100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Huckabee angers some Catholics | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Huckabee angers some Catholics
Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:32pm EST By Jim Forsyth SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - Rising Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee risked his standing with Catholic voters on Sunday by courting his evangelical base at the church of a controversial preacher accused of disparaging Catholics. There are a few remnants of anti-Catholicism among evangelical Christians in the South but the two sides have found much common political ground over the past three decades in their strident opposition to abortion and gay marriage. But the visit to Cornerstone, pastor John Hagee's imposing "mega-church" in the Texas city of San Antonio, was fraught with political perils for Huckabee given his efforts to woo conservative Catholics. Huckabee, a folksy former Arkansas governor and former Baptist preacher, has had a meteoric rise in opinion polls in recent weeks, largely because he has connected with the Republican Party's influential evangelical wing. This puts him in serious contention with less than two weeks before the January 3 nomination battle in Iowa, which starts the state-by-state process to pick the Republican and Democratic candidates for November's presidential election. Religion plays a big role in politics in the United States, where levels of belief and church attendance are much higher than in Europe. Evangelicals number around 60 million in the country of 300 million people, while the Catholic population has been put at close to 70 million. Taking a break from the Iowa campaign trail, Huckabee delivered a Christmas season sermon at Cornerstone about Christ's birth and embraced Hagee, calling him "one of the great Christian leaders of our nation." Hagee is a fiery preacher best known for his writings on the Middle East, where he reads contemporary events as unfolding Biblical prophecy. He is staunchly pro-Israel, saying that God had made his love for the land and its people clear. The Catholic League says Hagee is virulently anti-Catholic -- a charge he denies -- and it is getting the word out that Huckabee is rubbing shoulders with an anti-Vatican figure. Huckabee's campaign insisted his visit to Hagee's church should in no way be taken as a slight to Catholics. "Three members of the senior leadership of the campaign are Catholic, including our national chairman. Gov. Huckabee is committed to being a leader of all Americans," said Charmaine Yoest, one of his senior advisers. CATHOLIC ANGER But some Catholics were angry about the visit. "Hagee has a history of denigrating the Catholic religion," said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, the largest Catholic civil rights group in the United States. In his recent book "Jerusalem Countdown," Hagee wrote: "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." In the same book, Hagee did applaud the late Pope John Paul II's efforts to reach out to Jews. But Catholic bloggers on the Internet were mostly critical about Huckabee's visit. The Catholic News Agency ran the headline: "Mike Huckabee to speak at strongly anti-Catholic preacher's church." One Catholic blogger said while Huckabee was an eloquent spokesman for the "culture of life" -- code for the anti-abortion cause -- his visit to "a church pastored by a raving anti-Catholic bigot" was deeply troubling. At Cornerstone, Huckabee's appearance went down well with the crowd of several thousand worshipers, who frequently interrupted his remarks with loud applause. "I think he is a good and godly man," said Suzanne Ramirez. But asked whether she planned to vote for Huckabee in the Texas primary in March, Ramirez said she had not made up her mind. Huckabee said earlier on Sunday on the CBS show "Face the Nation" that he was running to be president of the entire United States, not just the Christian community. "That's how I served as governor," he said. "People look at my record and they didn't see that I put a tent out on the capital grounds and had healing services and I didn't replace the dome with a steeple." (Writing and additional reporting by Ed Stoddard; Editing by John O'Callaghan) =============================================================== This really surprised me. The Pope recently commented that nobody outside of the Catholic church had any chance of going to heaven. Seems sort of hypocritical for Catholics to give anyone a hard time for busting on their religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This really surprised me. The Pope recently commented that nobody outside of the Catholic church had any chance of going to heaven. Seems sort of hypocritical for Catholics to give anyone a hard time for busting on their religion.
i've pointed that out before on here.personally i don't like Hagee or Huckabee.i don't like Hagee because he comes off as being way too blunt.i don't like Huckabee because if he runs this country like he ran the state of Arkansas,well we're even more screwed then we already are |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Turtlepoet78
on
Mon 12/24/07 03:56 PM
|
|
I'm not surprised, both catholic and evangelical leaders have been persecuting my tradition as well as the Gnostic traditions for practicaly forever. But they sure do like to play the victim when they're the ones being attacked. Not that I support that kind of thing, not that Huckabee was attacking anybody, but I guess when the gloves on the foot..lol;^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm catholic...and i'll definitely vote for huckabee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===============================================================
The Pope recently commented that nobody outside of the Catholic church had any chance of going to heaven. Spider, Can you tell me where I can find that quote from the Pope? Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, it's not a quote from the Pope, but it is from a pope sactioned document.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/07/11/pope_reasserts_salvation_comes_from_one_church/ Pope reasserts salvation comes from one church LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy -- Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released yesterday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation. The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders. "It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a fellowship of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries. "It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the reformed family and other families of the church," the group said in a letter charging that the document took ecumenical dialogue back to the era before the Second Vatican Council. It was the second time in a week that Benedict has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-1965 meetings that modernized the church. On Saturday, Benedict revived the old Latin Mass -- a move cheered by Catholic traditionalists but criticized by more liberal ones as a step backward from Vatican II. Among the council's key developments were its ecumenical outreach and development of the New Mass in the vernacular, which essentially replaced the old Latin Mass. Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers erroneous interpretation by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but a renewal of church tradition. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Benedict headed before becoming pope, said it was issuing the new document yesterday because some contemporary theological interpretations of Vatican II's ecumenical intent had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt. The new document, formulated as five questions and answers, restates key sections of a 2000 text the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which riled Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation." The commentary repeated church teaching that says the Catholic Church "has the fullness of the means of salvation." "Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," said the document. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claiming only catholics go to heaven has been a common theme among catholic "leaders" throughout their history, many of them have even tried to sell salvation. Nothing new with Benedictus;^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claiming only catholics go to heaven has been a common theme among catholic "leaders" throughout their history, many of them have even tried to sell salvation. Nothing new with Benedictus;^] Pope John Paul II was loved throughout the world, but the new Pope seems to be dead set on ostracizing Catholics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Paul was definatly a breath of fresh air for the most part (though I did disagree with him on some points), it's too bad with Benedictus, seems he's alot more like John Pauls predecessors. His comments about Mohammed were appauling and completly misinformed, then again catholic "leaders" have been lying about Islam since Islam came to be;^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Paul was definatly a breath of fresh air for the most part (though I did disagree with him on some points), it's too bad with Benedictus, seems he's alot more like John Pauls predecessors. His comments about Mohammed were appauling and completly misinformed, then again catholic "leaders" have been lying about Islam since Islam came to be;^] Actually, they weren't his comments about Mohammad, they were a quote he was reading. But I agree with the quote. I haven't found anything redeeming about Mohammad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know the real history or the catholic version of the history? Mohammed never converted anyone by the sword, him & his followers were hunted down like wild dogs before he fought back & conquered Mecca. When he did conquer Mecca, people were given freedoms the region had never seen, gnostic were finaly free, churchs & synagoges were encouraged & given the freedom to practice in peace, pagans were also given those religious freedoms under Mohammed, women were given the right to become educated & enter the workforce not to mention they were given marital rights and freedoms. The formation of the Islamic empire was beautiful thing under Mohammed, unfortunatly catholic "leaders" have been slandering it ever since;^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 12/26/07 12:24 PM
|
|
Do you know the real history or the catholic version of the history? Mohammed never converted anyone by the sword, him & his followers were hunted down like wild dogs before he fought back & conquered Mecca. When he did conquer Mecca, people were given freedoms the region had never seen, gnostic were finaly free, churchs & synagoges were encouraged & given the freedom to practice in peace, pagans were also given those religious freedoms under Mohammed, women were given the right to become educated & enter the workforce not to mention they were given marital rights and freedoms. The formation of the Islamic empire was beautiful thing under Mohammed, unfortunatly catholic "leaders" have been slandering it ever since;^] The Koran tells a completely different story. One of conquest and barbarism. I remember one incident where a Jew refused to give his gold to Mohammad, so Mohammad commanded that the Jew be staked to the ground and a small fire be built upon his chest. Mohammad married the murdered Jew's wife and day and consumated his marriage that night. Also, Mohammad married a six year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9. That's in the Koran also. Mohammad approved of female castration...also in the Koran. Then if you want to talk about the Crusades...you are completely off there too. 2/3's of Christendom had be conquered by Jihad before the Crusades started. That's not even debatable among historians. Most Muslims of today are the decendants of people who were forcibly coverted to Islam. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Turtlepoet78
on
Wed 12/26/07 12:37 PM
|
|
Apparently you've never actualy read the Qu'ran (not koran, koran is indonesian for newspaper), most people get those outcomes by taking Qu'ranic qoutes out of context, christians and jews are held in high respect in the Qu'ran as people of the book. And the crusades were some 600 years after Mohammed. Only biased historians come up with that outcome, and it is HIGHLY debated among historians. And Jihad DOES NOT MEAN "HOLY WAR", it means "the struggle to please God". Look at the Moores, they were so demonised as "trying to take over the world" when they were at war with Spain yet when they came to america (long before columbus) they were in total peace with native tribes and even inter married. The Qu'ran actualy dictates that any nation which surrenders during war will be allowed to keep their governance as long as Muslims may live among them in peace, holy war is only justified in the Qu'ran when there is an attack on Islam itself and unfortunatly the catholic church had done just that as did the meccans before that. And also concerning the crusades, let's remember that the crusaders killed christians and muslims alike and were the ones hungry to conquer lands. But I'll take the advice of the Qu'ran and "let the blind wander on their path of darkness", if you choose to only accept the catholic version of the history I can't force you to see the truth;^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Koran, Quran, Qur'an are all acceptable translations and it's very childish to correct someone on spelling in the first place.
From an athiest website about the crusades... A "Crusade" had been underway on the Iberian peninsula since 711 when Muslim invaders conquered most of the region. Better known as the Reconquista, it lasted until the tiny kingdom of Grenada was reconquered in 1492. In the East, Muslim attacks on land controlled by the Byzantine Empire had been going on for a long time. After the battle of Manzikert in 1071, much of Asia Minor fell to the Seljuk Turks, and it was unlikely that this last outpost of the Roman Empire would be able to survive further concentrated assaults. It wasn't long before the Byzantine Christians asked for help from Christians in Europe, and it's no surprise that their plea was answered. It's not debatable that Muslims, under the cry of "Jihad" were conquering Christian held lands. I didn't say that Jihad means "Holy War". But Muslims of today are blowing themselves up, cutting of the heads of journalists, attacking civilians, blowing up the Trade Towers all in the name of Jihad. Just like they spent 600 years raping, killing and stealing from their Christian and Jewish neighbors, before the Crusades started. You speak so highly of Islam and obviously you know far more than I, but I must wonder why you would leave out that those who surrender to Islam must live in Dhimminitude? Their value as people is reduced to half. Non-Muslims cannot testify against Muslims. Non-Muslims must pay a special tax or be executed. Surely you just forgot to mention what life under Muslim Dhimminitude is like. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslims conquered lands who declared war on Islam, those christian lands were generaly governed by the catholic church who declared this war. Again you use misinformation, ALL people, including Muslims had to pay taxes, it's called the "poor due" and you have to put in perspective of the times, remember homosexuals were stoned to death by biblical law. No Christians, nor anybody else is forced to convert to Islam under the Qu'ran, that is a MYTH. Also remember, some protestants today bomb abortion clinics, you cannot blame religion itself for the fanatics who twist the scripture. Koran is not proper translation, it means something completly differant, it's not a correction of spelling it's a correction of using the wrong word. There was no conflict among christians and muslims in the Islamic empire until the 11th century, so again you can't blame Mohammed for something that happened 500 years after his death. As europe struggled through the dark ages the Islamic empire flourished in freedoms and advancements in science, art, gardening techniques, and more importantly math. It's unfortunate most of the western world only knows Islamic history from one biased source, the catholic church. All other sources show a much differant history.
So please, go read the Qu'ran and learn the real history, it's not the history you think it is;^] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Turtlepoet78,
Jizya? Jizya is the "poor due"? Koran Sura 9:29 You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax (Jizya), willingly or unwillingly. I'm starting to question your credentials as an Islamic scholar. Stoning of Homosexuals? According to the Torah, for the death penalty to be applied, there had to be: 1) A trial 2) Two witnesses 3) 12 Rabbi had to find the defendant(s) guilty and deserving death 4) The witnesses had to kill the defendants. According to Jesus, we shouldn't hate anyone. But in Islam today, adulterers and homosexuals are still executed by stoning. Most adultresses are executed by their own testamony (ie He raped me). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGFQ0PTjbFY&feature=related http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/facultyforum.cgi?ID=1118 Let us review the Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims - on at least one occasion led by Mohammed - had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day. You will note the string of adjectives and may have some objection to my using them. They are used because they are the absolute truth. Anyone denying them is a victim of PC thinking, ignorant of history, or lying to protect Islam. Let us take each word separately before we proceed further in our true history of the relationship between the Christian west and the Islamic east. ... Christians and Jews could not bear arms - Muslims could; Christians and Jews could not ride horses - Muslims could; Christians and Jews had to get permission to build - Muslims did not; Christians and Jews had to pay certain taxes which Muslims did not; Christians could not proselytize - Muslims could; Christians and Jews had to bow to their Muslim masters when they paid their taxes; and Christians and Jews had to live under the law set forth in the Koran, not under either their own religious or secular law. Sorry man, but the historical truth...the truth recorded in the Koran is that Muhammad waged wars of conquest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wars of conquest against those who fought against and slandered Islam, and most of the things from your biased source is indeed FALSE. And the Surah you qouted, in the previous lines were talking about entrance to the Ka'bal. reread levitucus, it can be misqouted to a message of hate just the same. But let it be, you're admittaly ignorant about Islam and are taking the bias sources against Islam without question, so again read the Qu'ran yourself, not just a couple Surah's either, the whole thing back to front. Then we can debate the origins of Islam;^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for proving my thesis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for proving my thesis. What thesis? Your thesis of taking bias sources as fact without researching it yourself? Dag, you're starting to get as bad as rambil..lol;^] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for proving my thesis. What thesis? Your thesis of taking bias sources as fact without researching it yourself? Dag, you're starting to get as bad as rambil..lol;^] My thesis that most people are too proud to admit they are wrong, even when faced with facts proving their position cannot be supported. War of conquest = defense? Wouldn't that be a "War of Defense"? Why doesn't the Koran record these assaults by Christians and Jews? Why does the Koran record that these wars were started because Mohammad wanted his neighbor's wealth? Is the Koran a Catholic lie? Why don't you have anything to say about Jizya? Why don't you have anything to say about Dhimminitude? What about the fact that Homosexuals are currently being stoned by Muslims? You just ignore the facts that you don't like and keep going. And a biased source is always better than no source. You insist that Mohammad conquered the Middle East to protect the Muslims, but you haven't offered any proof. What you did say is that I should read the Koran and do my own research. That's a logical fallacy called "Burden of Proof". Burden of Proof lies with the person making the claim. You claim that Christians and Jews were attacking the Muslims, would you mind backing that up? |
|
|
|
|
