Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Hagee Demands YouTube Remove 120 Videos of Him »

Posted by: Neophile 2 months ago

8.9

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 173

Propped: 91

Comments: 67

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Late last week, with no prior notification, lawyers for the controversial evangelist John Hagee had a series of videos concerning the pastor removed from YouTube.

Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 67

KvilleTXComment removed: User banned.31 Replies
- 0%
  jaxguy2 months ago
  
  haha, this post is funny. alright TX you don't like gays and you luuuv Hagee, even had to apologize about it. you know i thnk hagee has an affection for hitler, you like hitler too? man, if only the world were square and everyone was the same, wouldn't that be ... LAME!!
  Reply
- 0%
  CRYMTYPHON2 months ago
  
  Questions for KvilleTx:
  How many gay people have you known?
  Of the people you know, how many would tell you they are gay?
  If you like someone and then find out they are gay, do you no longer like them?
  Do you think being gay is genetic or a choice? If it is a choice, do you consider someone 'gay' if they are just tempted to be gay?
  __________...
  I am asking not to mock what you said; I actualy would like to know the answers. But this is starting to look like an exam so I will give it a rest.
  
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    Mdiar2 months ago
    
    Good questions. You probably won't get an answer, unfortunately.
    Reply
- 0%
  antibrainwasher2 months ago
  
  Its scientifically proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that people who hate gays, ARE gay.
  You are afraid of yourself, kvtexas. You are just one more in an army of brokeback texasans, out there riding fences, yearning to smoke some pole.
  Vote republican, vote to promote kvtexas to a policy making position in McSenior's army of christian gay zionists for antigay christ. A god bless this for profit for sale rightwing gaybashing pole smoking religious wrong.
  Reply
  18 Replies
  - 0%
    Mdiar2 months ago
    
    "Its scientifically proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that people who hate gays, ARE gay."
    Uhhh... no. Bigotry in general needs little reason. You can't prove that statement you made. You just can't. For one thing, that is a branch of psychology you are mentioning. The study of the human mind and what motivates us to do things has very few absolutes. This makes it a very soft science. Its why it takes so long to treat mental illnesses with medication, because not all minds are alike and work the same. Different combinations of medication work for different people. In fact this reason for differences in how the mind work is why we have homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality.
    I think you were kidding with this statement. But I see you posting other outrageous things on other subjects from time to time, I just thought I'd be safe and post this.
    Reply
    17 Replies
    - 0%
      Mdiar2 months ago
      
      Oh, and yes, some people who are homophobic are battling latent feelings of their own. But not all. Some people are just bigots. Not an excuse, just a fact.
      Reply
      16 Replies
      - 0%
        Goppy2 months ago
        
        Yeah, I believe that anti was hyperbolatin a bit.
        But it is an amazingly large preponderance of Homo-phobes who are that way because they have fought those inclinations in themselfs.
        Whenever I hear somebody rail against gays ... I just figure he or she is struggling with their own sexual identity.
        When they talk liek Kville ... I simply CONCLUDE they are "In The Closet".
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        Its hard to tell with that poster sometimes. I think you should look at a few factors, like do they hate some other group that is different from themselves? If so then its a pretty good chance its just the garden variety bigot. It not, then I'm more inclined to believe they may be closet homosexual or bisexual.
        Reply
        
        0%
        joeeddie2 months ago
        
        So, are we to assume that you are a closet christian conservative with neo-conservative tendencies?
        I think when someone "rails" as harshly as Kville did, it is not a matter of fighting inclinations. I think it is a learned response that has a deep rooted origin, probably "nurtured" by a parent.
        Either that or they were just looking for a shock factor.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Coatl2 months ago
        
        "are we to assume that you are a closet christian conservative with neo-conservative tendencies? "
        =O He isn't?!!!!
        =P
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        earthlingerer2 months ago
        
        Maybe his gay dad and grandma used to beat him alot.
        Reply
      - 0%
        KISA452a2 months ago
        
        bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
        What are your feelings about pedophiles or murders or rapists? You don't like them and don't tolerate their opinion? Then you are a bigot. This is a poor choice of word, used to demonize people though misuse. I've talked with you before and you are a very intelligent person. Hopefully you'll rethink use of that word :D We are all bigoted, prejudiced, etc. that is how we survive. It is a good trait. When you're walking down a dark ally do you walk by the punks on the left or the police on the right? You might be wrong in your choice, but it is necessary to make one.
        Reply
        10 Replies
        
        0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        Not really. I'm very tolerant of his opinion. I don't mind it. On top of that I would argue that the definition is ANY opinion and that can be used to mean either if you disagree anywhere or it can be read as being intolerant of all opinions. My own opinion on the definition is the one in which you are intolerant of all opinions differing from yours, in other words any deviation from your opinion. Now, what does this dictionary have as the definition?
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
        "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
        That seems to be more in line with the interpretation that ANY deviation from your opinion, no matter where, is bigotry as opposed to simple disagreements on issues.
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        0%
        KISA452a2 months ago
        
        If you have an opinion, you are bigoted. Ostinate just means hard (nothing is abolute) to change the person's mind. Webster adds the polically correct prottected groupings, but rationally it must be exanded to any grouping. Why limit things to "racile or ethnic groups"? The only reason is to make name calling easier and require less thought. Why consider the other opinion when you can just call them names and "win" the argument? Bigot means you have strong feelings.
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        KISA452a2 months ago
        
        Bigot can't mean intolerant of all other opinions or no one is a bigot... There are many who agree with Hagee meaning that he is not intolerant of their opinion making it at logical impossibility for him to be bigoted. On the other hand, I suspect that there is someone with a different view on every issue regardless of what it is. So, if you expand to make it so that disagreeing on every issue with someone menas you are bigoted, then again, everyone is bigoted. And yet we both agree he is bigoted. So, that definition does not work.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        Opinion is a noun.
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion
        Therefore, if two people believe the same thing, they believe the same opinion. They share that opinion and if you are tolerant of that opinion, you are simply being tolerant of your own opinion. Therefore a bigot can be tolerant of the same opinion shown in other people.
        Also, the racial or ethnic minorities is not a prerequisite; it is just a tendency. I certainly consider those who want to censor the opinion of Kville to be bigots as well.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        Also, while I disagree with how you are interpreting "bigot" I also recognize that very few are bigots under my interpretation of the definition. However, one must ask themselves, what is the primary reasoning behind language? To communicate. At a certain point common usage trumps technical meaning, much like the term socialism. Technically speaking, very few nations (if any) are socialistic. However, the common usage has altered the definition, much like bigot.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        KISA452a2 months ago
        
        Bigot is a weak word used to denegrate others. Personally, I think most people are bigots under your definition :D Doesn't really matter. And personally I've never entirely understood socialism, I always use communism as an example. Great in theory, not so much in practice :D
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        If you had to ask me who had the most practical ideas on the economy, I'd say Theodore Roosevelt. I'm far left of Roosevelt ever dreamed of being... socialism and communism are two different things. Socialism is essentially the idea that the worker has the right to own everything. Those who do not physically toil should not gain a cut and is referred to in Marxist theory as dictatorship of the proletariat. It involves quite a bit of wealth redistribution... and is horrible in practice. The USSR was more socialistic then anything else that I an think of, off the top of my head. Not communist, that's for sure. Communism is meant to be the ideal classless society... no one better then anyone else and all valued for the contribution to society and, as you can see, is different from socialism. Neither is really the traditional definitions we think of when we hear the terms, are they? The collectivism each practice can be found in other philosophies, too.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        KISA452a2 months ago
        
        So, the difference is that in socialism you have to work some. Communism you just have to be present?
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        Socialism is meant to be a society in which the worker controls everything, basically. Its a transition stage between capitalism (in which the capitalists control everything) and communism, which is a state in which everyone is equal, regardless of station in life. Or that's what it is in Marxist theory, which is what the terms really go back to in the modern sense, anyway. People nowadays confuse socialism with the concepts of modern liberalism, which is best explained in the four freedom's speech by FDR (or that's my opinion).
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        Anyway, the general point is, go and try argue with a conservative or even a self avowed socialist about what the defining feature of socialism is. Its where the workers control the means of production (and essentially control everything). Alot of people will argue that its taxing and using this tax money to pay for services. I think that's just the job of the government; to maintain a healthy state and to do this you have to tax for some basic things to provide it. Of course, what you spend it on defines alot of our political differences. Modern liberalism believes it should be spent on education, health care and other things like that. Conservatives believe a strong defense and that's roughly it. Both have their points to them.
        Reply
- 0%
  hamy2 months ago
  
  Well, he is obviously not proud of what he said in any of those 120 videos. He is trying to remove the record of his idiocy. If he was proud of what he said in those videos, he would want it to be broadcast around the world.
  You certainly have the right to your opinions Kville, you just have to remember that free speech isn't necessarily free. There are consequences to spewing hatred. Just like people who get fired from their jobs for making remarks like yours.
  You must not be real proud of what he says either. You only latched on to one of his hateful diatribes.
  Go march at a soldier's funeral with the Phelps clan in Westboro. Be with people who share your beliefs.
  Reply
- 0%
  Neophile2 months ago
  
  Whoever told you that you have no right to be a bigot is wrong.
  Reply
  6 Replies
  - 0%
    Mdiar2 months ago
    
    Being the libertarian that I am on social issues, he has the right to hate whomever he likes for whatever reason he wishes to. What he lacks the power to do is infringe upon their rights; in other words, he cannot act on that hate in any meaningful way.
    Reply
  - 0%
    Spadecaller2 months ago
    
    I'm bigotted against bigots; and that makes membership on Propeller quite challenging for Jews, Blacks, gays, atheists, Mexicans, Muslims, and women. That is why we are losing so many members.
    Reply
    4 Replies
    - 0%
      Spadecaller2 months ago
      
      By the way, I must be fair; there are "progressives" and "atheists" who also show contempt for all Christians and convervatives on Propeller, I don't condone that either, though it is one's right to be bigotted towards any group. I suppose it has become the American way...huh?
      Reply
      3 Replies
      - 0%
        KISA452a2 months ago
        
        I'm not sure I've seen a truer post :D
        Reply
      - 0%
        chuck-the-canuck2 months ago
        
        "there are "progressives" and "atheists" who also show contempt for all Christians and convervatives on Propeller"
        You are absolutely right, however you failed to mention that in many instances those christians and conservatives are entirely deserving of that contempt.
        Conservatives have ruined your country and we have been giving the bible addled much more respect than they deserve for far too long.
        And SC my comments are not intended as an attack, I think you are a very interesting person and would be proud to call you friend. I'm just calling things the way I see them.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Spadecaller1 month, 4 weeks ago
        
        However, we are not in disagreement. If you read my remarks carefully, it simply states that some of the conduct that I deplore comes from both sides of the aisle.
        Yes, I failed to mention many things; that is why I am not a politician.
        
        Reply
- 0%
  spkguy2 months ago
  
  KvilleTX
  Are you Rapture Ready? Like the Christians United for Israel
  If so, IMO, you people are frigging nuts!
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bVXEBaDu98&NR=1
  Reply
0%
antibrainwasher2 months ago

BTW, does it concern anybody rational out there, that the entire USAF, and I do mean entire, are hard right evangelical misogynist psychopathic rapture praying hagee worshipping christian evangelical fundamentalists?
Probably not.
Reply
10 Replies
- 0%
  Dionys2 months ago
  
  It worries me. Not to mention the undue influence the Hagee-psychopaths and 'Evangelicals' have in the Army as well. It's frightening.
  Reply
  9 Replies
  - 0%
    ciera-marie2 months ago
    
    antibrainwasher and Dionys you have left out the US Navy, the US Marines, the Air National Guard, the Army National Guard, and the Coast Guard. Their influence is everywhere. I know that Focus on the Family moved from "the heathen state of CA" to Colorodo Springs, CO across the road or down the street from the Air Force Academy in the early 1990's. Since that time the amount of mega evangelical churches as blossomed. (what some 100 ? How can one city support that many mega churches? Are there even Luthrean, Catholic, and other denominations there? IF so how can their congregations support them all?) There are also some lesser known but just as scary evangelicals around all the bases. Including the Naval and Marine bases. Don't forget about the influence of Opus Dey.
    I think with how the military thrives on order and regimentation evangelical chruches would be attractive.
    Reply
    8 Replies
    - 0%
      Coatl2 months ago
      
      Perhaps they want to spread the gospell across the galaxy trought the Stargate program =P
      Reply
      4 Replies
      - 0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        That's a brilliant idea. Do they have access to Asgard technology, per chance?
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Coatl2 months ago
        
        I hope that they only had access to Asgard tech, that's better than them having Ancient tech. But I wonder if the Ori would like the competition =P
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        Seen the last episode of SG-1 yet? That Asgard tech is just as good as the Ancient stuff if the Ori are any indication of Ancient tech!
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Coatl2 months ago
        
        Yeah I also saw the Ark of Truth, they did kick some Ori butts with Asgard tech!
        Reply
    - 0%
      Dionys2 months ago
      
      Opus Dei doesn't have much military influence. They're just an uber-orthodox branch of the Catholic church who doesn't balk at becoming involved in 'worldly' affairs. Catholic influence in the military is waning as well as there is a decided preference for evangelical protestants as Chaplains.
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        doggammit2 months ago
        
        But there is an indirect historical connection between groups like Opus Dei and the role of "temple scourges" dating back thousands of years. The idea of the "divine warrior" lies at the foundation of modern big box religious organizations but is much older than any of them - save perhaps Hinduism - where it is elaborated into mystical tradition and given a share of priestly sanctimony. Their protective roles become validated by caste and and other religiously oriented assumptions regarding how to go about protecting the holy of holies and projects outward from there. A general set of character assumptions is firmly impressed upon Mithraism, Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs and Christianity - Knights Templar being one example of the general archetype.
        
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        doggammit2 months ago
        
        We claim our armed forces are "secularized" - but that is far from the actual truth. Plurality of faiths, the constitution and the need to keep forces "united" have plenty to do with downplay of any distinct religious trademark. On a grassroots level, organizations like the Salvation Army use military metaphors and actually contribute to early childhood socialization though this model. So, although there is significant interpenetration of religious and secularized notions of war and "holy war" implicit within our society, a hypocritical a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" makes it easy to overlook the obvious sense of sanctimony involved in military institutional life and the arbitrary bias proclaiming God on our side no matter how questionable the conflict. Decay of the soldier's myth has become dangerously threadbare since VIet Nam, Now we are witnessing indirect attempts to revive it via "faith based" initiatives of low order.
        Reply
0%
tehranchik2 months ago

If you were a good and 'holy' man such as Hagee---wouldn't you want your sermons and teaching to reach as many folks as possible? Why remove them from world view? Just think of all the converts he'll miss. I guess when you teach about damnation for other religions it must be for a more exclusive audience.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  flyonthewallzz2 months ago
  
  A mirror of my thoughts.
  Only not reversed or shrunk as mirrors do.
  Reply
0%
Mdiar2 months ago

IMO, the YouTube videos fall under the First Amendment and should not be removed.
Reply
8 Replies
- 0%
  KISA452a2 months ago
  
  "Any material that was produced for John Hagee Ministries or Christian United for Israel was deemed to be a copyright infringement was taken down," said Juda Engelmayer, a spokesman from the firm 5WPR. "Anything that showed John Hagee giving a sermon - because he films and markets those as well - were taken down because they were considered copyright infringements."
  How can this fall under the 1st amendment? You don't get to steal other people's work, I don't think. Publishing things that he sells for a proffit harms his business (theoreticlly) and so is illegal. Or what am I missing?
  Reply
  7 Replies
  - 0%
    Mdiar2 months ago
    
    Is it illegal to show a tape you own to people? If the posters actually own the physical tapes, they can show them to whomever they wish and use whatever medium they wish to do so. Or that would be the basis around my legal argument.
    Reply
    4 Replies
    - 0%
      KISA452a2 months ago
      
      At the start of every movies I watch, there is a disclaimer from the FBI that the videotape is for the enjoyment of the user at home. Not to be used for profit. Or something along those lines. In the same way, if you go to an opera, or other production that is copyrighted (football, etc) or a movie in a theatre, you can not legally tape the performance and share it.
      I guess maybe Hagee missed the legal parts, but since he seems famous and has lawyers and a big following, I'd be suprised to hear that.
      Reply
      3 Replies
      - 0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        Without viewing the tapes I would have to remain unsure on whether he has this or not. I would argue that those who post the video are trying to express themselves in some way and the First guarantees a right to free expression. I would say the First Amendment trumps copy right infringement and I would further argue that the videos should not be removed; however, Youtube could be made to pay a certain amount in royalties to Hagee due to the fact that they are profiting from the videos. Basically, if YouTube can prove it makes no profits from the video, I believe the case is weak under the grounds of the First. YouTube and the poster can express themselves how they wish and use what they wish to do so; if they make money, then Hagee deserves a cut for his participation but he cannot demand removal. However, if YouTube would fail to comply, it could be made to remove the video. Clearly YouTube is making money... therefore, Hagee deserves a cut of some kind.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        KISA452a2 months ago
        
        I am unsure how your idea would work without entirely removing the ability of an owner of intellectual property to control that property. Maybe I'm too traditionalist in my thinking here (me?????), but I think is settled that you can't take someone else's work an use it however you want. Small bits, usually are OK.
        To say people can take a video that should cost $20 for each copy bought and then share it for free on the internet with maybe a 5 cent royalty (how much does YouTube make? how much is due directly to these videos? I bet it would be hard to conclude that much money is due to them) seems preposterous. But, again, maybe that is my traditionalist thought.
        Out of curiosity, if the disclaimer were not there, I don't think (I'm no lawyer, so not certain) that this would give the viewer/user more rights...
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Mdiar2 months ago
        
        I'm not sure if it would or not. I'm not certain how much it makes, either. It must be rather significant and I'm inclined to believe YouTube would just remove the video rather then pay say a dollar for every viewing (that could be significant, potentially). I don't mind the idea of intellectual property; I do mind it when its used to prevent a potentially political message. That could, in my mind, lead to abuses in the future. However, I do recognize abuses exist if we don't do anything or just force royalties of some sort. But at the end of the day... I don't think that anyone will stop this. Its not really possible to stop all the file sharing and other things that are already going on without doing some rather shady stuff. I basically think that the easiest solution is to just agree on royalties, at least that way people won't go downloading it when they can just go to YouTube.
        Reply
  - 0%
    miklkit2 months ago
    
    Hagee is selling things for a profit? Shouldn't he lose his non profit status and have his religious exemption revoked?
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      KISA452a1 month, 4 weeks ago
      
      Of course not. Take a look at the law...
      Reply
0%
LovelyHoney2 months ago

Tehranchik - Good point!
Hagee is just an ignorant racist whose followers are just as ignorant as he is. Most don't even read,let alone study the Bible for themselves. They just go and plop their dumb butts down in a pew and listen to all of HIS self-righteous, bigoted rhetoric. When I see people following a man like Hagee,I understand fully how HITLER came into power.
Furthermore, just "whom" and "what" is Hagee calling "Israel?" The Israel that exists in the Middle East today IS NOT the Israel the Bible is speaking about. The Israel the Bible speaks of WILL include the Palestinians and Hagee and others better realize that. Obama does! And that's why Hagee and the evangelicals don't like him. If there is going to be an Israel, it will be a united Israel with both Jews and Palestinians - and not one ruling over the other.
REMEMBER - the Bible says that Israel, will consist of 12 tribes AND THEY ARE NOT ALL JEWS!
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  Coatl2 months ago
  
  "When I see people following a man like Hagee,I understand fully how HITLER came into power."
  Indeed.
  Reply
0%
Charlson2 months ago

Heavy handed actions usually bring the opposite of their desired effect. This action only reaffirms that Hagee's got some things to hide...at least 120 of them.
Reply
0%
mackiemesser2 months ago

I find this curious. As a pastor of a megachurch and with a broadcasting spot, you would think that he would relish having his sermons reach the largest audience possible. YouTube extends his reach. So what's his problem with that? Curious.
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  Mdiar2 months ago
  
  Money.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    doggammit2 months ago
    
    Money is part of it... but the ability of the far right to galvanize public opinion and forge an iron fist from fingers of hatred, are also at stake. Hagee has had his fingers burned 120 times over and that, coupled with growing insight into his shake oil reduces his effectiveness as a neo con man. I hope these UTube clips resurface. Exposure is the best way to keep adders like him ducked down in their holes.
    Reply
gbilly08Comment removed: User banned.1 Reply
- 0%
  Mdiar2 months ago
  
  No. If it was just trying to hide stuff about him and his views, he wouldn't be selling the tapes in the first place. So its probably just money.
  Reply
0%
Mutainia2 months ago

He wants controvertial videos of him removed from YouTube? Gad, I thought he was a CHRISTian, NOT a Muslim!
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  doggammit2 months ago
  
  He is neither Mut. He is a political opportunist like Pat Robertson and even Billy Graham. All of these so called "holy men" are part of the emperor's regalia. Together they form a symbolic recipe for Dark Age Kool Aid of a particularly American stripe - through ideologically inspired acts far more covert and hypocritical than anything associated with modern Islamic power structures - where church-state collusion is laid out in the open.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    Mutainia1 month, 4 weeks ago
    
    I don't know about that. I mean, IF he's trying to pull videos off of YouTube that have him saying something stupid, he is NO different than Muslims trying to do the SAME with those who are trying to expose what they feel is the TRUE nature of Islam. He and the Muslims on YouTube are NO different in that respect, then. It doesn't matter even if his preaching is sound and his politics ARE not as you say they are, and are actually good. IF he's trying to pull videos, he's like a Muslim trying to silence "investigateislam" on Youtube.
    Reply
KvilleTXComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
- 0%
  Coatl1 month, 4 weeks ago
  
  Curious, there is a lot of people that I don't like, but I don't care if they're gringos, blacks, jews, mexicans, latinos ,mestizos, native american, gay, hetero, bi, catholics, evangelics, atheists, rich, poor, etc. They're just jerks I know. They're jerks because of the way they are no matter what they are.
  Reply