Candidates’ church chat erodes U.S. principles — chicagotribune.com — Here’s another good essay. This time about the idiotic grilling by a preacher of the two candidates in a large public forum. It was a disgusting exercise in pandering… both candidates now holier than thou.

At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister—no matter how beloved—is supremely wrong. It is also un-American.

For the past several days, most political debate has focused on who won.

The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state. The loser was America.

Both Obama and McCain gave “good” answers, but that’s not the point. They shouldn’t have been asked. Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that “Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him,” or that McCain feels that he is “saved and forgiven”?

What does that mean, anyway? What does it prove? Nothing except that these men are willing to say whatever they must—and what most Americans personally feel is no one’s business—to win the highest office.




  1. #58 – Bobo

    >>what makes us any different than you except
    >>for the lack of belief?

    As I have tried to get you to realize so many times before, Bobo, what you have is not a “lack of belief”. It’s a strong, evangelical, proselytizing belief regarding the nature and existence of God.

    And to answer your question, NOTING makes you different from us. You have your violent, hateful, ignorant, intolerant, fearmongering kooks. So do we.

    Different church, but the pew is the same.

  2. #61 – Bobo

    Better lay off the ‘shrooms for today. You’re becoming incoherent.

  3. Paddy-O says:

    #55 “I know what you meant and you got fairly close.”

    You know where I was going with it.

  4. bobbo says:

    #62–Mustard==ok, I was responding more on point to your conclusion of: “You guys are so intolerant.” /// How can we (“moi–?”) be so intolerant if we are both the same?

  5. bobbo says:

    #64–Paddy-0==I only suspected where you were going with it which is why I gave you a chance to think about it. You haven’t gone anywhere with it yet except for a still-birth or an IUD event along the path of conception.

    What does the 10 Commandments being posted on the wall at the SCt mean? You have all the time in the world to google the answer and find out it has nothing to do with this thread.

  6. #65 – Boobo

    >>ok, I was responding more on point to your
    >>conclusion of: “You guys are so intolerant.” ///
    >>How can we (”moi–?”) be so intolerant if we are
    >>both the same?

    “We” are not the same, you and I. Our churches and their parishoners (Christian, Atheist, Jewish, Muslim, whatever) are, on the whole, the same. You’ve got your kooks, you’ve got your mellow folks, you’ve got your hatemongers, serial killers, pedophiles, the whole spectrum.

    You, as an individual, seem to be somewhere towards the strident, anti-this, anti-that end of the spectrum. Theists don’t deserve to be free, religion is bad, blah blah blah. Blah.

  7. bobbo says:

    #67–Mustard==you make no sense at all as usual when the subject is religion. The whole point of a religion is to be anti-this and anti-that. Are you kidding me?

    And when you bible thumpers want to saddle me with your sheep based morality and I object, then I’m being intolerant???? Hah, Hah. Dolt!!

    The detail in the blah, blah is more specific than you attempt to gloss over and dismiss.

    Whoops–no Amens. Time for you to get tired and run away. Shoo-fly.

  8. Dick Dawkins says:

    Bobbo why so angry?

  9. bobbo says:

    #69–Dick==why so accusatory and ad hominem?

  10. Yeah, Bobbolina! Why so angry! I’m not sure what devilish religion you’ve been exposed to that is “anti-this and anti-that”. Maybe the Church of Atheism? Judas Priest, man, you’re even anti-God!!

    At my church, we’re pro-just-about-everything. Oh sure, there are some things we don’t like too much, like senseless war, bigotry, homophobia, hate crimes, and the like.

    You really need to get out more, Bob. Quit taking all your talking points from the militant Atheist hatemongers.

  11. bobbo says:

    #71–Must-a-r–d!!==I’m not angry, and don’t even see why anyone would say so.

    Do I disagree?==Yes.

    All religions are anti-sin. Most sin is just totalitarian crowd control delegated by the big fascist in the sky.

    Lets get back to substance? The only “match-up” of general election candidates for the last year has been by an evangelical quizing the guys for their acceptance by a religious FOR their religious beliefs.

    I’d rather see a scorching debate on their budget proposals.

  12. cranky pants says:

    Go get ’em bobbo! Moostard just doesn’t want to hear the truth! If you ignore IT, IT will go away.

    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  13. bobbo says:

    #73–cranky==the comfy chair terrorizes Mustard. He is afraid of leaving a stain.

  14. Bobo

    >>I’m not angry, and don’t even see
    >>why anyone would say so.

    Ah, Bobster. As that great haggismeister Robert Burns once said, “O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us!” You are angry, m’hijito. And it hasn’t gone unnoticed.

    If you’re not angry, you’re doing a great job of playing it on TV. You’ve been called out, Bob.

    >>All religions are anti-sin.

    Isn’t everybody anti-sin? It just depends on what your definition of “sin” is. Or do the acolytes in the Church of Atheism actually advocate doing evil? Based on some of your bretheren at the Altar, that might not come as much of a surprise, but I’m somewhat shocked to see you advocate it in public! Are you pro-pedophilia? Pro-murder? Pro-hate crime? I know that you think same-sex marriage is an abomination, but are you really advocating dragging gay couples behind a pickup truck? Zounds!!

    I’m not so interested in seeing a McCain/ Obama debate at this point. Christ, how long can this campaign go on non-stop? Let’s wait until they’re nominated, have selected VP running mates, then you can have your scorching debate on the budget proposals.

    In the meanwhile, you’re scaring me with your seemingly pro-evil stance.

  15. Dick Dawkins says:

    #74 Bobbo, why so scatalogical?

    We get it…those who are religious are delusional. How sad and intolerant.

    This discussion has caused me so much anxiety that I must now go and pray to the great angry white-bearded fascist in the sky.

    God Bless Bobbo and his pointy-headed ways!

  16. bobbo says:

    Mustard==you have really lucked out. This is about the second out of 183 days when you haven’t posted like a loon.

    But it was Dick that went to the psychological ploy. Yea, when you’re waste deep in the big muddy, call the other side angry, upset, etc. The religious are good at that==”We don’t hate you==just the sin.” Along with the moon faced grin and over the horizon stare with the head cocked as if listening to the holy spirit.

    And Mustard==allow me not to sound angry when I question why you list sins that are violations of the civil code as well? To transparent and weak to justify the electrons.

  17. #76 – Dick Dawk

    >>why so scatalogical

    That’s the way Bobbo gets when he’s frustrated. It’s the blogging equivalent of stamping his foot. First he gets angry, then he starts with the “nanee nanee boo boo” literary style.

    Those evangelical Atheists have so little patience or tolerance for others’ beliefs.

  18. #77 – Bobster.

    I’d offer up a reply, but that message was so content-free and unintelligible, I can’t even thing of a retort.

    Are you a random-word generator? Some sort of early-generation artifical “intelligence” program?

    Why don’t you go have some nice jello salad, and if you think of anything coherent to say, feel free to pipe right up!

  19. TVAddict says:

    I stand behind the fact that this makes our country look like a bunch of religious zealots. Religion is personal. Keep it out of politics. Did we not learn from GWB? He so wants to start Armageddon before he leaves office.

  20. geofgibson says:

    “Religion is personal. Keep it out of politics.”

    “ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
    John Adams

    In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”

    “I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”
    Alexander Hamilton

    “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

    “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

    “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    There’s more, but, this should demonstrate this nation was found by those who kept their religion FIRMLY in their politics.

  21. #81 – geofgibson

    Uh-oh. You’re in trouble now! Just wait until the Atheist enforcers get their hands on you. You’ll be drubbed senseless, tarred, feathered, and run out of dvorak dot org slash blog on a rail!

    There is no use in trying to defy the Atheist overlords….they’ve got non-God on their side.

  22. geofgibson says:

    #82 – Mustard
    I had a six month running flame war with a Libertarian Anarchist (I know, that should be a non sequitur) over this topic. I’m used to varying degrees of intolerance from atheists. At least we still have a Constitution to protect both sides.

  23. Uncle Patso says:

    Uh, if I might interrupt this exchange for a moment…

    “Here is the truth though. It’s hypocritical if you agree with Obama that he should meet with Iran, but then get your panties in a bunch when he meets with Rick Warren.”

    We have thousands of skilled, professional diplomats — to refuse even to speak to an entire country is clinical insanity. However, I think if any candidate went to Iran to be questioned by a religious leader to determine his fitness for office, I might have a problem with that…

  24. bobbo says:

    I agree with this review to the point that having BOTH candidates at the religious forum helps to soften the blow to the repugs the religious right have made:

    http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/14/weekend-preview-obama-and-mccain-at-saddleback-church.aspx

    Nightline has a segment on Warren’s work in Africa. He is a good man with these works. I like his attitude–he doesn’t care what motivates a person to do good works as long as he does good works. Too bad his boss doesn’t feel the same way. Someday, he might think about that disagreement.

  25. Just read the piece and though Warren is not on my Christmas Card list, I always get fidgety when someone says that some questions should not be asked;

    “They shouldn’t have been asked.”

    There’s only a few types of person who says that some questions shouldn’t be asked. Closed minded Sunday School teachers fall into this bracket, but so do some pretty nasty others also.

    If you think that some questions shouldn’t be asked, then go ahead and burn some books while you’re at it.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4328 access attempts in the last 7 days.