Apologies
Cidu Bill on May 13th 2008
So televangelist and high-profile John McCain supporter John Hagee apologized today for calling the Roman Catholic Church “The Great Whore” (an incident which I imagine will make it tough for McCain to get much mileage out of the Reverend Wright business during the general election) — but can somebody give me a rational explanation or what these apologies really mean?
When somebody calls the Roman Catholic Church “The Great Whore,” or says “Fucking Jews… Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” or says chink or spic or the-bad-word-referring-to-black-people-that’s-so-bad-that-you’re-not-even-supposed-to-spell-it-out-when-you’re-discussing-it, well, clearly they don’t like Catholics or Jews or Asians or Mexicans or African-Americans. You don’t say these things by accident, or because you’re under stress, and you don’t say them simply because you’re drunk; because alcohol loosens inhibitions, it doesn’t make you mysteriously impersonate a racist.
So why the apology? For saying out loud what you believe? And because you’ve apologized, all of a sudden you’re a decent human being?
Filed in Bill Bickel, John Hagee, John McCain, Mel Gibson, politics | 17 responses so far
Chipper May 13th 2008 at 03:33 pm 1
Is there a link to a full article?
Does he just apologize, or does he repudiate the statement altogether?
Just as some background, The Great Whore is a reference to the Book of Revelations, the last book in the Christian Bible. In it is described the “Whore of Babylon”.
From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon)
“Most Reformation writers and all Reformers themselves, from Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox identify the Roman Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon.”
So it is not unusual for a Protestant to identify the Catholic Church as “The Great Whore”.
[This comment is just FYI. I don’t know anything about this preacher & am not trying to defend him, just giving some background for your readers.]
Cidu Bill May 13th 2008 at 03:42 pm 2
I’ll try to find the full article, but the gist of it is he apologized for offending Catholics. He couldn’t very well repudiate the statement itself, though, since he said it. Clearly it wasn’t just a slip of the tongue.
Chipper May 13th 2008 at 03:52 pm 3
I asked about repudiation because over time people’s views can change & not knowing any more about this story, it could have been said years ago. Now I’m even more curious about the wording of his apology.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat May 13th 2008 at 04:08 pm 4
Here’s alink to the AP article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_el_pr/hagee_letter_4
Hagee claims he was only refereing to the Catholic involvement in the Crusades and the Inquisition as signs of anti-semitism in the past (although at that time, there was only one Christian Church in the West, so it’s a little disingenious to claim it was solely a Catholic invention).
It’s no too clear to me what he is trying to say about the “Whore of Babylon”- he didn’t understand it was just “rhetorical language” used by anti-Catholic literature? As a man who makes his living based on his knowledge of the Bible, I am quite sure he knew exactly what he was saying.
Cidu Bill May 13th 2008 at 04:15 pm 5
Okay, I see what you’re saying, Chipper. Apparently he made these comments on numerous occasions, but the articles are unclear about the exact timeline — it looks like the media isn’t quite sure of the facts yet and the articles are written in a muddy sort of way in an attempt to hide this — and Hagee’s own comments are so convoluted, that I’m not really sure what he’s saying right now.
This sort of story makes me appreciate Rev. Wright: At least everybody knows where he’s at, and he doesn’t give me a headache.
Patrick May 13th 2008 at 04:23 pm 6
I think that, sometimes, truly racist or bigoted people know enough to keep those feelings hidden most of the time and then let them slip out due to anger or drink or somesuch. In those cases, more often than not, I suppose an apology just means, “I’m sorry I got caught.” But I am not so unforgiving as to think that nobody ever means, “I’m sorry I had those feelings deep inside and I am working on purging them.”
However, I’m surprised, Bill, if you are claiming that no one ever says anything they really don’t mean - just because they’re angry. I have certainly done that a couple of times. And my apology afterward was sincere.
Finally, on another point: McCain accepted the endorsement of a religious figure for political reasons only to be embarrassed when it turned out he said some stupid, hurtful things. Obama claimed that Wright was his mentor and spiritual adviser for over twenty years, but that he had never heard him express any of his nutjob opinions. There’s a big difference. (I don’t think his association for Wright is as big a deal as his enemies would make of it but still – it’s not like the McCain / Hagee relationship is anywhere near as close).
Cidu Bill May 13th 2008 at 04:42 pm 7
Patrick, maybe it’s just me, but I believe there are certain words you’re simply incapable of saying in anger or “accidentally” unless you actually feel that way.
Patrick May 13th 2008 at 05:05 pm 8
That may be true for you and me, Bill. But what about a person who is truly trying to be good but was raised in a culture of bigotry and racism? I’m not defending Haggee but I can accept that maybe those anti-catholic, anti-semetic opinions (which were considered mainstream for a protestant just 30 years ago) are pretty deeply ingrained. The same could be said of a basically decent man who was raised by a racist father.
I agree that I would never get so mad or drunk that I would ever use the N word or spout any anti-Jewish nonsense. But that’s thanks to the environment I was raised in. I can’t expect the same from Haggee.
In this specific instance, by the way, I tend to agree that his apology may not be sincere- that he honestly does hold those old opinions about Catholics. But I can’t say, across the board, that nobody ever makes comments they don’t really mean deep in their heart.
Patrick May 13th 2008 at 05:07 pm 9
Also Bill, thanks for providing the platform for such a conversation. It’s great that this place, ostensibly about newspaper cartoons, lends itself to so many great exchanges on such a diverse array of topics (big and small).
Mark in Boston May 13th 2008 at 05:21 pm 10
I know that in the past I have said that my opponent is a bigot and an adulterer and I would hereby like to apologize.
I am deeply, truly and sincerely sorry that my opponent is such a bigot and adulterer.
I hope he will accept this apology so that we can move on, because I’ve got some more things to say about him.
Dan V May 13th 2008 at 05:46 pm 11
And one more thought - condemning the Catholic church as an institution is not really the same thing as hating Catholics.
I don’t like a lot of things the American government has done, and have verbalized that opinion. But I don’t hate Americans.
Sadly, John Hagee appears to be a dogmatic religious guy who is convinced that only his doctrine is correct. (At least, that’s the way he preaches…) Maybe he’s apologizing because he’s realized the hurt his comments have caused, and has truly changed his mind about the interpretation of that Scripture. But he’s probably just practicing damage control.
Brian Leahy May 13th 2008 at 06:25 pm 12
I’m with Dan V. - it’s one thing to hate the whole monolithic hierarchy that is the RCC, something quite different to hate Catholics themselves or what they believe.
Here’s another perspective on the racist thing:
Who is more to be lauded for avoiding racist speech - an actual racist, or someone who is genuinely ‘colorblind’ ?
It’s rather like: who has more right to be proud of his sobriety - a recovering alcoholic, or someone who retches at the taste of alcohol?
I DO believe that there are people who cannot entirely shut off a visceral reaction of fear or distrust towards other racial or religious groups. Yet, many of them know intellectually that this reaction is irrational, and they strive to AVOID letting it affect their behavior. I’d say such an effort is to be applauded - surely, we should not encourage people to indulge their prejudices and try to live in isolation from (or even open hostility with) other racial or religious groups.
mikeinla May 13th 2008 at 06:29 pm 13
In his letter what Hagee regrets is that anyone was hurt by his comments, and does in fact change his position on the Catholic Church after further study. Does this make him a better person? It makes him a sinner in need of the Savior he preaches about.
Here is the letter: [http://www.catholicleague.org/images/upload/image_200805130112.Donohue051208.pdf]
Winter Wallaby May 13th 2008 at 06:30 pm 14
Patrick, I think another difference between Wright and Hagee is that Obama renounced Wright after the controversial beliefs became public, while McCain still continues to state that he’s proud to have Hagee’s endorsement.
I think Hagee first apology should be to Muslims and homosexuals, for claiming that all Muslims are out to kill Christians and Jews, and that New Orleans was destroyed because there was going to be a gay parade in New Orleans. But I suppose Catholics are an important voting bloc for Republicans, and Muslims and homosexuals aren’t.
Jim C. May 13th 2008 at 08:22 pm 15
Another difference is that “God DAMN America” is on a different level from saying the RC church is the Whore of Babylon.
“I think another difference between Wright and Hagee is that Obama renounced Wright after the controversial beliefs became public”
And Wright has NOT apologized. Obama has denounced Wright. Has his family left that church?
And that’ the SECOND time Wright’s “controversial beliefs” made the news. The first time Obama just lied about never hearing them and tried to change the subject.
Pinny May 13th 2008 at 10:59 pm 16
I guess that what we really need now is for politicians to replace all the political posturing, accusations, apologies, and renunciations with a …
—————————————
Guaranteed Effective All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech
By Bill Garvin
MAD #139, December 1970
My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation’s most delightful garden spots.
When I embarked upon this political campaign I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead — to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.
At first, I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he’s going to get one!
It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent’s background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you could possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man’s life. And even during his childhood!
Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate excessively in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue exacerbated his own sister while they were both teenagers!
I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth? Of course, it’s not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background — no, not when you consider the other members of his family:
* His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities
* The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion
* My opponent’s second cousin is a Mormon
* His uncle was a flagrant heterosexual
* His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church
* His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature
* His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homo sapien
* His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease
* His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine
* His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers
* And his own mother had to resign from a women’s organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian
Now what shall we say of the man himself?
I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility, and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.
* He perambulated his infant son on the street
* He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin
* He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately
* He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd goings-on, there was incense
* He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses
* He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company — and has taken part in such gatherings himself
* He has been deliberately averse to crime in our streets
* He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes
* Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the American flag
* Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign “isms”, he has coolly announced his belief in altruism — and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!
I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.
The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself.
Do your duty.
Oy vey May 16th 2008 at 12:25 am 17
Bill - I totally agree with you, very well-said. The thing that burns me about our culture is that anyone can say whatever horrible, hurtful, hateful things he wants to because “it’s a free country” - but somehow the rest of us are all obligated to accept any apologies he may subsequently offer up (no matter how feeble) or we (the victims) are labeled as vindictive, petty, etc. Contrition should be comprised of more than a few unsubstantiated scripted words.
BTW - I had a friend who became increasingly offensive at an increasing frequency, and his hollow apologies became intolerable. So we worked out a deal - in addition to a heartfelt, groveling apology - which I wasn’t required to accept until I was entirely satisfied - we would bargain to determine what cash penance he would have to pay me for each offense (generaqlly 20 bucks and up). Of course his behavior didn’t really improve for very long, but the arrangement oddly empowered me and underlined for me exactly how often he was a jerk, so our friendship didn’t last much longer. Hey - whatever it takes to get out of a bad relationship…