Sunday, June 22, 2008

Can McCain claim the Ron Paul votes?

Can McCain claim the Ron Paul votes?




Ben Adler Sun Jun 22, 7:41 AM ET

With iconoclast Ron Paul having ended his quixotic bid for the Republican presidential nomination — his platform had called for, among other things, ending the Iraq War, repealing the PATRIOT Act, returning to the gold standard and eliminating taxes on tips — his many dedicated supporters are up for grabs.






ADVERTISEMENT


Even excluding his support in caucus states, Paul received a few more than a million votes in the Republican primary, finished second in five states including Pennsylvania and Oregon and continued to draw votes well after he’d effectively withdrawn from the race. His campaign also tapped into the potent new vein of online fundraising, punctuated by the so-called “money bomb” day when his supporters, unaided by his campaign, managed to pump $5 million into his coffers in 24 hours.

It’s a support base that could make the difference in a close election, and while there’s no guarantee that his supporters will turn out at the polls for GOP standard-bearer John McCain, one thing seems clear: Despite their overlapping anti-Iraq war positions, Barack Obama will not make major inroads among them.

Paul’s campaign says he is unlikely to endorse anyone. Absent that endorsement, many of his campaign officials expect Paul’s votes will splinter — and the names of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin come up at least as frequently as does Obama's.

“I would be very surprised to see many people going for Barack Obama,” said Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman. “Barr will pick up some, but the majority will go Republican or stay home.”

“Obama’s probably getting the least support from Ron Paul supporters,” said Marianne Stebbins, Paul’s state coordinator in Minnesota. “Fewer will vote for Obama than Bob Barr. There will be some because the war is such a big issue, but they can also vote for Barr.”

Paul's unique mix of views, which included privatizing social security, allowing states to legalize medicinal marijuana, opposition to abortion rights, enhanced border security and opposition to environmental regulation attracted a rabid following of supporters to his campaign. Their activity online — one popular conservative blog banned pro-Paul comments after being inundated with them — and their campaign donations delivered Paul from obscurity to the top tier of Republican candidates. He raised $17.75 million in the last quarter of 2007 — the most money of any Republican.

The organizing success led to strong finishes in many primaries, particularly among younger voters. In Iowa, for instance, he attracted just 10 percent of the vote overall, but took 21 percent of the vote among caucusgoers younger than 30.

While it had little impact on his base of political support, Paul found himself the subject of widespread criticism when racist remarks published in the 1990s in the Ron Paul Political Report, a newsletter he’s distributed for decades, came to light in January. Unsigned articles — which Paul denies having written or even read and says he disagrees with, but some of which had personal details that corresponded to his — in the newsletter bearing his name attacked blacks, gays and pro-Israel groups. One article claimed that "order was only restored [after the 1992 Los Angeles riots] when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

“I don’t see Ron Paul supporters voting for Obama,” said David Hart, Paul’s Montana state coordinator. “They recognize Obama’s positions are diametrically opposed to things we believe in.”

For some Paul supporters, the only way they can see supporting McCain is if the presumptive GOP nominee reverses his core positions on foreign and economic policy.

 

“Unless McCain does make changes in his platform,” including abandoning his support for the Iraq War and renouncing deficit spending, “I don’t think [Paul supporters] will be voting for him,” said Hart, who hopes to attend the Republican Convention as a delegate for the state. “They will more likely be voting for the Constitution Party or Bob Barr.”

“It wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of the disaffected Republicans would cast their vote for Bob Barr because he’s much more conservative than John McCain,” said Jeff Greenspan, Paul’s Nevada state coordinator.

Although Paul is often called a libertarian, his supporters seem to be significantly more conservative than most libertarian-leaning voters, who were nearly split between Bush and Kerry in 2004.

Paul “tapped into anti-war, socially conservative voters,” explained Brink Lindsey, vice president for research at the libertarian CATO Institute.

“A lot of [Paul supporters] are going to vote a straight Republican ticket,” said Jean McIver. “A number will vote Republican for everything but the president.”

Others, though, will vote for McCain as the lesser of the two evils with a chance of taking the White House. “A lot of [Paul supporters] are in a quandary over McCain,” said Jean McIver, Paul’s Texas coordinator. “Some will vote for McCain because they don’t want Obama to win.”

Paul’s campaign officials also complain that his supporters have felt shunned by the Republican Party, particularly at state party conventions where they have often come out in large numbers. In Nevada, the state party attempted a rule change that Paul supporters say was intended to tamp down the large number of them running for positions at party delegates. In states where the primary is non-binding, such as Montana, Paul's grassroots activists who have been elected to attend the RNC still may cast their ballots for him.

And Paul is holding his own rally in Minneapolis during the convention.

“A lot depends on how Republicans treat people who come to support Ron Paul,” said Benton.

The McCain campaign says they will reach out to Paul’s voters on a personal level and that they will win them over. “Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain does not believe that government is the answer to every problem,” said McCain spokesman Joe Pounder. “At the end of the day, Ron Paul supporters will find that their positions align more often with John McCain.”

But the Obama camp also hopes to pull in some of Paul’s voters by appealing to the same discontent with mainstream Republicans that drew them to Paul. “We think disenchanted Republicans and independents will choose Barack Obama over John McCain for the same reason they chose Ron Paul over John McCain ... a war that has made us less secure, a debt that will burden our children and grandchildren and degraded our Constitution, and instead of change, John McCain offers more of the same,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan.

But some Paul supporters are concerned not only that Obama does not share their domestic positions, but also that he is not anti-war enough.

“Obama’s voted for continued funding of the war,” said Debbie Hopper, Paul’s Missouri coordinator. “His foreign policy isn’t noninterventionist, as we believe it should be.”

“He’s very much into supporting the war effort even though he says he’ll withdraw,” said Hart of Montana.

Left-leaning independent candidate Ralph Nader — whose views on activist government domestically are diametrically opposed to Paul’s — has attempted to get in on the potential Paul-supporters vote bonanza. Nader issued an appeal to Paul’s voters immediately after Paul dropped out, saying, “there is a clear choice for those who want to support a candidate who will stand up against the war and stand up for personal liberties and privacy.”

But Nader’s plea seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Not one of the Paul activists interviewed for this article mentioned Nader.

“I sure haven’t heard anybody talking about him,” said Hopper.

Sunday, June 8, 2008

Ron Paul Will NOT Endorse John McCain

05.31.2008 1:19 am

Paul exhorts 1,500 Mo supporters to hold fast, fight for liberty







BRANSON — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who continues to be a thorn in the side of his party and presumptive nominee John McCain, said Friday night that he won’t endorse McCain or campaign for him.

“I can’t support anybody who supports the war,” Paul said, in a brief interview while he signed hundreds of copies of his book brought to Friday night’s “Freedom Rally” by some of his supporters.

Paul reaffirmed, however, that he won’t conduct a third-party candidacy.

About 1,500 turned out Friday night to hear Paul for an hour at the Tri-Lakes Center. (The estimate came from the building manager; yours truly counted at least 1,000.)

“We need to lead the Republican Party kicking and screaming back to its senses,” he said, in remarks that prompted repeated standing ovations.

Many of those ovations came as Paul laid out his key views:

End the war in Iraq;

Repeal the Patriot Act;

Get rid of the federal income tax;

Eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank;

Get the U.S. out of the UN;

Get the U.S. out of the World Bank, the IMF and other international bodies;

Slash federal spending;

Paul blasted the Bush administration for the way it has attacked terrorism. The U.S. either gives money to countries, or attacks them, he said. The U.S. rarely just talks to nations, Paul added.

The Bush administration seems to focus on bombing countries “incapable of attacking us,” he said, using Iraq as Exhibit A.

Referring to former Iraq leader Saddam Hussein, Paul said, “As bad as he was, he wasn’t a threat to us.”

Paul accused the administration of using terrorists and the war as an excuse to eliminate personal rights.

“…We don’t need secret courts and secret prisons,” he said. “…They say we’re being attacked because we’re free and rich. Their thinking seems to be ‘if we’re less free, they won’t attack us…’ “ 

Paul also called for a return to habeas corpus (The guaranteed right for a person to go before a judge when charged with a crime.)

Several hundred of the Paul supporters in Branson are to be delegates Saturday morning at the state Republican Party’s once-every-four-years convention.

The delegates and alternates had a private meeting with Paul and his state leaders late Friday night, presumably to discuss how to proceed. About half of the pro-Paul delegates have been challenged by state GOP leaders, so it’s up to the convention to decide if any of them get seated.

In his address, Paul blamed the rise in gasoline prices and the shipping of jobs overseas, in part, to monetary problems that have weakened the U.S. dollar.

“We owe $13 trillion to foreigners,” he said.

He blasted what he called a “flawed monetary system, a flawed economic system…a flawed foreign policy that has to be changed.”

Before the rally, state Treasurer Sarah Steelman stopped by to talk to Paul supporters milling in the lobby as they waited for the doors to open to the auditorium where the rally was held.

Steelman, a Republican running for governor, said later that she did so to appeal for their votes.

Monday, June 2, 2008

From the Korean Penisula: Understanding God in Reformed Theology

Understanding God in Reformed Theology







Special Contribution
By Babu G. Ranganathan






 










God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

How do we as Christians reconcile the freedom of man's will with God's sovereign and unmerited grace in salvation? Many Christians will give God all the credit and glory for the payment of their sins at Calvary but when it comes to believing in Christ they give themselves either all or some of the credit and glory. This issue, therefore, needs serious Biblical examining.

The will is only as free as its nature. For example, God has free will but He cannot choose to do evil since it is contrary to His nature. The Scripture says in Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie. God cannot even want to do evil. In 1 John 1:5 we read that "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all."

Fallen man has free will but he cannot choose God on God's terms. Men by nature are certainly free to choose God on man's terms, but in order for an individual to choose God on God's terms, as revealed in the Christian Gospel, that individual must first receive a new nature, a new heart - he must be born again, otherwise he will not, even cannot, want God on God's terms.

The Apostle Paul said to Timothy that he was persuaded that Timothy had "unfeigned" faith (2 Timothy 1:5). The word "unfeigned" means "genuine." Thus, it is not simply enough to have faith in Christ for salvation, but Scripture teaches that faith must be genuine. Only genuine faith in Christ will save. Our motives for believing must be right. Tell me whose free will has the ability to control one's motives. The natural man cannot ever have spiritual motives that are Godward. He must be born again in order to have such motives.

The Bible teaches that the carnal mind is enmity with God and cannot even be subject to God (Romans 8:7). Before a person is born again that is all that he has - a carnal mind which is only free to think, will, and desire carnal things including carnal religion. God must choose to save a person and give him new birth before such a person can ever desire God on God's terms.

Romans 11:5-6 teaches that election (God's choosing those who would be saved) is by grace, that is it is not based on our works. God didn't choose those who would be saved because they would choose Him, but, rather, we who are saved chose God because He chose us by His grace in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Doesn't Romans 8:29 teach that God chose those whom He foreknew would choose Him? That is not what the verse teaches. The verse does not say "whom God foreknew would choose Him ..." The verse says "Those God foreknew He also predestined ..." What the verse is saying, in context, is that those whom God knew intimately and personally even before they were born God predestined to be saved. The word "know" or "knew" here has an intimate connotation. Just as God said to Jeremiah in the Old Testament "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). Yes, God does know everything, but that is not what is meant by the word "know" or "knew" here in Romans 8:29.

If God's choosing us was based upon our choosing Him then we have something to glory in, but we don't have anything to glory in because Romans 11 teaches that God elected (chose us) for salvation by His grace. Election was unconditional. God's choosing us to be saved was not based on any condition in us or from us. The Biblical fact is if we are truly saved then we chose God because He chose us. That is what makes the doctrine of election precious. Of course, God knew that we who are saved would choose Him but He only knew that because He had already chosen us (predestined us) to choose Him!

In the context of Scripture God's foreknowledge has to do with His design and plan, not just that He knows beforehand what will happen. The Book of Acts says that Christ was crucified according to the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). Thus, God's foreknowledge was the primary cause of Christ's crucifixion because the Father planned and designed for His Son to be crucified.

Jesus says in John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out." And we read in Acts 13:48 "For as many as were ordained (predestined) to eternal life believed." Only those chosen in Christ by God the Father will ever truly and genuinely believe and trust in Christ for salvation.

He died for His sheep, not only for His sheep in Israel, but for His gentile sheep in every tribe and nation of the world. It's in that sense He died for the world. Those whom He died for cannot go to hell otherwise they would be paying a double price. If He truly died and paid for someone's sins then how can that someone go to hell and pay a debt that was already paid on his behalf.

A co-signer to a loan is legally responsible for paying the debt of the person whom he legally stands in the place of in case the borrower defaults in his payment. Once the co-signer pays the bank can no longer go after the borrower!

In Romans 5 we read that just as the First Adam represented the whole human race when he fell and, therefore, we all fell in him and inherited a sinful nature, so, too, the Second Adam (Christ) represented those whom He died for and all whom He represented will be saved!

How, then, can fallen man be accountable or responsible to give God genuine faith when the ability is not there? Just as a bankrupt borrower is still morally obligated to pay his debt even though he cannot do so fallen man is under moral obligation to believe in Christ genuinely and spiritually as his Lord and Savior on God's terms even though he is spiritually bankrupt and unable to offer God such faith.

God truly does desire to save all men but His sovereign (or effectual) desire and will is to save only those whom He chose in Christ by His unmerited and undeserved grace before the foundation of the world.

Then why preach the Gospel? Because God not only ordains (predestines) the ends but He also ordains (predestines) the means by which He accomplishes those ends. God has ordained the means of the preaching of the Gospel to save His elect, and He works in our hearts to will and to do of His good pleasure to accomplish His ordained ends. God is glorified by both the means and the ends He ordains.

Reformed author A.W. Pink makes an instructive point. Scripture says that no one was able to take the life of Jesus until it was His time. Then why did Joseph and Mary have to take the baby Jesus and flee to Egypt to save the Child's life from Herod? Ah, but this was God's appointed (ordained) means for preserving the life of His Son.

Scripture shows that God can have contrasting wills: one will that is non-sovereign (or non-effectual) and another will that is sovereign (or effectual) towards the same object. However, God cannot have two contrasting sovereign wills towards the same object.

For example, God says in Scripture that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezekiel 33:11), but we also know from Scripture concerning God that His counsel will stand and that He will do all His pleasure (or purpose) and that He works all things after the counsel of His Own will (Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11). Thus, from one perspective God does not desire (or will) the death of the wicked and this must be His non-sovereign (or non-effectual) will or otherwise the wicked would not have died in their sins, but we also know from other Scriptures that God wills or ordains the death of the wicked that He may be glorified in exercising His righteous power and judgment against evil and sin. This, then, is His sovereign (or effectual) will.

Although God's purpose is in everything He ordains, His heart is not. For example, God ordained evil (although He cannot do evil) but God's heart is not in the evil that He ordains. His purpose, however, is. Nothing can happen (including sin and evil) unless God ordains it because nothing can happen outside of His power and Scripture confirms this abundantly (i.e. Ephesians 1:11, Acts 17:28). Nothing can come into existence or continue in existence apart from God's power. Evil cannot and does not come from God's nature but God can use the evil in the nature of fallen humanity to accomplish His purposes.

How could evil originate by God's sovereign decree or will without God being the author of it? If God withdraws His grace then angel and man can do nothing but sin. Good is only possible by God's grace for God is the only source of good. God was not morally obligated to uphold Adam from morally and spiritually falling. When God's grace was withdrawn and Adam was left to himself then Adam instantly acquired an evil nature which could do nothing but sin. Again, although the evil nature in fallen men and angels exists and is directed by God's power, evil does not in any way originate from God's moral nature or being. In ordaining evil God is not doing evil. As absolute sovereign of the universe God has His rights. There is much mystery here, but the Scriptures unequivocally teach God as being absolutely sovereign over all His creation. God only ordained the existence of evil to serve His purposes not because He delights in evil or because it is a reflection of His nature.

A careful reading of Romans 9:22-23 shows the reason for God ordaining reprobation - so that He may make known the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy which He ordained beforehand for glory. That reprobation glorifies God's justice is true but the primary reason given in Romans 9:22-23 for reprobation is so that the vessels of mercy may know - appreciate - the riches and depths of God's undeserved grace towards them.

We see again and again in Scripture that from one perspective God has one attitude but from another perspective He has a different attitude towards the same object. From one perspective He loves the same object but from another perspective He hates the same object. He even told us in certain cases to have such contrasting attitudes (i.e. In Scripture Jesus says we are to love our mother and father from one perspective but yet from another perspective He tells us whoever does not hate father and mother for His sake is not worthy to follow Him). God is not being egotistical. Truth demands that the Creator be the Center of our lives!

Of course, God has not given us the right to have every feeling, emotion, and intention that He possess in relation to others (i.e. Scripture teaches that vengeance for personal wrongs committed against us belong to God and not for us to take into our hands).

These are just some brief thoughts on the subject. The reader may find some excellent books in a Christian bookstore giving more in-depth analysis from Scripture. An excellent booklet and introduction to the subject of God's sovereign grace in salvation is "The Five Points of Calvinism" by WJ Seaton which is published by The Banner of Truth Trust. Another excellent, and probably the best book on the subject, is Arthur W. Pink's classic work "The Sovereignty of God" also available through The Banner of Truth Trust.

Are you a Christian? Will you then give God's grace all the credit for your genuine faith in Christ?

*Some other Internet articles by the author are: "Why The Traditional View of Hell Is Not Biblical," "Early Christianity Before The Papacy," "Free Will and Sovereign Grace," "Christ Was Begotten, Not Created," "Artificial Life By Intelligent Design," "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth!," "Creationists Right On Entropy, Evolution," "Are There Natural Limits To Evolution?," "Where Are All The Half-Evolved Dinosaurs?" The most up-to-date versions of these and other articles may be accessed at: Babu G. Ranganathan's Articles.




If you have any views visit the discussion board.

Related Articles
    Why America Doesn't Need Foreign Oil
    The Woman Who Couldn't Become President
    Why Genetic Similarities Don't Prove Evolution!
    Do Corporations Owe Anything To Society?
    Why Obama Won't Separate From His Pastor
    Fossil Doesn't Support Bat Evolution!
    Legacy of African Slavery Still With Us
    Tribal Warfare Hinders Progress in Kenya
    Understanding Intelligent Design Theory
    Many Indian Christians Are Suffering!
    How All The Races Came from Adam and Eve
    How Do Egg Yolks Turn into Chickens?
    Where Are All the Half-Evolved Turtles?
    Natural Laws Vs. Intelligent Design?
    What Is Liberal Theology?
    Scientists Are Not Creating Life!
    The Genetic Boundaries of Evolution
    Rational Christian Response to Ayn Rand
    Jerusalem: The Babylon of Revelation of 14:8?
    Any Life on Mars Came from Earth!
    Have Scientists Created Life?
    Christ Fulfilled The Sabbath!
    Modern Israel Not Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy
    Madonna and The Cross
    Egypt: The Land of Ham
    Where Are The Half-Evolved Chipmunks?
    In Nature But Not Invented By Nature
    Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree!
    Popular Misconceptions About Hell
    Christ Was Begotten, Not Created!
    The Christian Response to Homosexuals
    Evolutionists Wrong About Entropy
    On Real Black History
    God and Science
    Traditional Doctrine of Hell Has Greek Roots
    The Facts of Life Reviewed
    Are There Natural Limits To Evolution?
    Tale of Two Dogs
    Israel and The Land
    Science and a Young Earth
    Creationists Right on Entropy, Evolution
    Negro Slavery and The Myth of Ham's Curse
    Where Are All The Half-Evolved Dinosaurs?
    How Does My DNA Work?
    Common Misconceptions on Evolution
    Intelligent Design On An Another Planet?
    Entropy: Enemy of Evolution?
 

 

 

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology from Bob Jones University. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author's articles have been published in various publications including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul Times. The author's website may be accessed at: http://www.religionscience.com.

Did Hagee Get A Bad Rap?

May 27, 2008

Joel Mowbray reports: The bum rap against John Hagee

 

Joel Mowbray first took a look at the recent controversy regarding Pastor John Hagee in a Washington Times column addressing Frank Rich's attack on Hagee. Attacks on Hagee have continued, leading Senator McCain to repudiate Hagee's endorsement. In the attacks, Hagee is postulated as the right-wing analogue of Jeremiah Wright: What Wright is to Obama, Hagee is to McCain. Mowbray now returns to provide perspective on the latest installment of the controversy over Pastor Hagee. Joel writes:
The long knives are out for Rev. John Hagee. The fiercely pro-Israel evangelical leader is being branded a bigot—again—but this time the media have tagged him with the worst possible association: Hitler. 

Granted, Hagee himself raised the specter of Hitler in a sermon reportedly from a decade ago that was recently dredged up by a left-wing blogger, in which he said that God sent Hitler and “allowed” the Holocaust to happen “because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

Far from the ugly media-driven perception that Hagee was justifying—or even somehow praising—the Holocaust as Heaven-sent, he was actually trying to answer the question with which countless rabbis and survivors have grappled ever since: How could there be both an all-powerful God and the unimaginable horrors of the Holocaust?

While anyone could rightly be outraged at his theology or even his apparent hubris in purporting to know God’s motives, it cannot be said that he is anti-Semitic. The charge, in fact, is completely counter to what is most beautiful about Rev. Hagee’s ministry, that it has been so dedicated to combating Christian anti-Semitism.

At an intimate, probing one-on-one interview this March at a public gathering in Los Angeles, Hagee talked about how, as a young man, he was profoundly impacted by reading The Anguish of the Jews, by a Roman Catholic Priest named Father Edward H. Flannery. The book chronicles over two thousand years of anti-Semitism, going back to before the time of Jesus. It was, Hagee explained, a dark side of history to which he had not been exposed in all his theological studies.

Hagee was so haunted by the sins committed against Jews in the name of Christianity, he said, that he felt it was his calling to purge anti-Semitism from Christendom. Untold numbers of Christians have felt called by God to do many wonderful things, but it would seem too few have had the same yearning as Hagee. Which is precisely why Hagee for so long has worked to rally other Christians not just to support Israel, but the Jewish people.

What got Hagee in hot water with the Catholic League this spring was his teachings on historical anti-Semitism. The problem for Hagee was that he weaves those lessons with Biblical references from the Book of Revelations that have long been used by some Protestants to bash Catholics.

In the infamous YouTube video clip that helped spawn the Catholic controversy, Hagee used the Biblical term “Great Whore,” which is what those overtly anti-Catholic Protestants have labeled the Catholic Church. Hagee, though, was citing it as the representation of the “apostate church,” which he believes is made up of all Christians who turn their backs on their faith—and he repeatedly preaches that one of the surest ways to do that is to engage in anti-Semitism.

That Hagee never actually called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore” was chalked up as meaningless, since other genuinely bigoted Protestants had used that Biblical term to smear Catholics. While that certainly makes for a nice shortcut, it ignores Hagee’s actual record. He is, no doubt, quite vociferous in his criticisms of the past sins committed by the Catholic Church against Jews.

Curiously overlooked by the media, however, is that he has been arguably even harsher in his condemnations of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestant Christianity whom Hagee cites as the most direct influence on Hitler.

A prominent theme in Hagee’s ministry, from his sermons to his books, is that the Holocaust was not an historical aberration, but rather merely the largest and most lethal manifestation of hatred against Jews. So the reverend devotes what, compared to other Christian ministers, would be seen as inordinate effort to reminding his followers of the Holocaust, as well as the many other disgraceful actions perpetrated against Jews.

Which brings us back to the “Hitler” sermon. Hagee, like millions of other evangelical Christians, believes in an active, all-powerful God. When you preach often about the Holocaust, you had better give your followers an explanation of the Holocaust that fits with a theology revolving around an all-powerful Almighty—not a natural marriage.

The answer Hagee offered his followers in the now-controversial sermon was that it was fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, specifically the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah’s about hunters and fishers. This is hardly a commonplace interpretation, but that’s all it was. Hagee, like countless rabbis and survivors over the years, was simply trying to offer a reason for how the Holocaust could happen in a world with an omnipotent God.

One rabbi—specifically the one who knows him best, longtime friend Aryeh Scheinberg—believes that Hagee’s theology isn’t loony at all. “Pastor [Hagee] interpreted a Biblical verse in a way not very different from several legitimate Jewish authorities,” Rabbi Scheinberg said Friday at a joint press conference with Hagee in San Antonio on Friday. “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.”

Scheinberg, who leads a modern Orthodox congregation in Hagee’s hometown and has counted the minister as a friend for almost 30 year, defended his friend by pointing to words written during the Holocaust. “No less an authority than the author of the Eim Habanim Semeichah, 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.’”

To be sure, Hagee spoke with a certitude many will understandably find offensive, as the obvious objection is that no man can read the mind of God. Fair enough. But that reasonable theological dispute in no way renders Hagee’s sermon anti-Semitic.

Stripped of context, a sermon claiming that Hitler was sent by God is indeed jarring. McCain heard it and ducked for cover. He’s a politician, and it’s not his job to know the truth; it merely is to know the perception. Not so for the media. In an ideal world, anyway, journalists should be in search of the truth.

In the real world, sadly, most journalists are too busy—and lazy—to meaningfully research Rev. Hagee’s theology and documented teachings. Even given this reality, however, it might seem appropriate that before rushing to reduce 40 years of a man’s career down to a headline-worthy Hitler association, the media ought to spend 40 minutes to see if they’re actually getting the story right.