Joe Lieberman And John Hagee: Still BFF

quite the damned libel and slander of John Hagee? I do not understand your constant need to vilify a good and decent man because you lack the knowledge of even a limited amount of Jewish theological belief on the subject - mi-penei hataeinu.

There are many Jews that believed that the Holocaust was an of G-d's Judgment on the Jewish people. You ignore that to slander someone that has done more to bridge the gap between Jews and Christians in the last 20 years.

Jeffrey, don't you think that, as someone who confused the concept of prosecutorial discretion with executive over-reach, you might want to be a bit more careful when throwing around terms like "libel and slander"? Just wondering. 

I get the concept, That is not all Daniel meant. Explain how prosecutorial descretion effects the war powers he believes Obama  will or will not use. Further, explain why it is more moral for Obama to not enforce certain laws he deems unimportant with GWB doing the same thing. It seems he calls for the use of the same m.o. he faults GWB with. So nameless, that discussion has nothing to do with this one. Explain why it is ok to lie and besmirch a good man.

Oy, Jeffrey, you really don't get "libel and slander" either, dude.  If you undersood those concepts at all, you'd attempt to identify something factually inaccurate about Daniel's description of Hagee's views.  But so far as I can tell, you don't dispute that the description is accurate, and you only disagree with Daniel's assessment that Hagee's views are abhorrent.

Personally, I think most right-thinking people would agree that a belief that God and Hitler were doing the Jews a favor with that whole Holocaust business is pretty much a slamdunk case of beyond-the-pale abhorrence.

Lawbreaking is not the same thing as deciding how resources are allocated in prioritizing the enforcement of certain laws over others, Jeffrey.

Well, given the likelihood that you're still getting over the obvious confusion you displayed last week on that point, I'm not sure that now is the best time to debate the respective "moral" weight of issuing executive orders to nullify the protection of common resources versus passing on the prosecution of sick and dying patients. And I'm sure Daniel is perfectly capable of discussing war powers, as I would be, but I have a feeling he's waiting to see how coherent you want to get before deciding to even respond. That's what I would do.  

Look, answer this post and stop arguing the other. If you want to debate that topic, do it there. This post was about the smearing of a friend of Jews and Israel for some ongoing inconclusive reason.

Ad no-name, You stick to one point of the post that Daniel made. His assertions of Obama's future conduct in office is more sweeping than you claim, so your idiotic adherence to political prosecution or non-prosecutions is tantamount to admitting that you have no answer for the rest of Obama's actions. Since Daniel concedes that it is futile for Obama, as a Senator to even introduce legislation he is championing, how pray tell, do you believe that he will enact his grand plans? I figured and stated as such he would have to rely on Executive orders and signing statements as Bush has done. Now you attack me for that assumption and mock me with Prosecutorial discretion,  but I ask again, how in the hell does prosecutorial discretion stop and I quote Daniel "- some of us think ending wars, ending torture, restoring civil liberties, curbing the drug war,
curbing the militarization of police, filling the federal bench with
civil libertarians, protecting women's reproductive freedoms, adding a
third of John McCain's proposed increase in the national debt,
loosening restrictions on immigration, dustbinning the conventional
wisdom that you have to be a reflexive hawk to be credible on national
security, sparing us the presidency of somebody who thinks private
lives and private choices should be subsumed to "national greatness",
and on and on". As you can read and see, not all of this is covered by your constant retort of "prosecutorial discretion". 

Anon, speaking of scarce resources, I've decided to unilaterally implement a policy of not spending my time on threads that go wildly off-topic or on comments that don't merit responses. I really do appreciate what you're doing --- though as you can see, our Jeffrey is still obliviously digging himself deeper, so the efficient thing to do might be simply to copy and paste your comments from the last thread.

Jeffrey: you're right; not every libertarian component of Obama's agenda is a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Some are a matter of rescinding executive orders; others are a matter of simply respecting laws the Bush administration broke; others still are a matter of collaborating on very modest proposals with a large Democratic majority in Congress. So I think I see what your hang-up is: acquiring a grasp of prosecutorial discretion is going to be tough if you can't discern the difference between, for example, complying with FISA and violating it hundreds of times over. 

And that's all from me unless the discussion turns back to Vinegar Joe Lieberman. 

Answer the first post then. I want to stay on target. how do you defend your smearing of Hagee over items that many Jews themselves agree with?

"[M]any Jews" agree that the Holocaust was an act of divine judgment against the Jewish people?  We're really going to need to define our terms here.  Are you saying "many" in the sense of "enough fill all the seats in a Lincoln Navigator"?  Because, if you're using the term any more generously than that, I think you're living in a (really cruel and bizarre) fantasy.

And, anyway, aren't you the one who's constantly trying to pillory Jewicidal post-judaic jihadi jooz (or whatever the Pam-Atlas-approved term is)?  Cheering on a guy who things Hitler was doing God's work seems a wee bit in tension with other beliefs you profess to hold.

And since when is the assertion "despite what others may say, the Holocaust was bad--particularly for Jews" in need of a particularly vigorous defense?  It is something that most non-psychopaths can accept without a whole lot of convincing.

If you are not Daniel - do not try to answer for him. There has been many Rabbi's - usually Orthodox that believe that the Holocaust was act of divine Judgment. As for your second post (if you are the same too many people ashamed of their name to have a fruitful debate) I have no clue to what you are referring to in that statement.

You aren't in any position to dictate the terms of the debate here, Jeffrey.  I know that Daniel can stand up for himself, but it would really be a shame if he hogged all of the fun.

As for the second post (which was indeed mine), we're really back to the problem of your Memento-guy qualities.  So, let's ready the tattoo needle and proceed.  Step 1: Daniel correctly reported that Hagee preaches that Hitler was doing God's will.  Step 2: Daniel argues that the Joe Lieberman is a douchebag for embracing a person with such abhorrent views.  Step 3: You pipe up and demand that Daniel's got some 'spainling to do if he thinks anyone should be offended by Hagee's beliefs.  Step 4: I say most that non-psychopaths don't need extensive convincing that Hagee's views are offensive.  Are you following the bouncing ball now, Jeffrey?

Can someone quote Hagee's exact language? I get lost when I try to follow all the links.

As Jeffrey notes there are some orthodox Jewish Rabbis who hold that the Holocaust was an act of divine judgment. Under that view, I guess one could characterzie Hitler as a divine "gopher" similar to Pharoh of an earlier age.   I don't agree with that view, but I can't say that the Rabbis who hold that way are pyschotic, marginal or even for certain that they are wrong. I would guess that Joe Lieberman shares this approach of respecting alternate orthodox approaches to theodicy. If Hagee's views are similar to those orthodox Rabbis, then we don't have anything to complain about.

Daniel faults Hagee for comments and thoughts that ARE NOT OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM of Jewish theology. Lieberman, as an observant and believing Jew understands that more than you, as you ignore Jewish theology and history. I do not believe this theology myself, but I understand that it is taught to many of my fellow Jews.

So you can continue your idiotic disrespect of me (I am an open target since you can address me by name) and I will continue to hold you in contempt for cowardly hiding behind a fake name and ignoring key points of my posts.  

Lieberman himself acknowledges Hagee's views are fucked up, or in Liebermanian, "unacceptable and hurtful." He's just too much of a scum-sucking toady to do the right thing. Easy as A=A.

Daniel,

Has Hagee explained what he meant? Do we have some actual quotes from him in context? How are they different from the divine punishment approach to the Holocaust accepted by some orthodox Rabbis?

Yaakov, that is the heart of my question as well.

Jeffrey,

and I guess we're not getting an answer.....

He is quick to smear, slow to defend.

You are as much an anti-semite as Hagee. In fact, I think your discomfort with actually admitting that Hagee's theology on the Holocaust is similiar to that of many Orthodox Jews speaks volumes. You slander evangelicals and promote the same idiocy of Foxman and Yoffie, seeking to cause more rifts between Jews and Christians yet you fault only Hagee. You have a lot of ground to make up to best Hagee in his fight AGAINST anti-semitism and supporting Israel.

Daniel,

You did not respond to my question: "How are they different from the divine punishment approach to the Holocaust accepted by some orthodox Rabbis?" Is that because you agree that there is no difference? I'm trying to get a serious answer.

I recognize that some of Hagee's theology sounds wacky to my  Jewish ears.

He said the anti-christ might be partially Jewish, but then he also believes that God (or 1/3 of God) took human form (and was a Jewish man) and that sounds equally strange to a Jew.

On the other hand, if there was such a thing as an antichrist, it would not be surpising if he was Jewish. Think of all the Jewish troublemakers through history (Jesus, Marx, Einstein, etc). I'm sure millions of Christians did think Marx was the antichrist (especially those persecuted in the Soviet Union). Hagee did err in saying that Marx was partially Jewish. My understanding is that Marx was halachically Jewish.

The question then is whether Jews should welcome the support of non Jewish leaders even if those leaders have religious beliefs that sounds wacky to Jews. I think the lesson from Cyrus the Great is that yes, we should accept help from Philo-semites, regardless of their different religious beliefs.

Daniel,

You did not respond to my question: "How are they different from the divine punishment approach to the Holocaust accepted by some orthodox Rabbis?" Is that because you agree that there is no difference? I'm trying to get a serious answer.

I recognize that some of Hagee's theology sounds wacky to my  Jewish ears.

He said the anti-christ might be partially Jewish, but then he also believes that God (or 1/3 of God) took human form (and was a Jewish man) and that sounds equally strange to a Jew.

On the other hand, if there was such a thing as an antichrist, it would not be surpising if he was Jewish. Think of all the Jewish troublemakers through history (Jesus, Marx, Einstein, etc). I'm sure millions of Christians did think Marx was the antichrist (especially those persecuted in the Soviet Union). Hagee did err in saying that Marx was partially Jewish. My understanding is that Marx was halachically Jewish.

The question then is whether Jews should welcome the support of non Jewish leaders even if those leaders have religious beliefs that sounds wacky to Jews. I think the lesson from Cyrus the Great is that yes, we should accept help from Philo-semites, regardless of their different religious beliefs.

Well stated. Yet I doubt he cares...

You are correct in saying that it isn't any different than the view of some Jews. That doesn't make Hagee's view anymore valid or less offensive. All it means is that there are some rabbis who have views just as offensive as the bigot John Hagee (moving away from his Jewish tripe, please see his comments on Catholicism and homosexuality). I also think that it is a bit of an overstatement to say that it is a "widely held view" (certainly some strands of Hassidism).

Yaakov, re: your Cyrus parallel, I think it is a little unfair.  As far as my sense of ancient history goes, Cyrus would have had very little for the Jews to be wary of in the same way that we have much to be offended by from John Hagee.

Interestingly, the evidence from Behistun inscriptions and other ancient Persian sources say that Cyrus (Kuraush) saw the Hebrews' monotheism as worship of Ahura Mazda (and the lesser spirits in Hebrew mythology as alternative representations of the ahuras and daivas), which makes sense given the syncretism of the ancient world.

Adam,

I was not suggesting that Hagee's views of the Holocaust were the majority orthodox position (note my use of "some Rabbis"). On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to charcterize the views of Hagee or those Rabbis on this point as "offensive". Rabbi Scheinberg from a modern orthodox shul in Texas recently noted (in a CUFI press release):

"Pastor interpreted a Biblical verse in a way not very different from several legitimate Jewish authorities.  Viewing Hitler as acting completely outside of God’s plan is to suggest that God was powerless to stop the Holocaust, a position quite unacceptable to any religious Jew or Christian.

No less an authority than the author of the Eim Habanim Semaichah, Rabbi Yisachar Shlomo Teichtal of blessed memory wrote these words while cowering in a Budapest cellar in the very midst of Hitler’s Holocaust: “Furthermore, the sole purpose of all the afflictions that smite us in our exile is to arouse us to return to our Holy Land.”"

That is not my personal view, but I can certainly respect it as one position supported by tradition.

where I differ from Yaakov on this issue. You may continue to call Hagee a bigot, but that opens you up to be called an anti-Christian bigot yourself, since most Christians do not approve nor do they condone homosexuality. The same could be said for most religious Jews and their feelings towards homosexuality.  As for the anti-Catholic stuff, he has apologized profusely and he helped to fund a retirement convent for aged Nuns.

"

“I personally supported a convent for over ten years providing
complimentary housing for elderly, retired nuns,” Hagee said.  “Many of
you remember the day of honor that we had for those nuns in this church
for their lifetime of service to God. These are not the acts of someone
who is anti-Catholic.”

Hagee said he had dedicated most of his adult life to “eradicating
anti-Semitism from Christianity,” stating that his statements critical
of Catholicism were directed to that end.

“As part of this effort, I have criticized the past anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church,” he said."

There are many here that call out Christians and ignore Jewish remarks on the same subjects. There are countless Jews that believe that the Catholic church was anti-semitic and some that believe in "Hitler's Pope", I find it distasteful to call out a Christian but not the Jew for the same offense. You here are quick to slander Hagee and Christians, but some of our ow believe the same things... 

Rabbi Shafran a national spokesman for Agudath Israel recently commented on the Hagee controvery. He is not just "some Jew", but a prominent director of a large and well respected center/right orthodox institution.

"One needn’t agree with the pastor’s take on history; or accept his assumption that simple people can identify events with prophecies; or even consider him to be in command of the facts (in his speech, he has Theodore Herzl, a resolutely secular Jew, invoking Divine command as the reason Jews should move to Palestine).  But nothing in fact could be more Jewish than to accept that, no matter how inscrutable, G-d is just; and that as we look into the maw of tragedy we are to look inward as well"

He also noted:

"As it happened, the very Sabbath following Rabbi Yoffie’s rebuke of Pastor Hagee, Jews the world over read one of the two portions of the Torah that relate how the Jewish People’s  refusal to honor their holy mission will result in the loosening of the reins holding evil at bay.  The paragraphs speak of punishments so terrible they are read in an undertone.  But they nonetheless must be read, audibly and carefully, because they speak to most important Jewish fundamentals: that the Torah’s laws are real, and that it is built into the very fabric of the world that the Jews must heed them.  Those who do evil, Pharaoh, Hitler, et al, are fully culpable for their acts – “Merits are brought through the meritorious,” says the Talmud, “and iniquity through the iniquitous” – but calamity is not causeless."

Daniel, I think you along with a majority of media have confused the beliefs of John Hagee and many other Christian men and women. Sometimes in a church service it is very easy to speak to a congregation of people in terms that you  think they understand when in all reality they don't understand your message.

It is clear from his teaching that John Hagee meant that Hitler was the catalyst that pushed the Jewish people into returning to Israel. Had there been no Hitler nor terrible event such as the Holocaust would the Jewish people have been content to live in the strange lands they had made their home. Do not many still live in those strange lands, like America?   Most Christians believe that this tragic event in history is what made the nation of Israel so important to the Jewish people. Living in their homeland meant they would be able to defend themselves and never face the prospect of having such evil affect their children. This belief is what has caused the Christian community in America to support Israel in foreign policy.

When you speak of anti-Semitism regarding Christians. I do hope you realize that most Christians realize that Jesus was a Jew, to hate Jews would be to hate Jesus. We are taught of him to love one another, our brother, even our enemy. Jesus came to the Jews first. The Jews did not crucify him, only the religious leaders of that day helped bring that about and I Corinthians 2:8 said if they had know who he was they would not have crucified him. If you will notice, all of his followers were Jews; Peter, John, James, Andrew, Phillip, and even the Apostle Paul. John Hagee doesn't preach hate toward the Jew, as a matter of fact he believes that, as most Christians do, what Paul said in Romans 11 that they are the olive tree and we (gentiles)are a branch and have only been grafted into the tree.We are not to boast against the tree.

It is easy to classify everyone that makes similar statements as anti Semitic, but the truth of the matter is that churches all across America spend thousands of dollars to help our Jewish brothers return to their homeland. Some from countries that still practice real anti-Semitism. Many are tortured and treated less than human in countries from which they are fleeing, If I'm not mistaken John Hagee has even helped many return to their homeland. The last thing I want to bring to your attention is that you may not feel that Christians such as Hagee are to be considered as friends or brothers of the Jewish people, but Apostle Paul tells the Christian that, "there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek (Gentile), for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." 

Just in case you may want to help Pastor Hagee in his endeavour to sponsor Jewish families that want to return to Israel from hostile lands, I will give his website address to you, but then you may already be sponsoring families through another organization.

http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer Christians United for Israel