The Pastor problem

Rick Perry isn't the first presidential candidate to be embarrassed by a turbulent preacher.

So it turns out that Rev Robert Jeffress -- supporter and mentor of US presidential candidate Rick Perry -- doesn't just have a problem with Mormons. He's an equal opportunities hater. In a rant about Catholicism on his radio station last September he unleashed the C-word -- clearly a favourite of his -- calling the church to which a quarter of Americans belong "that cult-like pagan religion" and claiming that it derived from ancient Babylonian mysteries rather than "God's Word". "Isn't that the genius of Satan?" he asked. Not just a cult, then. A Satanic cult. And, for good measure, "a fake religion" too.

This revelation has the potential to cause even more trouble for Perry than the Mormonism row that has rumbled on for almost a week. Bill Donohue, who leads the Catholic League, called on Perry to reject Jeffress and his endorsement - something the candidate declined to do when challenged by Mitt Romney during a TV debate on Tuesday. Donohue called Jeffress "a poster boy for hatred, not Christianity".

In the last presidential campaign, Sarah Palin was forced to distance herself from an African pastor who pursued unconventional sideline as a witch-finder, while Barack Obama was put an in embarrassing position when footage emerged of his pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright, saying "God damn America!" So the Jeffress row isn't unprecedented. Indeed, Donohue himself was involved in a controversy uncannily similar to the Jeffress/Perry imbroglio early in 2008.

It was Donohue's intervention that persuaded John McCain -- then the Republican front-runner -- to reject the endorsement of an Evangelical pastor named John Hagee. Like Jeffress, Hagee ran a Texas megachurch, and his views about Catholicism were just an uncompromisingly Paisleyite. He referred to it as "the great whore" that "drank the blood of the Jewish people". Doubtless there are parts of Texas where that kind of talk still goes down well. Hagee said other embarrassing things too, for example that Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment for "a homosexual parade" that had taken place in New Orleans shortly before.

McCain expressed himself "glad to have his endorsement" even after Hagee's remarks became publicly known. For McCain, who lacked credibility with the religious Right, having a prominent Evangelical fundamentalist in his camp was an important electoral asset, especially when facing a strong challenge from the former Baptist preacher Mick Huckabee. Until suddenly it wasn't.

So far, while distancing himself from the pastor's expressed view of Mormonism, Perry has made it clear that he still "respects" Jeffress and accepts his endorsement. A Perry spokesman went so far as to accuse Romney of "playing a game of deflection" in making anti-Mormon bigotry a campaign issue. Donohue's challenge may prove less easy to bat aside.

If that wasn't bad enough, a pro-secularism group, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, has complained to the IRS about Jeffress' use of his official church website to host videos supporting Perry's candidacy.The group claims that this constitutes an abuse of the church's tax-exempt status.

The "pastor problem" is a peculiar feature of modern US politics. Obama's relationship with Wright was long-standing, but other unhelpful endorsements look to be the result of carelessness on the part of candidates. It should not have been difficult for Perry's advisers to discover the hardline views previously expressed by Robert Jeffress about Mormonism, Catholicism, homosexuality and other sensitive issues, or to foresee that they might pose a problem outside those parts of the Southern States that have never mentally left the 17th century.

Given that a successful presidential campaign now seems to require that the candidate be endorsed by prominent, self-appointed, publicity-seeking Christian ministers (or at the very least, such endorsement is perceived to confer a distinct advantage) one would expect that they would be carefully vetted before being allowed to stand on stage and introduce someone-or-other The Next President Of The United States. But this doesn't seem to happen. Instead, it always comes as a great surprise to the candidate when a clip surfaces on YouTube of the pastor concerned saying something outrageous. Strange.

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief
Getty
Show Hide image

Is it OK to punch a Nazi?

There are moral and practical reasons why using force to stop a far-right march is justified.

It says a great deal about Donald Trump that for the second time under his Presidency we are having to ask the question: is it OK to punch a Nazi?

More specifically, after the events in Charlottesville last weekend, we must ask: is it OK to turn up to a legal march, by permit-possessing white supremacists, and physically stop that march from taking place through the use of force if necessary?

The US president has been widely criticised for indicating that he thought the assortment of anti-semites, KKK members and self-professed Nazis were no worse than the anti-fascist counter demonstrators. So for him, the answer is presumably no, it’s not OK to punch a Nazi in this situation.

For others such as Melanie Phillips in the Times, or Telegraph writer Martin Daubney, the left have seemingly become the real fascists.

The argument goes that both sides are extremists and thus both must be condemned equally for violence (skipping over the fact that one of the counter-protesters was killed by a member of the far right, who drove his car into a crowd).

This argument – by focusing on the ideologies of the two groups – distracts from the more relevant issue of why both sides were in Charlottesville in the first place.

The Nazis and white supremacists were marching there because they hate minorities and want them to be oppressed, deported or worse. That is not just a democratic expression of opinion. Its intent is to suppress the ability of others to live their lives and express themselves, and to encourage violence and intimidation.

The counter-protesters were there to oppose and disrupt that march in defence of those minorities. Yes, some may have held extreme left-wing views, but they were in Charlottesville to stop the far-right trying to impose its ideology on others, not impose their own.

So far, the two sides are not equally culpable.

Beyond the ethical debate, there is also the fundamental question of whether it is simply counterproductive to use physical force against a far-right march.

The protesters could, of course, have all just held their banners and chanted back. They could also have laid down in front of the march and dared the “Unite the Right” march to walk over or around them.

Instead the anti-fascists kicked, maced and punched back. That was what allowed Trump to even think of making his attempt to blame both sides at Charlottesville.

On a pragmatic level, there is plenty of evidence from history to suggest that non-violent protest has had a greater impact. From Gandhi in to the fall of the Berlin Wall, non-violence has often been the most effective tool of political movements fighting oppression, achieving political goals and forcing change.

But the success of those protests was largely built on their ability to embarrass the governments they were arrayed against. For democratic states in particular, non-violent protest can be effective because the government risks its legitimacy if it is seen violently attacking people peacefully expressing a democratic opinion.

Unfortunately, it’s a hell of a lot more difficult to embarrass a Nazi. They don't have legitimacy to lose. In fact they gain legitimacy by marching unopposed, as if their swastikas and burning crosses were just another example of political free expression.

By contrast, the far right do find being physically attacked embarrassing. Their movement is based on the glorification of victory, of white supremacy, of masculine and racial superiority, and scenes of white supremacists looking anything but superior undermines their claims.

And when it comes to Nazis marching on the streets, the lessons from history show that physically opposing them has worked. The most famous example is the Battle of Cable Street in London, in which a march by thousands of Hitler-era Nazis was stopped parading through East End by a coalition of its Jewish Community, dockworkers, other assorted locals, trade unionists and Communists.

There was also the Battle of Lewisham in the late 70s when anti-fascist protesters took on the National Front. Both these battles, and that’s what they were, helped neuter burgeoning movements of fascist, racist far right thugs who hated minorities.

None of this is to say that punching a Nazi is always either right, or indeed a good idea. The last time this debate came up was during Trump’s inauguration when "Alt Right" leader Richard Spencer was punched while giving a TV interview. Despite the many, many entertaining memes made from the footage, what casual viewers saw was a reasonable-looking man being hit unawares. He could claim to be a victim.

Charlottesville was different. When 1,000 Nazis come marching through a town trying to impose their vision of the world on it and everywhere else, they don't have any claim to be victims.