Hagee, Wright and double standards

John McCain sought out and enthusiastically accepted John Hagee's endorsement. I don't know what John McCain is thinking so I cannot say to what extent John McCain shares John Hagee's views (but then again neither can you). But I believe that a presidential candidate seeking out and receiving an endorsement means that the candidate is ideologically congenial to the person doing the endorsing.

This is a small collection of the beliefs that John Hagee possesses.

* All Muslims are programmed to kill and we can thus never negotiate with any of them.

* God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin.

* The End Times -- Rapture -- is imminent and the U.S. Government must do what it can to hasten it, which at minimum requires: (a) a war with Iran and (b) undying, absolute support for a unified Israel, including all Occupied Territories

So here are my questions: why would John McCain seek out John Hagee's endorsement if John McCain doesn't share Hagee's beliefs? If McCain is pandering to whom is he pandering? And of course why would John Hagee give his endorsement if John McCain didn't share Hagee's views?

Either Hagee, like Wright, possesses a world view that is so objectionable that he should be jettisoned from polite company and anyone who chooses to associate with him should be equally vilified or he doesn't in which case you should explain why John Hagee's views aren't objectionable. So far Mr. Dreher you haven't done that.

Life is full of double standards and people really are not all upset by them as long as they are double standards that they, themselves, agree with.

Joseph,

McCain benefits from having been in the public spotlight for quite a while, appearing like a moderate Republican. Doesn't mean that he is a moderate Republican. But he has spent over 10 years trying to create that image.

Obama, however, is a relative newbie to this Washington game.

Voter know that when politicians open their mouths, they aren't telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the issues or about themselves. That's why voters read the tea-leaves of guilt by association, to try to get an idea as to who supports this guy and who opposes him.

Does the religious right like McCain or are they luke-warm on him?
Do black nationalists like Obama or do they think he's a sell out?
Do anti-Iraq war folks like Hillary Clinton or do they think that she's no different from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld faction?

You aren't going to get straight forward answers to these questions. That's why guilt by association does impact what voters believe about the candidates.

"Everybody knows that McCain is not a particularly religious man,"

Well I am not sure we know if that is true or not. The more I learn about McCain the more I don't know a whole heck about him or his family. Including they adopted a girl with a cleft pallet from one Mother Teresa places. OR that his sone was digging a jeep out of the mud in IRaq when he won N.H. SO whose knows if McCain is religious or not

Tha being said Hagee is ought after by both dems and republicans because of his Israel stance. I highly doubt thoguh that Hagee will be one of the most trusted advisors as to this always complicated issue

Per elizabeth: "The idea that 400 years of slavery, murder, rape and discrimination...have now been balanced or erased...is remarkable."

Typical Liberalism; it's the same as saying, "2,000 years of slavery, murder, rape, discrimination and cannibalism by one tribe against another can't be balanced or erased."

Obama's problem is that there appears to be a gap between his rhetoric and his reality.

Obama rhetoric said that there is no Blue State America or Red State America, no White America and no Black America, there is only America. But he attended a church for 20 years that asked blacks to pledge their loyalty to Africa, not America, and that argued that America is rotten to the core.

That's not the image that Obama wanted to convey. That's why it's a problem.

No one can dare accuse McCain of being unpatriotic because he's a former POW. Unfairly, in my opinion, he gets a free ride on lots of issues related to national security and even some domestic issues due to the POW in his resume.

Obama never had that advantage. So, being part of a church led by an arguably anti-American pastor, and having donated lots of money to that church and having quoted Wright in his book, the Audacity of Hope, talking about how "White man's greed runs a world in need," that's not helpful at all to Obama's candicacy.

But Obama can still win. It ain't over yet.

Has anyone documented actual quotes of Hagee making anti-Catholic remarks? He claims he's never made any, although he certainly has stated his disagreement with Catholic theology. There is a big difference between being anti another religion's teaching and hating the adherents of that religion.

Steve,

Which association is doing more political damage? Obama's 20 year association with Reverend Wright or McCain's association with Hagee?

I think the clear answer is that Obama has been damaged more and for several reasons.

One is that McCain is more of a "known quantity" in the eyes of the public because he's been on television more times than just about any politician. The other is that McCain does not attend Hagee's church and does not write books quoting Hagee favorably.

Be honest with yourself and admit that Wright and Obama maintained a closer relationship than McCain and Hagee. I'm not saying that I will vote for McCain over Obama this November. In fact, I might vote for neither of them and vote for an alternative, minor party candidate. But let's be honest about these associations. Not all associations are of equal political significance.

"* The End Times -- Rapture -- is imminent and the U.S. Government must do what it can to hasten it, which at minimum requires: (a) a war with Iran and (b) undying, absolute support for a unified Israel, including all Occupied Territories"

I had never heard of Hagee until he endorsed McCain, but rejected Hagee-type theology (dispensationalism) 30 years ago. Nonetheless, this supposed position of Hagee is a shameless misrepresentation, so far as I can tell. Although Hagee believes in an imminent Rapture and believes that certain things are preconditions - nonsense, I'll admit, but widespread nonsense - I don't see any evidence that he has called on the U.S. Government for the purpose of hastening it.

TC- I think the key phrase is "political significance". Obama does not quote Wright (as far as I know) on political issues. He has not incorporated Wright's ideas into his politics. He has not sponsored bills looking into the US Governments involvement in creating AIDS e.g.

Most of these associations have little bearing on what the candidate will do in office. I don't believe McCain will start advocating shooting ATF agents. Obama is not going to start bombing government bldgs. Are these valid reflections of a candidates judgment and character? First, this is how we have been doing this for 20 years now and I do not think it is working that well. Secondly, I believe a better measure is the candidates actual behaviors and the activities/legislation they have worked on. How have they run their campaigns? Thirdly, if we must measure a candidate by his company (and we should), the most important relationships are those POLITICAL relationships they have sought out and formed.

In sum, I think the significance of Hagee, Wright, Ayers, Liddy et al. is their role as sentinels. Does McCain seek out the endorsement of every Catholic hater in the U.S.? If he does then we have an issue. Does Obama hang out with every white hater in America? Then we have a problem.

To put this further in context for myself I voted for Bush twice and keep wondering how I misjudged so badly. Like the military I may be fighting the last war again. I think maybe we should look at how politicians make their money as a better test than most of this other stuff. That's a much better test of what they really believe.

Steve

Steve,

To put this further in context for myself I voted for Bush twice and keep wondering how I misjudged so badly. Like the military I may be fighting the last war again. I think maybe we should look at how politicians make their money as a better test than most of this other stuff. That's a much better test of what they really believe.

I don't think you have misjudged badly. Bush and Cheney have done mostly what I wanted them to do (with a few exceptions):

(1) Cut taxes on capital formation.
(2) Nominate conservatives to the federal judiciary.
(3) Topple foreign regimes that are hostile to the United States.
(4) Support free trade agreements.

Now, there are areas where I wish Bush could have been more effective. But quite often the real blame falls on Congress, the former Republican Congress and the current Democrat Congress.

For example, the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010. Bush has been correct in asking Congress to make these tax cuts permanent. Instead, the Democrat Congress blathers a lot about the state of the economy, but doesn't do what it should do to stimulate it: make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

On spending, Bush has been a disappointment. But again, the Democrats in Congress actually want to spend more, not less on social-welfare programs than Bush does. When Bush proposed reducing the rate of growth in Medicaid, "moderate" Republicans and Democrats in the Senate defeated those proposals.

My criticism of Bush on foreign and national security policy isn't that he is too hawkish with enemies of the US. I supported taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussain in Iraq. I wish he would get tougher with Iran.

I disagree with Bush on immigration. But, again, Democrats and McCain are just as liberal as Bush on that issue.

So, overall, Bush looks to be more conservative than about 70 percent of the members of Congress and more willing to use the US's military power to take down America's enemies than 70 percent of the members of Congress.

I'd say it is the American people who have become complacent about defeating America's enemies abroad and forgetful about the damage done by creeping socialism at home who have misjudged.

The averager American voter does not know much about economics, history or foreign policy. That's why Bush's approval rating is low. Not because he is a bad president, but because the American electorate lacks wisdom and knowledge. So, they turn against the good guys, Bush and Chency, instead of the bad guys, Pelosi, Reid, McCain and Ted Kennedy.

I realize that "good guys" and "bad guys" oversimplifies things. But the point is that the voters have misjudged by moving America to the Left, when it needs to move more to the right.

Do people honestly think that Barack Obama shares Wright's views? Seriously? Wouldn't someone, somewhere have overheard him espousing such views a long time ago?

The condition some people are experiencing is called paranoia. It's treated with medication and counseling.

Steve,

You say that Obama does not quote Wright on political issues.

But Obama, in his book, "The Audacity of Hope," did quote Wright from a sermon (called "The Audicity of Hope") where Wright says things like.....

"White man's greed runs a world in need."

Now, you might say, "That is not a political statement." But it does seem to be political in some sense. It seems to depict a world where the attitudes of the white man is at variance with the needs of the world. In other words, those bumpkins who live in Pennsylvania are the problem, a problem that must be "solved."

If Obama didn't agree with Wright, why did Wright's sermon play such a large role in Obama's book?

There a is a huge difference between a 20 year relationship and a single endorsement. One can not even compare the relationships regarding Hagee/McCain and Obama/Wright. Except maybe that the people Hagee pastors too are the same ones out their clinging to religion and guns.

My thoughts are that you will have better chances arguing with a crack addict than trying to change the minds of some of the people who are trying to equate Hagee-McCain with Obama-Wright.

It's become the new take-down-McCain mantra: "John Hagee!" "John Hagee!" "John Hagee!"

(At least until something less tenuous comes along.)

What do Hagee and McCain share besides the same first name and a desire to have access to the White House (and a love for good barbecue, I assume on Hagee's part)? Not much.

"Ask yourselves: is that the election decision process you want to place people in power over your lives?"

No, it's not. I'm worried that the Democratic machine is going to place Obama in power over our lives.

I'm a white guy married to a lovely black lady and I don't ever worry about saying anything offensive in front of her or her family. I have no speech code.
It seems like conservatives would like to express some interesting feelings and resent that they cannot. If you disrespect in your heart, sure you're gonna be tip-toeing and feeling awkward.
Do these white conservatives have to tip-toe around their white counterparts? No, because they see them as equals.
Regardless of Wright's faults, and I certainly think they exist, he probably helped lead Obama to Christ. Why doesn't he get credit for that? Isn't that what really matters in the end?
I think Obama defined himself as the smartest electable candidate by opposing the Iraq quagmire back when he was running for Senate.
If you're a true conservative you know that Dick Cheney's notions of 'empire' are gonna bankrupt our country. We can't be the 'world police' for oil. McCain still doesn't get it.

"it's also completely clear that John McCain, whatever else his faults (and they are many), does not share Hagee's views on Catholics. The picture is far murkier on Obama and Wright's views."

There we go -- now you've got it! Murkiness! There's a concept that will sell. Is that because murkiness is in the eye of the beholder?

Let's face it, Rod. You're consumed with this issue because Obama makes you feel good about your country (you know the quote), but he's a liberal -- one of THOSE people -- not one of 'US'. So you use whatever comes along to encourage yourself to see the murkiness of Obama. (That's what it looks like to me).

Never do you explain how this murky influence has affected his policy or his personal life. You simply keep describing him as a question mark -- unknowable -- MAYBE NOT ONE OF US!!!

You might learn more if you'd read what he has written and listen to what he has said. But it appears to me that what you pay attention to is mostly that which you see as contributing to his murkiness.

Fine. But your role of journalist (which I believe you claim) is weakened by such behavior.

Yes, I am calling you to different behavior.

McCain began attending a Baptist church after marrying Cindy McCain in 1980 and moving to Arizona. At North Phoenix Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, McCain was attracted to the pastor’s message "that we’re all sinners, but we can benefit from God’s grace if we recognize those sins and move forward," he said.

John McCain's pastor (i.e., his personal equivalent of Jeremiah Wright):

North Phoenix Baptist Church:

www.npbc.org/index.php

Dan Yeary (Pastor)

Currently: Pastor at North Phoenix for 13 years

Prior Pastorate: Coral Gables,Florida for 18 years

Family: Wife - Melinda; Son - Wes, Director, FCA National Chaplain Training Center, Auburn University; Daughter - Missy, pastor's wife to Steve Wells, Houston, Texas; Son - Doak, Dade County firefighter, Miami, Florida

Hobby: golf

Favorites: Chocolate chip cookies and butterscotch pie, Auburn football, Suns basketball, Diamondbacks baseball

TC- You probably wont see this but I do not share your positive view of Bush. His foreign policy has been bad for its timing, ineptitude and choices. I think that we were going to need an eventual military confrontation with Saddam. However, how can anyone who has studied history not have understood what a problem Afghanistan represents? We should not have gone to Iraq until we were through in Afghanistan. There was no pressing need. When we went to Iraq, we needed a coherent plan for after the initial invasion. Original plans going back to Zinni called for at least 20 battalions of military police. We should have immediately set watch on the borders and begun a diplomatic initiative against Iraq and Syria. Last and not least, while we spend lives and money the rest of the world leaves us behind. China and India grow and make inroads into places where we should be growing.

On the domestic front I am most concerned about our debt. The debt has grown consistently under conservative presidents since Reagan (including Reagan). Blaming it on someone else does not fly anymore. What happens if the country faces a real crisis? A real symmetrical war? Our single best military asset has been our economy. The tax cuts being made permanent would appear to me (just looking at the data and not what you want to believe) will just increase our debt. When did being a conservative mean writing hot checks, to borrow a phrase? I agree on free trade and am neutral on the judges. I think Supreme Court Justices should be limited to ten years TBH. I am also disappointed that he did not succeed with immigration reform in any way. He did not tackle Social Security and Medicare.

As to your other points, if Obama went there for 20 years and now believes as Wright does as you fear, it should be easy to find evidence. I have not seen any.

Steve

"The reason many people don't understand this about Obama and are adamant about equating O and Wright is because 1) Obama comes from the left and 2) because he's black. Black folks are often held responsible for -- or at the very least being questioned about -- the comments/actions of other, unrelated black folks. Why? My take is that we are generally seen as being less patriotic, and also because we are often (not always) viewed as being members of our tribe first, before we are seen as individuals."

The Cornell Law Review published an article about a study of race and gender bias. They were interviewed by Andrew Romano for the Newsweek website. There were some interesting conclusions reached in that study that supports your remarks, bd_rucker.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/12/expertinent-the-political-psychology-of-race-and-gender.aspx

"Q: You said before that "credentials help white applicants a lot more than they help black applicants." Does that mean that Obama shouldn't recite specific accomplishments and resume points?

R: The data suggests that it doesn't help black job applicants, and that it wouldn't help him. According to the research, adding resume credentials helps white applicants much more than black applicants. So if his campaign starts to be about what he's done, it won't help."

" There was a study that came out a couple of years ago titled "American Equals White." And what it showed was that at the implicit level people tend to correlate whiteness with Americanness as opposed to blackness with Americanness. What's more, studies of the 2008 election have shown that when you prime individuals with images of the American flag--at a subliminal level, so you just flash is for a millisecond--it has a tendency to make white individuals show less liking toward Barack Obama. This harkens back to question of Obama not wearing the American flag pin and the accusations that he failed to put his hand over his heart during the singing of the national anthem. This stuff is tricky for him, especially considering that some opponents are questioning his patriotism. If images of Americanness make white Americans see Obama as less American at the implicit level--while at the explicit level rivals are questioning his patriotism--then he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't."

" Obama, for one, cannot afford to address these things head on. If he gets up and says XYZ is racist and calls people on the carpet about race issues, it will only hurt him. The data supports this view. Studies suggest that when you press people on their gender-stereotypical biases, they kind of laugh it off. Because it's not such a hot issue. They're like, "Whatever. I'm not sexist." But if you press them on their racial biases, particularly in regards to blacks, one of two things happens. If they're low on explicit racial prejudice, they become contrite, apologetic, they want to know what they can do to overcome it. But if they are high on explicit racial bias, they become angry and antagonistic. When you accuse whites who harbor certain levels of racism of racist behavior, it actually makes them angry towards you. And that's why Obama can't afford to push back. He has to acknowledge and affirm that he's black so as not to alienate black voters, but he can't do it in such a way as to raise anxieties among white voters."

An interesting interview, and there were definitely examples of these patterns of behavior played out in our nation over the past few weeks.

"(Has ALL of America forgotten that there aren't supposed to be ANY religious tests to hold political office ???) recovering ex-Pentecostal

Hey, rec, not being from here you may not know that that prohibition in the Constitution of the United States does not apply to Democrats in the Senate when trying to destroy by calumny and general Socialist buffoonery, Catholic candidates for the Supreme Beings Court.

Eric...are you a Christian? Posted by: RJohnson | May 5, 2008 8:02 PM

I'll answer that question when you answer the questions I posed re: Wright allegedly leading Obama to Christ, a meaningless allegation without more specifics. After all, Jimmy Carter's sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, "helped lead Larry Flynt to Christ."

(And if you have been reading Rod's blog for any length of time, you know the answer to your question.)

Eric...are you a Christian? Posted by: RJohnson | May 5, 2008 8:02 PM Why so reluctant to speak regarding your faith, Eric? Are you denying Christ?

RJohnson, you've presented me with the perennial conundrum. I.e., do I respond to you according to Proverbs 26:4, or according to Proverbs 26:5?

Well, I guess it'll be Proverbs 26:5, so I'll ask you:
* Why are you so reluctant to answer my questions?
* What does it mean to help lead someone to Christ?
* Who is Christ?
* Can you list the things Barack Obama has said and done that show that he has been "led to Christ," and what the terms "Christ" and "being led to Christ" mean for him?

Answer these, and I'll answer your question(s).

Do any of you find it odd that John McCain claims to have been a member of a Southern Baptist church but has not been baptized?

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/septemberweb-only/139-52.0.html

"McCain said he enjoys North Phoenix Baptist because he considers "the message and fundamental nature more fulfilling than I did in the Episcopal church." There's just one catch: McCain has so far refused the eponymous Baptist symbol. His wife and two his children have been baptized, but McCain has not. "I didn't find it necessary to do so for my spiritual needs," McCain explained. Nor did his pastor regard baptism by immersion to be a requirement for church membership."

Not a requirement for church membership? Not necessary for his spiritual needs? Would a Southern Baptist minister actually counsel someone like this, in complete denial of the Baptist Faith and Message?

www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

"Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."

A prerequisite to the privileges of church membership...sounds pretty straightforward to me. Why would McCain say that his pastor told him it was not a requirement?

Within the Southern Baptist churches, baptism is the first act of obedience for a believer, a public witness of the change that has taken place in the new believer's life. The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus are played out in the immersion baptism of the believer. It does not convey salvation, but it is a public witness of one's salvation experience. And it is most definitely a requirement for membership in the church.

How can McCain be considered a member if he has not submitted to believer's baptism in accordance with Baptist Faith and Message? Why would a Southern Baptist minister worth his salt deny something as basic as the necessity of believer's baptism? Is he also opening the Lord's Table to McCain, in further violation of the BF&M?

Yes.

Not on this blog. Meet me for coffee in Dallas and we'll talk about it.

Eric W: (In answer to my inquiry if he is a Christian) "Yes."

RJohnson: Thank you. Can you offer any proof?

Eric W.: Not on this blog. Meet me for coffee in Dallas and we'll talk about it.

I'm curious how you could offer anything more than what Obama offered, and why that cannot be stated here on this blog.

Romans 10:8-13

This is the message of faith that we proclaim: if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation. Now the Scripture says, No one who believes on Him will be put to shame, for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on Him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

The message of Scripture is clear, Eric. Those who confess Jesus as Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead will be saved. Obama made such confession in the interview with Christianity Today.

Why must I come to Dallas for you to do the same?

LOL...thankfully I do not have to rely on my rusty skills in Greek to translate that. Thank you for posting it. That answers any question I may have as to your faith in Jesus.

I'm curious, though. Given what Obama has stated numerous times about his faith in Christ, why that seems insufficient to satisfy you?

Me: I'm curious, though. Given what Obama has stated numerous times about his faith in Christ, why that seems insufficient to satisfy you?

Eric: It satisfies me. I hadn't read the Xianity today interview; I was just off-the-cuff responding to the statement that Wright is to be commended for helping lead Obama to Christ, because that statement alone without knowing what/Who/how/etc. Obama was so led, and what that meant to Wright and to Obama, was too insubstantial/vague/generic, IMO.

Ah...understood. Thanks for the dialogue on this.

Thanks for posting that, meh. Looks like I have an appointment at the library tonight! That short portion got me hooked.

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/05/roland.martin.05.05/index.html

THAT is supposed to be serious commentary?

What a load of codswallop.

Oh, it's CNN. No wonder.

"Typical Conservatism; it's the same as saying, "2,000 years of slavery, murder, rape, discrimination and cannibalism by one tribe against another aren't worthy of discussion."

Of course, that depends on who was eatin' whom and who wants to talk about it.

Q.E.D., Cleveland: (anecdotally confirmed) any non-Christian group trying to get "faith-based initiative" aid during Bush's first term was routinely denied. I know of many such groups who, upon seeing that, simply refrained from applying for it.

As for military bases: established structures have been and still are "monopolized" (for want of a better term) by Christians. Jews tend to find welcome in them, but that's it so far as I've heard and read. Besides, for a group who sees all the world a cathedral, and the bosom of nature all the altar they need, why shouldn't they receive a simple okay to perform ritual in private on base grounds? Could it be (gasp) that they might possibly raise demons, or put the local Mr. and Mrs. Grundy's noses out of joint?

2000-OCT-30: TX: Desecration of Wiccan ritual site.

Excerpt: The motivation for this vandalism is unknown. It might be related to statements by Representative Barr (R-GA) and Governor Bush (R-TX) that Wiccans should not be allowed the same religious privileges as the followers of other faiths on army bases. It might be related to a local Baptist minister who allegedly said that the army should napalm Wiccans. Feelings run high against Wiccans among the Christians in and around Kileen.

Whatever motivated the vandals, one thing was clear: the ritual received command approval. Further deponent sayeth not...

Yes, my friend. This is in the past. Indeed, some things have improved a bit since then. But some things haven't... For Gods and Country: The Army Chaplain Who Wanted to Switch to Wicca? Transfer Denied.

I can speak for nearly all Wiccans, there being some dispute in some details (and whether they are important):

1) Wiccan magic (more commonly magick) is the direct equivalent of prayer in monotheistic traditions. Please note that I am not saying they are the same, but that they hold the same place in the practices and intended results thereof. A major difference is that a Wiccan will not (for example) offer healing magick to a person unless that person has give consent to receive it. This may seem odd or even silly, but they take it seriously. There's more to say about this, but it's a lot more. I'll post more if you ask it. I will also note that a Wiccan casting a spell of prosperity can have the same immature motivation as (say) a Christian praying to win the lottery.

2) Aside: not all witches are Wiccan; not all Wiccans practice witchcraft. With #3: demons and Satan are specific to the Christian mythos, and their common usage to which pagans in general object is when they are a projection of Christian beliefs on the faith and practices of others. Satanists (Anton LaVey, Temple of Set) deliberately use Christian mythos and terms, and with provocation in mind will practice the criminal acts you list (excluding private nudity from that list). Wiccans are not Satanists, do not worship anything even close to Satan (see also the connections between Satan and deities like Pan), and are not criminals. When you describe such things, you are not describing Wiccans.

Of all the things one might object to, "prancing around in the nude" is the only one that deserves respect vis a vis Wicca. It is always done in private, never includes legal minors (most groups I know of require proof of age 21), and use it only once or twice per year, if that. I know of only two groups, specific covens numbering in the tens or less, that practice what is called the Grand Rite, which may include symbolic or actual copulation. They do not advertise, and they are if anything more private than other groups.

Wiccans, as a group, have demonstrated their patriotism by enlisting in the military. A key tenet in Satanism is the primacy of the ego, and as such I would be profoundly shocked to find a true Satanist performing military duty, at least not voluntarily.

It's a slow and painful process, my friend, and some of us do make the effort:

http://dvpn.org/

http://pagan-arts.org/

Your view of the situation is rather precise, and I am humbled by your effort and your understanding.

BTW, the witch -- if she really is a witch by the standards I've described -- will neither introduce herself that way nor offer spells of any sort. She is more likely to be fearful of vandalism, threats and actual attempts of violence on her person and property. Chances are good that she'd be a kick-ass babysitter, though... ;-D