Filmmaker Michael Moore has a lot of guts, not just because he'll attempt a citizen's arrest at AIG and demand taxpayer money be given back immediately – but because he will actually sit face-to-face with right-wing talker Sean Hannity and have what, for Hannity, passes as a reasonable discussion.
Instead of becoming frustrated, yelling, or talking over one another (very minimally, anyway), Moore becomes more and more calm as Hannity begins to ratchet up his rhetoric. Hannity isn't quite sure how to handle this kind of guest and it leads him to make one of the most outrageous statements I think I've ever heard Hannity make – especially when it comes to religion.
Moore and Hannity are discussing what Hannity claims are the "millions" of "Islamic" fanatics who want to attack the United States when Moore guides Hannity down the path to Hannity's amazing religious epiphany:
MOORE: Well, listen, all religions have their fanatics, wouldn't you agree with that?
HANNITY: Some, not all, but most, probably.
MOORE: Including ours? HANNITY: Are you one?
MOORE: I'm a religious fanatic? Yes, I am, actually. I believe that when Jesus said that you're to love your neighbor…
HANNITY: As yourself.
MOORE: … as yourself, you're to love your enemy. Do you love your enemy?
HANNITY: I don't hate you, by the way.
MOORE: Do you love your enemy, though?
HANNITY: Yes, I do.
MOORE: You do?
HANNITY: I do.
MOORE: So you love Al Qaeda, then.
HANNITY: No, I don't love them. I love them in the sense that I want to destroy them.
MOORE: I don't think that's the love Jesus was talking about.
The line between liberal religion and conservative religion could not be made more stark than in this exchange. Turbo-charged, military-loving, conservative Christians watching this exchange probably cheered at Hannity's "love them to death" affirmation of how he understood Jesus' words. Moore, however, is rightly incredulous.
I'm sure Hannity's version of "love your enemy" will be the overarching interpretation written into the new conservative bible, but they're going to have to do some fancy footwork to overcome the Greek word for "love" used in passages like Matthew 5:44. Here the word "agapao" means, according to Strong's Concordance, "to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly." Nothing there about loving someone in the sense that you want to destroy them.
So, no, Hannity does not "love" his enemy – he clearly hates his enemy and yet will proclaim that he is a Christian. But, Hannity doesn't stop digging his own religious grave right there. He continues:
HANNITY: I want them to see — they want to go see Allah, I'm all in favor of giving them a first class ticket if — if they don't respect human life and dignity.
What Jesus is getting at, Mr. Hannity, is that those who truly have respect for human life and dignity understand that it is better to love an enemy than it is to hate them and wish for (or facilitate) their destruction. Hannity is no better than the fanatics he condemns since has no respect for their lives or their human dignity either. What Jesus tells his followers to do is to break the cycle of violence. The forgiveness has to begin somewhere, the love has to start somewhere, and as the Christian hymn goes, "let it begin with me."
Moore, however, isn't finished teaching Hannity the lesson he misses the most in all of this:
MOORE: How do you think Jesus would handle this?
HANNITY: You know, it's an interesting question.
MOORE: How do you think he'd handle this?
HANNITY: You know, Jesus would have the ability to change people's hearts. I don't have his powers. I wish I did.
MOORE: You're on TV every night at 9 o'clock.
HANNITY: Oh, I have all that power, Michael.
MOORE: Well, I mean, you are on TV every night at 9 o'clock.
HANNITY: And you watch every night, I hope.
MOORE: Well, not every night, but I do watch.
HANNITY: All right.
MOORE: And you haven't changed my heart.
Hannity has such power and influence. If he truly understood that he has changed the hearts and minds of many people in this world – and not for the better – perhaps he would begin to choose his words and deeds more carefully. For example, if someone were to take a gun to a church and commence to shooting after reading one or more of my books, I think I would start to choose my words a bit more carefully, but Hannity seems willfully ignorant of his own power. He can use his bully pulpit for evil or for good, and nightly, he chooses to sow seeds of discontent and hatred, then deny that anything he said could lead another person to commit acts of violence and destruction against their perceived "enemies." But, alas, love and peace don't make for good dramatic television which means ratings drop which means profits drop which means Hannity is back to renting an apartment and flying coach. Capitalism, as Moore has described it in his movie, is working for Hannity and he sees no need to change his message. It's easier to change what Jesus meant by "love your enemies" than to change a message that makes you millions of dollars a year.
At its heart, Moore's film is what it is billed as – a love story. The movie is a very real embodiment of Jesus' command to love those who would rather destroy than build up, who would rather horde than distribute fairly, and who would rather cheat than play by the rules. In this interview, Moore gives liberals a road map to deal with the Hannitys of the world. We don't have to scream at them or do fierce battle against them. Instead, calmly call them on their lies, let them unmask themselves for the fakes and frauds that they really are – and continue to love them anyway.
Tags: michael moore, sean hannity
Very nicely said.
When you say that this exchange illustrates "the line between liberal religion and conservative religion" I don't think that's true. I don't think that's the line.
It's the line between the gospel and the powers--the line between the Kingdom of God--which is non-violent love--and Caesar's kingdom--that of coercive death. Hannity isn't merely a "conservative" (what's that mean anyway?), and loving your enemies is not merely "liberal" either. It's radical.
As a metaphysical/philosophical naturalist, I don't have a horse in this particular liberal/conservative race, and have to leave that to those who have more of a vested interest in the outcome. On the other hand, I do live in a country where Christianity is said to be the dominant religion, and it is of interest to me to try to understand what Christianity actually is. It certainly seems to be the case that Christianity has changed a great deal over time and has become many different things, and this seems to me to reflect its human origin, and the lack of anything ultimately true about any of the particular aspects of it. On the other hand, it would seem to me, and someone here can correct me if I'm wrong, but at some point people who profess to be Christians begin to have beliefs that are, well, no longer Christian, I would think. Personally I might say this about, for example, the "Pure Land" Buddhists, who seem to me to have beliefs that are hard to reconcile with what I understand to be the basic tenets of Buddhism. They disagree with me, and that's fine. I feel the same way about the prosperity gospel types, and now the apparently conservative Christians, who appear to have beliefs that are simply not consistent with the faith that they profess. Am I the only person who's interested in this kind of question, or is Christianity such a big tent that it holds even such as this? Is it incorrect to even try to be exclusionary when discussing people who claim to be Christian?
Best wishes from Tucson, Arizona.
Christianity is based on the principle that there is one path to God, and that is the name of Jesus Christ. Christians don't tell outsiders they are superior, but within the group they might affirm that to each other, and they need to keep faith their religion is the only true one. This means lots of different Christian denominations are required because when it becomes clear to the rest of the world that Christianity as a whole has problems, the individual groups can each blame other denominations and reaffirm the closeness of their particular group to God.
Just a question Jim, since you're such an expert. Who the hell are you to say who Christians are/what they do/what they believe all the time? And how do you know what Christianity is "based upon." I assume you've done some sort of deep scholarly studies on Christianity and Christian thought, right? Maybe some sociological studies of the various Christian denominations?
You comment all the time with sagely wisdom, giving your own brand of secular gospel truth as to what Christians are and what religion is. It's very scientific of you to toss out blanket statements like this and all the others you've made without any real evidence other than the major media appearances of the Christian right. Perhaps you saw Jesus Camp and it made you an expert.
I just try to point out the obvious. It is not easy because religions have spent centuries working on ways to stop people from questioning or stating the obvious.
Consider the statement, Christianity believes the world must be destroyed, hopefully in our lifetime, and all those wrong about Jesus must suffer. Some people hate hearing me say that, they think it is crazy and unfair, and they say when they are raptured and I am left behind then I will know how mistaken I have been.
What is so "obvious" about anything you've said? Being an expert, you probably know that the theology of the rapture or dispensationalism is only a couple centuries old, right?
I don't get what the point you're trying to make is, besides your same old "Christians think this, look how bad it is" routine.
In ancient times Christianity might have been "bad" for different ancient reasons, but in my lifetime I think the bad of Christianity comes from them hooking up with the conservatives. When I was young we were fighting a foolish war in Vietnam. Christianity was not to blame because behind the scenes it was the superpowers balancing the power. Now we have the Iraq war and I think Christianity is to blame because they put Bush in power. Lots of loving, caring Christian people voted for Bush because that was what the people in the churches were doing. The people in those christian churches need to open their eyes and see what they have done, and ask the rest of the world for forgiveness. As long as they refuse, they are taking their religion down, and the progressives go with them unless they can figure out some way to distance themselves from conservative Christianity.
Just a few guides might help us as Christians to navigate. The world is a battle between God and Satan and will end after each man has exercised his choice and God has shown that he forces no one. Our job is to keep the image of Christ in our minds, to keep the commandments of God, and to love our neighbor. A big order, but there it is.
Not to be rude or pushy, but I'm still kind of curious. Is there something that a self-professed Christian could do or say that would demonstrate to other Christians that they have by their words or actions opted out of Christianity and become something else. It would seem to me that you could do that, but I'm not talking about becoming a Satanist or something like that. I'm just wondering if there are some aspects of Christianity that you really have to believe, and if you don't, you've actually become something else.
Christianity has always been about the group, so it absorbs all the complications of hundreds of millions of people in all those denominations down through the centuries. You could start by recognizing each particular subgroup tends to become the God that the people in that group worship, and leave the groups, and in that case you would no longer even have to call yourself "Christian" because there would be nobody to witness to. But even within the groups there are still some things that could be done. During the Bush years, someone could have stood up in the pulpit and told the people about how voting Republican had been a disaster because it brought war and turned us into a people that no longer saw the problems with torturing our enemies, and we were defining a lot of enemies. They had a chance to at least try to remove him, but now that time is passed. Even now someone could still speak out from the pulpit about the problems with getting involved with rapture fiction such as the Left Behind series of books, and the children's series of those books. This could be a rich area of discussion because it leads to opening up the question of are Christians in a passive state of waiting, or are some of them activly encouraging war with Iran? Once these discussions start, there is so much more that can be accomplished. We just need someone to stand up in the pulpit of a conservative church and get it started.
I guess one of the problems that I find being an outsider is that words which seem to have specific meanings mean different things to different people. It would be a big help, for example, if the word God actually meant just one thing but it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people. It appears that the term God means different things in different contexts, and probably has different meanings for the same person at different times. The problem with this ultimately is that it's really difficult for people to communicate about it because communication pretty much depends on words having meanings that are available to everyone. It explains to a great degree why people outside Christianity just don't seem to understand what's going on inside it, because we on the outside have a tendency to take you at your word for specific things which we think we then understand, but really don't. On the other hand, for Christians, it appears that they can say completely contradictory things and find no cognitive dissonance there.
Best Wishes.
When people think of God, they think of the church, and the congregation, and the meetings and studies, and the literature both modern and ancient, and the buildings and traditions and ceremonies, and the music and prayers, and the church leaders and all that the group is trying to accomplish in this world. This is what they worship. This is what speaks to them, and what they believe. At times, some of them will even speak for God when it becomes necessary. The Christian God cannot be understood apart from the churches.
Gghellmann, Just wanted to note that your statement is possibly the only legitimate one I've seen on this page. I agree that a major source of confusion, both in the main article and in the discussion below, is differences of terminology.
I would also add that the generalities thrown around, by Moore, Hannity, and especially Jim Reed, move the discussion nowhere. Statements like "Christianity this" and "Conservatives that" provide no subject to conversation because they portray such a wide spectrum of thought and belief.
Even within the predominant "Christian" text you have an OT God who sends his people to war with nations who don't hold up the standard, and you have an NT God personified through Christ who would rather die than point a finger.
How anyone can say "Christianity thinks..." and fill in the blank is beyond my understanding.
The discussion of Christianity has been polarized. I think this makes some things possible that were previously very difficult. For decades I had questions, and it seemed almost impossible to ask them. Now that some of the questions are being asked it is clear why it was always so difficult. People don't want to hear them, and they have devised many strategies for keeping them quiet, and until recently the redirections always seemed to work.
Under Bush the gulf became so wide things had to change, and eventually the discussion of Christianity was started. It needs to start with the most difficult questions.
1. What about the damage caused by a doctrine of destruction being needed for the world, many hope in our lifetime, and the need of all others (not saved or raptured) to suffer? How much damage does this cause to the world in a situation where the religious have political and military power? How much damage does this doctrine cause to the religion itself? How much damage does this doctrine cause to the people who believe it?
2. How about the doctrine that only those that profess belief in the name of Jesus Christ will be saved, and all others will be dammed?
3. ____________
These questions might be beyond what conservative Christianity can handle, so unfortunately it might fall to progressive Christianity to try to deal with them.
Jim,
I will try- as a progressive Christian. God forbid anyone calls me a conservative, I'd take it as an insult :)
1. No decent, true Christian tries "to speed up the process" of destrucion thru political means, because ! if he is a true christian not some righ wing kook , he believes that there are stil people that can still get saved if the world endures a bit longer.Every day brings new converts. That is our main objective. So if anything, i 'd do all to slow down the events that might lead to the End.
2. Yes, i believe and profess that only those who believe in Christ will be saved. So what, all due respect, is in it to you? If you dont believe it, dont bother! As joke has it you cant be in heaven of one religion without automatically being condemned to hell of all the others. There are hindu, and muslims that say i am damned forever. SO what?i dont lose any sleep over it
I think those are good answers (I don't think Hindus believe Christians are going to hell, worst case they might become mosquitoes). Up through the 20th century people had a level of respect for other religions and would agree with you. They still agree with you, but I have to question because conservative Christians sold out to the party of the rich, and Christian vanity combined with Republican greed and created a mess. The fact that liberal Christians did not fall into the pit with the conservatives means they are better than the conservatives, but that might not be saying all that much, and under the circumstances I think even progressive Christianity needs to be questioned, do they really have a relationship with Christ, or is it just a religion? In the 20th century it was none of my business, but after church and state were combined under Bush, now it is something that must be questioned. Thanks for the response. This is probably an issue we can agree to disagree on and everyone can go home happy.
I hear you, and the bottom line is, indeed, respect each other and each others right to religious freedom.That would be the best pattern for a developed society.
And yes, as i always say, religious and true believers are 2 different breeds :)
PS I wanna be a mosquito! i have a list of peeps i need to urgently bite :)
Joshua,
Christianity made a big mistake as Bush took the nation into war and torture. The conservatives supported him, and the liberals kept silent with very few exceptions. That was a missed opportunity for someone to stand up in the pulpit and tell their congregation what needed to be said. The opportunity was missed, and now the Christianity discussion is going to be much harder. Religious debates used to be held in ways that both sides could end up thinking they won, and everybody could go home happy. We are now past that point.
A: What does this have to do with anything I said?
B: Where is your data? Show me information about all these conservatives that you make such broad presumptions about, or about these liberals who were mostly silent?
C: When did debates ever end so that both sides could think that they won? And what does that have to do with anything?
A. I was just trying to move the discussion somewhere.
B. The exit polls showed 79% of evangelical Christians voting for Bush the first time, 80% the next time after the torture revelations, and even 78% for Palin the next time. The silence of the liberals is just my opinion based on what I haven't heard.
C. Creation vs. Evolution debates used to end with both sides thinking they won. The gulf is growing and we might be moving beyond that time.
Christians tend to look down on Unitarian churches because they worship with people of different religions. Those Christians who don't look down on Unitarians would still not what to attend a Unitarian church because they know what their other Christian friends would think about that. This might be a way for a Christian to show they are different from the rest of the herd.
I like Unitarians, though they do tend to be a bit conservative in my view.
I think it necessary for a Christian to accept the Bible as inspired and to study it for what is revealed truth. Words or actions are the fruits and by their fruits you shall know them.
Knowing them leads to love, not judgement. Hard, but there it is.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.