldn’t you punish (criminally) a person who took the life of your brother or sister?…

    If you don’t accept the premise that the fetus is a human being, then you’re not pro-life. If you’re not pro-life, then you’re pro-choice. If you’re pro-choice, then you’re not “always opposing abortion”. If you’re not “always opposing abortion”, then you’re not within the full communion with the Church. If you’re not with us, then you’re against us.

    I don’t think you should play on the exact words, “advocate” in the bishop’s letter. I think you ought to look at the spirit of his letter as well. He obviously believes the fetus is a human being, so it’s safe to assume that he means to include those who don’t vote against making it a crime to perform an abortion.

    But really, you ought to ask him yourself. Write him a letter.

    In my book, you’re riding the fence if you call yourself pro-life and don’t vote in favor of making it a crime for those who perform abortions. There is no fence in this debate. It either is a child or it isn’t a child.

    If it’s a child, then it’s a murder and should be punished.

    Adultery and failing to take care of one’s parents are not the same as murder. Nice try!

    P.S. It IS a child!

  • Lilly

    Those Catholics who call themselves pro-life and “commend” pro-choice Obama to fellow Catholics as a “Catholic natural” and a candidate who “offers much to the well-formed Catholic conscience” are dissidents!

  • Mark S.

    Voting for what is right is not always an easy decision. Our responsibility as Catholics is a difficult one to bear sometimes. But just as we don’t go to Church to necessarily hear a charismatic speaker, we go to receive the Eucharist, we must not vote for the most charismatic candidate, but for the one whose positions on the issues are most like Christ’s, in accord with the teachings of the Magisterium. You must have humility to submit to the Church’s authority. We are to serve others, not ourselves.

  • Charlotte

    Phil, there is a distinction you miss. It’s true that not every wrong act can or should be made illegal. St. Thomas was clear about that. But there is no more basic function of a state than protecting the innocent from violence from an unjust agressor. No political thinker in the western tradition denies this, whatever their other substantive differences. You don’t find this challenged until the emergence of totalitarianism in the 20th centurey which systematically excluded certain classes of people from the protection of the state for ideological reasons.

  • Mike McCarthy

    I think Kmiec has dug himself into a hole and can’t get out. Rather than endorsing Obama and admitting that he wasn’t acting in accordance with the Catholic faith, Kmiec has tried to justify his actions as being perfectly Catholic. It was his fatal mistake, as now many members of the Church, including clergy, have turned against him. Why? Because he’s encouraging other Catholics to draw the same conclusion.

    My guess is that Kmiec was sold a bill of goods by Tim Roemer about Obama that will never, in fact, materialize, especially with NARAL’s recent endorsement of Obama.

    Kmiec’s best bet is to swallow his pride, admit the mistake, and return to the cause of the Church. It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t feeling the love from the GOP, this isn’t a partisan thing. It’s a faith thing.

    We will welcome him back with open arms, kill the fattened calf (food), give him a robe and sandals (clothing) and put a ring on his finger (dignity).

    All he has to do is show some humility and admit that he was wrong. And it doesn’t mean he has to vote for McCain. As discussed in Carlin’s article, there are other options when Catholics find both Republican and Democratic candidates to be unacceptable.

    Kmiec, come home!

  • Tara L.

    Kmiec has been bamboozled. He is like the other conservatives turned Obamadazedandconfused. They project onto Obama what they want to believe about him, rather than looking at his voting record and pro-abortion endorsements, and seeing his true colors. Kmiec is a good man with a strong conscience. He will come to his senses and right this ship. No pun intended. [smiley=laugh]

    As far as Hagee’s apology. Oh, well, I accept it. I’m not one to reject anyone’s apology.

  • David W.

    Mark S. wrote: As a Catholic, I rely on the Catechism of the Catholic Church to guide me. #820-822 addresses Ecumenism. The Church calls us to dialogue and collaborate with non-Catholic Christian “in various areas of service to mankind. The “holy objective” is “the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Chuch of Christ…”

    The goal of Ecumenism is to reconcile Protestants to the Church…no need for the Protest to continue, COME HOME…THAT is the ultimate goal. I’m not against collaboration with non-Catholics, What I am against is dubious “alliances” such as the sorts of coalitions you see in the GOP leadership. Evangelicals still see us as a false church, as do most Protestants in general…nowadays they’re too civil (for the most part) to call us Pope worshippers to our face, but the coded language is still there (“Traditions of Men,” “Vain Repetitious prayer,” “Works based Salvation”). As a convert I’ve been on both sides of the fence. I’m all for working with Protestants for a common cause such as ending Abortion or Disaster Relief, but I am not going to just jump in bed with the Evangelical GOP because Hagee and Donahue have “made up”. I don’t know Mr. Hagee, and I pray his apology is genuine…

  • David W.

    Mark S. wrote: As a Catholic, I rely on the Catechism of the Catholic Church to guide me. #820-822 addresses Ecumenism. The Church calls us to dialogue and collaborate with non-Catholic Christian “in various areas of service to mankind. The “holy objective” is “the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Chuch of Christ…”

    The goal of Ecumenism is to reconcile Protestants to the Church…no need for the Protest to continue, COME HOME…THAT is the ultimate goal. I’m not against collaboration with non-Catholics, What I am against is dubious “alliances” such as the sorts of coalitions you see in the GOP leadership. Evangelicals still see us as a false church, as do most Protestants in general…nowadays they’re too civil (for the most part) to call us Pope worshippers to our face, but the coded language is still there (“Traditions of Men,” “Vain Repetitious prayer,” “Works based Salvation”). As a convert I’ve been on both sides of the fence. I’m all for working with Protestants for a common cause such as ending Abortion or Disaster Relief, but I am not going to just jump in bed with the Evangelical GOP because Hagee and Donahue have “made up”. I don’t know Mr. Hagee, and I pray his apology is genuine…

  • Mark S.

    “…who despite being co-belligerents in the Culture War…”
    -David, who are the Evangelicals co-belligerents with?

    “What I am against is dubious “alliances” such as the sorts of coalitions you see in the GOP leadership.”
    -David, with all due respect, your comments make you sound like a liberal troll. I’m sure you’re not though.

  • Carl Bacon

    “The Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters” is not a document “from the bishops.” It’s a letter from one bishop, the bishop of Colorado Springs.

    Caught you lying, Deal.

  • Timothy

    Hagee represents everything that is wrong with protestantism. The fact that Hudson is willing to be an apoligist for this bigot befuddles me only a little. It is so clear that Hudson is a Reuplibcan hack. By the way, Im going to vote for McCain so that is not my beef. Hagee is an enemy of the Church and she be denouced and marginalized.

  • voltaire

    These two redneck preachers have gotten McCain in a lot of trouble but their views, however bizarre, are standard Christian views. If you believe that God works through history then if He could send Pharaoh why not Hitler? Richard Rubenstein in his After Auschwitz many decades ago found such a God intolerable but totally biblical. Hagee is expressing a standard traditional view. Parsley’s attacks on Islam are also traditional. Christians early on understood that Islam was an inheritor of early Ebionite views about Jesus, the real Jesus, not the god-man invented by Paul, and therefore they considered Islam a Christian heresy, a very dangerous heresy. Parsley is just repeating this.

    The fact that Hagee and Parsley are seen as outrageous is a tribute to the fact that rational men and women are outraged by the nonsense we call the Christian religion

  • doctor joe

    Voltaire,

    Have you taken your medication today?

  • voltaire

    No amount of sarcasm can stand against the fact that Christianity is either a terrible misunderstanding of Jesus or a horrible hoax — or both. Those who pushed it from Paul of Tarsus to the present day Bill Donohues are either knaves or fools — probably both.

  • phil

    Mr. Bacon charges that Mr. Hudson lied when he referred to a document from one bishop as being a document

  • sam

    you’re not going to convince anyone here with your anti-Christian rhetoric. This site is fortified by believers! Drives you crazy, doesn’t it?

  • Phil

    A couple of days ago, I objected to the suggestion by Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs that failing to support some unspecified abortion-related legislation results in ipso facto excommunication because it constitutes advocating abortion. I tried to argue that failing to criminalize certain behavior is not the same as advocating that behavior.

    The responses have simply emphasized that there is no moral difference between killing a one minute old baby and killing a fetus (whether first trimester or full-term). If I understand the responders (and Bishop Sheridan), the government should punish the two offenses identically. For example, in Colorado today, first degree murder is punished by death, while having an illegal abortion is punished by only two to six years in the penitentiary (the same as for second degree burglary). The movement to require the criminal law to make the same equivalence of offenses as the moral law does would require either sending to the gas chamber any woman who voluntarily undergoes an abortion, or reducing the penalty for murder to a six year maximum in jail.

    Personally, I think six years is too lenient a punishment for first degree murder. On the other hand, if Colorado does pass a law imposing the death penalty on women who have abortions, as well as on their accomplices, it would still need several things to make the law effective in many cases: twelve Taliban for a jury and a hardshell Baptist for a judge. (God alone knows who would serve as executioners.)

    That is probably why the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in July 2007:

  • Catnip

    Hank, David W., and Todd have the correct take on Pastor Hagee. His apology to Catholics is “correct,” but is probably best taken as a political corrective. In view of his appalling exegesis on the Jews and Hitler, I think Hagee is best cast off as a whack job, revelatory of too many evangelical leaders in this country.

MENU