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.
#30–geof==thank you. I’ll put you down as one vote for: “pandering to the masses is what good politics is all about.”
Good for you.
I see, John, in your book freedom of speech is trounced by your right to keep public discourse free from religious content. In particular Christian content, since you don’t seem to be concerned about Obama’s links to CAIR or McCain’s pandering to AIPAC.
The event was indeed pandering with softball questions, but no more “un-American” than when other interest groups hold similar forums. Are you going to be disgusted when Obama or McCain talk about how they support the “working man” when they talk to labor organizations?
Here’s another short review of the Saddleback show to the point of the revealed character of the candidates and the role of religion in American politics.
http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=e8797803-0892-464e-8321-6cee87a1ed41
#32–Billy==unlike those other groups/issues in AMERICA religion is supposed to be a private affair. Its how we all keep our religious freedom. When religion enters the political arena, we all eventually lose, no matter how far ahead your group appears to be at the moment.
The religious can’t handle, and don’t deserve, to be free.
To #29. No I wouldn’t call it Homosexual Interrogation, just like I wouldn’t call this forum the religious interrogation/Inquisition/Religious Grilling as Dvorak and the Chicago Tribune so eloquently do.
It’s called going before a group of people and answering the questions that are important to them.
And to say that they pandered is ridiculous. When Obama was asked about when life begins, he basically refused to answer. Of course he said “It’s above my pay grade” vs “None of your business”.
I really don’t know what some people expect out of politics and life. I wouldn’t mind the candidates going in front of a KKK forum. Of course I would vote for the one that told them they were racist and wrong. And that is probably the issue some people have. Is that both candidates seem to hold similar beliefs with the evangelicals, and people that don’t agree with them can’t stand that. But instead of accepting that fact they have to twist it in their mind and call it pandering because there is no way that these two could both believe in the “invisible man”.
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. Personally I don’t equate Warren with Iran, but I’m sure some of you do.
#30 – I never said it was good. Also, it is interesting you describe it as pandering. Believer’s political concerns are not valid? Is not then all politics pandering?
“The religious can’t handle, and don’t deserve, to be free.”
Yet another example of the open mindedness and tolerance of the Left.
#35–Jason==gee, you tied two of my posts together–thanks.
I think the “disapproval” of the Saddleback Inquisition is more a sadness that there is no close questioning of the candidates on matters that are actually important to the future of America.
Since being relevant and competent is off the table, the complaints morph into many tangential analysis and metaphors of speech.
#37–geof==how open should anyone be to groups that want to enforce their differing morality on you rather than mind their own business living their own lives as they may wish?
#34 Bobbo: religion is supposed to be a private affair…The religious can’t handle, and don’t deserve, to be free.
Um, ok, Bobbo. Let no one question your zealous hatred and desire to suppress all things religious.
“#37–geof==how open should anyone be to groups that want to enforce their differing morality on you rather than mind their own business living their own lives as they may wish?”
Put your broad brush away. The Constitution gives believers no more right to use the force of government against you than it does for you to determine they “don’t deserve to be free.”
Well, it is a loaded word/concept isn’t it? Deserve? Who deserves to be free?
Its an irrelevant argument. We are all free by certain definition, all shackled and bound by other definitions.
By deserve I was thinking “only those that recognize the right of other people to be free deserve to be free themselves.” Force of government should never be used which really is the basis of my complaint against the Saddleback community===THEY would use government to force their morality on society rather than appreciate living their own morality for themselves.
In that sense, they don’t deserve the very freedom they are undermining. I’m sure you both agree.
#33 you didn’t understand the point of the TNR article, which was more about freedom vs. autocratic impulses of the two parties. I don’t buy the author’s linkage to secular vs. theocratic conflict, since we see autocratic impulses from both sides.
bobbo you make no sense, Saddleback didn’t force either candidate to come nor did they endorse anyone, nor do they advocate a theocratic government a la your Handmaiden’s Tale fantasies. You’re the only one talking about them not deserving to be free, and by your own standard, you should be locking yourself up.
Fortunately the Constitution protects them from you, you from them, and you from yourself!
The “we’re all free in some respects, yet bound by others” mysticism smokescreen didn’t work.
bobbo, I’ll take your word for it that Saddleback Church’s goal is to impose morality by force. I haven’t seen enough specifics about them to know. One thing I do know is that I meet quite a few evangelicals and many of them are staunch Constitutionalists who would like to convert you to their way of thinking, but would never force you.
I would disagree as far as “deserving” freedom. I’m with the Founder’s that freedom is a natural right, endowed from our Creator, which can never be given nor deserved, but only taken away, usually by the force of government.
#43–Billy==two in a row???
I make no sense?–or do you only disagree or more simply not understand?
I never said the candidates were forced to attend–in fact, panderers are never forced, thats the whole point you seem to have reversed. You make no sense.
The Evangelical community certainly strives for a theocratic government. That did not show itself in this show but eliminating Darwin from science, requiring school prayer, and posting the ten commandments on every governmental wall in America would be the law if they had their way.
Holding two conflicting ideas in your mind at the same time is not mysticism, but I note your confusion.
#45–geof–fair enough. Whether or not one “deserves” freedom is an independent question from the fact that we are all naturally endowed with freedom.
What else would “deserve” mean?
If you are born into slavery, you still have your natural rights, just not the condition. If you are born into freedom, you have your natural rights but if you desire to enslave others, you do not “deserve” the freedom you enjoy.
Religion = Un-American!?!
This is just another rant against religion without knowing the true history of America
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5703
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
#46 “and posting the ten commandments on every governmental wall in America would be the law if they had their way.”
You DO know that Moses & the ten commandments are pictured in the Supreme Court of the US, don’t you?
#49–Paddy–yes I do. Your point?
#48–Jim==what does “nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity” mean in your book?
A few examples?
#48 – Good to see facts to counter the oft trotted out canard that the Founder’s were not Christians.
bobbo – never heard of nonpolemical before you mentioned it, so I looked it up.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polemical
in context I would say it means “a Bible centered belief, not favoring any one denomination, that can be commonly agreed upon.”
thou shall not murder as one example.
#50 “Paddy–yes I do. Your point?”
The SCotUS decides what the law of the land is. That was my only point.
#53–Jim==thats shocking. Its what our Founding Fathers wanted as emphasized by your second link. In context, such a standard would invalidate everything religious advocates want since what they want is denominational polemic religious tenets of their faith enforced as the law of the land.
#54–Paddy-0==not to put too fine a point on it but you continue to be wrong or irrelevant. The Ten Commandments and the Hamarabi Code being posted in the SCt says nothing about their authority to interpret the US Constitution nor the role of such codes in such interpretation. Why post as you did if your point was completely different? Changed your mind and could not connect your post to anything rational is what I suspect.
The SCt does not decide what the law of the land is. Congress creates and passes laws signed by the President or over his veto. The SCt only gets to decide issues brought before them.
I know what you meant and you got fairly close.
#16 – Bobo
>>Because religion is bad.
Especially that nasty Church of Atheism. You guys are so intolerant.
#34 – Bobo
>>The religious can’t handle, and don’t deserve,
>>to be free.
Hey Mr. Stalin! I was wondering where you ran off to.
#56–Mustard==what makes us any different than you except for the lack of belief?
#44 – Bobo
Jesus Christ, man. Did you go to the James Joyce School of Expository Writing, or something? Sometimes you make no f$cking sense at all.
#46 – Bobo
>>The Evangelical community certainly strives for
>>a theocratic government.
Give it a rest with the religion-bashing, will you? You’ve been watching too many “Meth and Man-Ass” videos.
You really have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about, do you?
Whats wrong Musty? Not up to reading more than a bumper sticker today? Give it another shot. I read it again. Quite proud of all my children.