Top 10 Outrageous Quotes from McCain's Spiritual Advisers

[chri'stina 190]

Gary-Yes, I do see a pattern emerging.

Nothing against you Steven, but how many threads on some Christians' sometimes wacky(or appearing wacky) words are you going to post? hehe

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Has McCain claimed these men as his spiritual advisors?

He has publically accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. So close enough.

I personally don't see how it's close enough. Isn't there a difference between accepting someone's endorsement and them being your spiritual advisor? A spiritual advisor IMO is someone who you talk to frequently to guide you in spiritual matters. Not someone you know of and may not agree with on everything. Those are two different things. McCain is not a member of Hagee's church and probably was not aware of those comments. And also Christians have certain beliefs that many will find offensive, but you can't ask them to change their beliefs just because they said who they are voting for. For the record I don't agree with all of Hagee's comments, but if he says something that comes from the bible then it's different and may be something that offends people but that's how it is.

And then this goes back to something I wondered about endorsements. And are only people who agree on every single thing with a candidate allowed to endorse them? If the candidates knew the beliefs of every citizen who is endorsing them in the workplace, home, etc they'd probably have to spend days denouncing this one and that one. Instead can't we, for the most part, hear what they believe and realize they might not agree with every person who endorses them? I understand if it's a crazy sounding person who says they and the candidate have the same views or it seems that way, the candidate should say I don't share their views(like Obama has said). And if we are going to accept that Obama has some issues because of Wright's words, McCain will have issues b/c of Hagee's words, so they are even IMO. Yet McCain wasn't a member of Hagee's church as far as I know.

The problem, Stina, is this guilt by association mentality. For years, conservative christian preachers like Falwell and Robertson have long been sought out for their support by politicians and although the media had tried to show that these pastor's had said some very outrageous views, because their political influence (Christian Coalition) was great, not many politicians (in fact, none that I can think of), came out and publicly admonished what they said. It was a political relationship. Whereas, with Obama and his pastor, their relationship is on a spiritual level. Maybe you see that as more troubling, but I personally would rather see a separation between religion and politics. Obama has publicly admonished his former pastor's controversial remarks and has not sought any political endorsement from him. That to me is the big difference.

[GaryC 7]

Has McCain claimed these men as his spiritual advisors?

He has publically accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. So close enough.

I personally don't see how it's close enough. Isn't there a difference between accepting someone's endorsement and them being your spiritual advisor? A spiritual advisor IMO is someone who you talk to frequently to guide you in spiritual matters. Not someone you know of and may not agree with on everything. Those are two different things. McCain is not a member of Hagee's church and probably was not aware of those comments. And also Christians have certain beliefs that many will find offensive, but you can't ask them to change their beliefs just because they said who they are voting for. For the record I don't agree with all of Hagee's comments, but if he says something that comes from the bible then it's different and may be something that offends people but that's how it is.

And then this goes back to something I wondered about endorsements. And are only people who agree on every single thing with a candidate allowed to endorse them? If the candidates knew the beliefs of every citizen who is endorsing them in the workplace, home, etc they'd probably have to spend days denouncing this one and that one. Instead can't we, for the most part, hear what they believe and realize they might not agree with every person who endorses them? I understand if it's a crazy sounding person who says they and the candidate have the same views or it seems that way, the candidate should say I don't share their views(like Obama has said). And if we are going to accept that Obama has some issues because of Wright's words, McCain will have issues b/c of Hagee's words, so they are even IMO. Yet McCain wasn't a member of Hagee's church as far as I know.

The problem, Stina, is this guilt by association mentality. For years, conservative christian preachers like Falwell and Robertson have long been sought out for their support by politicians and although the media had tried to show that these pastor's had said some very outrageous views, because their political influence (Christian Coalition) was great, not many politicians (in fact, none that I can think of), came out and publicly admonished what they said. It was a political relationship. Whereas, with Obama and his pastor, their relationship is on a spiritual level. Maybe you see that as more troubling, but I personally would rather see a separation between religion and politics. Obama has publicly admonished his former pastor's controversial remarks and has not sought any political endorsement from him. That to me is the big difference.

To bad your the only one that sees it that way. If McCain had sat in Falwell or Robertsons church for 20 years you might have a point. Try as you might you cannot get away from the fact that Rev Wright IS Obamas mentor and spiritual leader. Wright even said that Obama shares his views but as a politician he cannot say that or he wouldn't get elected.

[Fandango 1,440]

Has McCain claimed these men as his spiritual advisors?

He has publically accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. So close enough.

I personally don't see how it's close enough. Isn't there a difference between accepting someone's endorsement and them being your spiritual advisor? A spiritual advisor IMO is someone who you talk to frequently to guide you in spiritual matters. Not someone you know of and may not agree with on everything. Those are two different things. McCain is not a member of Hagee's church and probably was not aware of those comments. And also Christians have certain beliefs that many will find offensive, but you can't ask them to change their beliefs just because they said who they are voting for. For the record I don't agree with all of Hagee's comments, but if he says something that comes from the bible then it's different and may be something that offends people but that's how it is.

And then this goes back to something I wondered about endorsements. And are only people who agree on every single thing with a candidate allowed to endorse them? If the candidates knew the beliefs of every citizen who is endorsing them in the workplace, home, etc they'd probably have to spend days denouncing this one and that one. Instead can't we, for the most part, hear what they believe and realize they might not agree with every person who endorses them? I understand if it's a crazy sounding person who says they and the candidate have the same views or it seems that way, the candidate should say I don't share their views(like Obama has said). And if we are going to accept that Obama has some issues because of Wright's words, McCain will have issues b/c of Hagee's words, so they are even IMO. Yet McCain wasn't a member of Hagee's church as far as I know.

The problem, Stina, is this guilt by association mentality. For years, conservative christian preachers like Falwell and Robertson have long been sought out for their support by politicians and although the media had tried to show that these pastor's had said some very outrageous views, because their political influence (Christian Coalition) was great, not many politicians (in fact, none that I can think of), came out and publicly admonished what they said. It was a political relationship. Whereas, with Obama and his pastor, their relationship is on a spiritual level. Maybe you see that as more troubling, but I personally would rather see a separation between religion and politics. Obama has publicly admonished his former pastor's controversial remarks and has not sought any political endorsement from him. That to me is the big difference.

To bad your the only one that sees it that way. If McCain had sat in Falwell or Robertsons church for 20 years you might have a point. Try as you might you cannot get away from the fact that Rev Wright IS Obamas mentor and spiritual leader. Wright even said that Obama shares his views but as a politician he cannot say that or he wouldn't get elected.

Yep, even the thread title is inflammatory and wrong...none of these quotes came from any of McC's 'spiritual advisors'

[Caladan 19]

Has McCain claimed these men as his spiritual advisors?

He has publically accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. So close enough.

I personally don't see how it's close enough. Isn't there a difference between accepting someone's endorsement and them being your spiritual advisor? A spiritual advisor IMO is someone who you talk to frequently to guide you in spiritual matters. Not someone you know of and may not agree with on everything. Those are two different things. McCain is not a member of Hagee's church and probably was not aware of those comments. And also Christians have certain beliefs that many will find offensive, but you can't ask them to change their beliefs just because they said who they are voting for. For the record I don't agree with all of Hagee's comments, but if he says something that comes from the bible then it's different and may be something that offends people but that's how it is.

And then this goes back to something I wondered about endorsements. And are only people who agree on every single thing with a candidate allowed to endorse them? If the candidates knew the beliefs of every citizen who is endorsing them in the workplace, home, etc they'd probably have to spend days denouncing this one and that one. Instead can't we, for the most part, hear what they believe and realize they might not agree with every person who endorses them? I understand if it's a crazy sounding person who says they and the candidate have the same views or it seems that way, the candidate should say I don't share their views(like Obama has said). And if we are going to accept that Obama has some issues because of Wright's words, McCain will have issues b/c of Hagee's words, so they are even IMO. Yet McCain wasn't a member of Hagee's church as far as I know.

I thought this was exactly Steven's point. McCain actively courted the endorsement of this guy, yet we're all smart enough to think that McCain might have his own views. And far from needing McCain to denounce Hagee and his hateful rhetoric, we all accept that he might need the guy's political endorsement, and it's all okay because it comes from the Bible. We all know that McCain is only sucking up to religious leaders because he can't win if the churches stay home.

Yet Obama is required to denounce beliefs that Wright has (and if you read the whole sermon Wright gave, in context, he was arguing from the Bible, too. It's not a sermon I'd agree with completely, but it's straight out of black conservatism & Christian traditions (a tradition that's recently including Cosby), and really wasn't particularly shocking) and people are screaming about his pastor six weeks later.

It seems to me like a bit of a double standard.

[chri'stina 190]

I personally don't care what Wright said. I know many do, but some people don't. So I don't really care what he said, though I can see why it would upset people, and I don't care what Hagee said, and can see why what he says upsets people too. I just think it's a double standard to be asked to not care about one and to care a lot about the other. Remember we are talking about politics here. McCain is going to want certain endorsements to get more votes. And if anyone thinks Hillary and Obama are any different about wanting votes, then we'll see if they are actually different or are just typical politicians as well.

[chri'stina 190]

Wanted to add...if Obama wins the presidency, I am not going to freak out or be bitter. The other side can have a turn running the country and we can see if it makes a big difference or not really. I will be more upset if Hillary wins only because from what I have heard from her, she is much more divisive and often says something rude about Republicans, whereas Obama may be a tad more merciful towards repubs so that he can get the country more "united", or so he says.

But if McCain wins, VJ Off topic is not going to be a fun place for some people for awhile.

I was around VJ in 2004 when Bush got reelected, people acting bitter and freaking out is an understatement.