Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The New York Times has an interview with John Hagee, who seems rather eager not to discuss some of his controversial past statements, or to distort them and claim he said something entirely different. Like this:
What about your observation in a recent book that "most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews"?What I was trying to express was the fact that Christian anti-Semitism -- both Catholic and Protestant -- contributed to an environment in which Nazi racial anti-Semitism could flourish.
How interesting. He was trying to express his opposition to both Catholic and Protestant anti-Semitism. So naturally he mentions only Catholic anti-Semitism and doesn't bother to mention Martin Luther, one of the most virulent anti-Semites in history. Yep, that makes sense. But at least he answered that question; he didn't wanna talk about his previous statements about Hurricane Katrina at all:
Let's talk about your much-quoted comment that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for a gay rights parade in New Orleans.We're not going down there. That's so far off-base it would take us 33 pages to go through that, and it's not worth going through.
What, exactly, is so far off-base? For the record, here is exactly what he said:
All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are - were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing."
It might take 33 pages to obfuscate about it, but there's not really a lot of room for interpretation there. The statement is pretty damn clear. Why won't Hagee just stand by his words?
Comments
He should say: "I was just reading that from a letter I'd received from that Wright fellow in Chicago. What a hater that guy is. Let's talk about him. Please."
Posted by: doyle | March 31, 2008 9:50 AM
I wish these guys would get their stories straight, because I just don't know what to believe any more -- I thought Darwinism caused Hitler.
Posted by: xebecs | March 31, 2008 10:21 AM
The obvious question is WHY is Hagee trying to distance himself from his own statements? If memory serves Hagee came out and endorsed John McCain recently. Is Hagee worried about embarrasing the McCain campaign?
Posted by: Cheddar | March 31, 2008 10:32 AM
Obviously, he sees that his words might hinder his chosen political tool, and thus hinder his own power base. He has to distance himself while not really doing so, and unless the press actually does their job, they'll let him get away with it.
Posted by: Badger3k | March 31, 2008 11:07 AM
"Why won't Hagee just stand by his words?"
Because doing that would require him to demonstrate the possession of cojones that he clearly doesn't have.
Posted by: Elaine | March 31, 2008 12:27 PM
What about all the parades that did not get cancelled out by hurricanes? I have thought a lot about where is says to not use the Lord's name in vain in the Ten Commandments. Name in this context in Hebrew implies character and reputation most of the time. So if I say I am speaking for God and lashed out against certain groups and I am wrong what about my judgement?
Whether the Bible is true or not it is clear that Jesus had very little to say to adulterers, homosexuals, liberals, anti-war people, and the like. He spent most of his time healing people, helping people, forgiving people, dying for people AND............ rebuking all the Religious leaders who were speaking for God and labeling who and who was not a sinner. True or not this is the Jesus that people should be emulating. If not they may be in danger of using the Lord's name in vain more than the dude cussing. (Which I am not sure is even a sin anyway considering the passages that people use to prove that do not say it) Straining out straw and swallowing a camel. I am not better at times though.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 31, 2008 1:36 PM
Great, now I've got an image in my head of Jesus dying for people every week or so.
Posted by: Skemono | March 31, 2008 2:13 PM
Pastor John doesn't want to go there because he's talking to the NYT. If he's talking to the National Association of Evangelicals he'll go there, but not the NYT. It all depends on the audience. Talking about John McCain's baby that he fathered with a black prostitute will win you votes in a white area of rural South Carolina, but not in Manhattan. Talking about God drowning homosexuals will garner votes in a Texas megachurch, but not in a San Francisco coffee house. Just because he's southern accented bible thumper doesn't mean he's a total fool.
Posted by: soboco | March 31, 2008 4:13 PM
So if I say I am speaking for God and lashed out against certain groups and I am wrong what about my judgement?
I don't know. Why is it even a problem? The Lord sure has a hard time communicating with people. All that translating and everything. Not the best way to go about doing things!
Come on Jesus go that little extra mile. It might keep you from having to throw people into hell. Not that they they don't deserve it of course!
Posted by: 386sx | March 31, 2008 4:46 PM
"Whether the Bible is true or not it is cleat that Jesus had very little to say to adulterers, homosexuals, liberals, anti-war people..."
You're equating homosexuals liberals, and "anti-war people" with adulterers? Nice.
Posted by: daniel rotter | March 31, 2008 6:13 PM
That was probably just a list of people the Religious Right tends to bag on.
Posted by: Turcano | March 31, 2008 9:41 PM
Skemono: You mean soemthing like this:
Me and Jesus go to lunch.
Jesus: That was a great lunch James, thanks a lot.
Me: No problem Jesus, just because I don't believe in you doesn't mean we can't go out to lunch every so often. Let me just pay for it ...
Jesus: No, don't worry about it I've got it. .
Me: Wow, thanks Jesus.
Jesus : No problem, see you in 3 days.
Posted by: James K | April 1, 2008 12:24 AM
Damn it! That's what happens when I don't preview.
Lets do that again:
Me and Jesus go to lunch.
Jesus: That was a great lunch James, thanks a lot.
Me: No problem Jesus, just because I don't believe in you doesn't mean we can't go out to lunch every so often. Let me just pay for it ...
Jesus: No, don't worry about it I've got it... [impales himself on a nearby fork]
Me: Wow, thanks Jesus.
Jesus [dying]: No problem, see you in 3 days.
Posted by: James K | April 1, 2008 12:26 AM
"You're equating homosexuals liberals, and "anti-war people" with adulterers"
Common sense people! I was obviously mocking the Religious Right here by pointing out that men like Hagee at times are totally inconsistent with the message that Jesus preached. Out of all I said the quote above is what stuck out to you? Lighten up.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 1, 2008 11:46 AM