The Los Angeles Times had a nice story on Pastor Rick Warren and Saturday’s appearance of presidential candidates Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest.
I’ve become a big fan of Warren over the years. Despite being the Billy Graham of his generation, Warren has avoided the pitfalls of fame and fortune. He now gives 90% of his income away, he’s purposefully stayed clear of any a whiff of a scandal (he handles none of the church’s money, he turned down chances for a television show, and he won’t be alone in a room — or even an elevator — with a woman who is not his wife).
He’s also grown over the years and has more fully embraced the message of Jesus by, among other things, leading the way for evangelicals to get involved in the fight against AIDS in Africa. Prior to Warren’s involvement, the Christian Right had been shamefully silent on the issue.
All that said, I’m guessing Saturday’s “debate” will be disappointing to most Americans. The format is the problem. Warren, a friend of both candidates, will introduce McCain and Obama, and then interview them separate. If candidates on “Meet the Press” get thrown fastballs and curves by the moderator, McCain and Obama will get a series of slow, juicy pitches right down the middle of the plate that they will hit over the fence. The presidential hopefuls will look, ah, presidential, but viewers will leave unsatisfied by the powder-puff format.
Too bad. Warren would have been the perfect person to referee an exciting, provocative, unscripted, free form AND civilized exchange between the two candidates. That’s what voters want to see. Not a job interview. Not a stilted debate with time limits and manufactured sound bites. Just two hopefuls, sitting around the table, passionately detailing their vision for America and pointing out the weakness in their opponent’s argument.
The Latest on Faith and Doubt
13 responses so far ↓
1 Thranil // Aug 13, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Wow… he sounds like he’s actually a decent guy. Too bad that he completely butchers the bible in his “Purpose Driven Life”… If you want to read all the ways that he twisted, skewed, spun, and otherwise bastardized what is in the bible to support his worldview, pick up a copy of Robert M. Price’s (NT scholar) “Reason Driven Life”.
2 Tom (Iron Pol) // Aug 13, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Just FYI, all those things Warren does to avoid scandal were taken directly from Billy Graham. Graham was known to get off an elevator if it meant being alone with a women other than his wife.
3 Drew // Aug 14, 2008 at 12:43 am
Well, if he can walk the talk more power to him. However, my biggest gripe with the debate would be that he is involved at all. Religion should have no say in politics. How one chooses to worship in private is their buisness. They have no right to influence how another should govern, especially since so many religious values are super restrictive, bigoted, and outdated.
4 jim // Aug 14, 2008 at 1:27 am
I have the feeling Obama will clean the floor with McCain when it comes to the mythology that is religion. Hey, anything to get the fundies to vote for Obama over McCain is fine with me.
5 Tom (Iron Pol) // Aug 14, 2008 at 3:08 am
So, Drew, are you trying to say that YOUR personal beliefs have a place in politics, but those of another (religious person) don’t?
As I said to Thranil in another post, your comments are far more insidious than you may intend them. Consider that is EXACTLY how many people would voice their opinion about homosexuals.
Just what are people supposed to base their actions and decisions upon if it isn’t the beliefs they hold dear.
I would say that your statements are as super-restrictive, bigoted, and outdated as the religious views you seem to dislike.
6 Tom (Iron Pol) // Aug 14, 2008 at 3:09 am
Allow me to correct one thing. “Statements” in my comment should really be “statement,” as I am only referring to the middle two sentences in Drew’s response.
7 Thranil // Aug 14, 2008 at 4:20 am
Tom,
I don’t think I could disagree with you more. There is a specific clause in the first amendment that declares that there shall be a separation between church and state. Religion has no place in politics as we are a secular nation. You can cry foul all you want, but you benefit from having a secular government as you can pick whatever deluded belief system you want without any fear of oppression (as long as you aren’t hurting anyone that is). According to the Constitution, using religious ideology in the public arena is not allowed. Any idea or argument presented can only stand on its own merit.
8 Sam // Aug 15, 2008 at 1:09 am
While your busy bashing TBN, take a closer look at Rick Warren and do some research.
He loves his church so much, he canceled the church services so he could charge up to $2000 a seat for people to come watch him ask “softball” questions to the Presidential elects……oh AND raise an extra $2,000,000 for new camera equipment for the church…..I’m sure if the information could be found out, his reverse tithe is funneled through the church to pay for his international promo tours with his wife.
It’s just a different version of prosperity theology, in this version, only the pastors get the money.
9 frank // Aug 17, 2008 at 10:28 am
interesting-Warren seems to be running the risk of alienating much of his VERY conservative congregation with his grandstanding (I live in Dove Canyon, where I believe Rick lives, and I figure at least 30% of the residents here are members of Saddleback). They generally tolerate McCain and find Obama to be an absolute menace….
10 Aubrey // Aug 18, 2008 at 12:22 am
William, your comments regarding the limitations of the format are right on the mark. What we are all desperate for is just that conversation, just that dialogue.
Thranil, you seem like someone who ought to be capable of reading the 1st ammendment.
Here it is for reference:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
1)_Note that you are wrong about “There is a specific clause in the first amendment that declares that there shall be a separation between church and state. ”
Actually, the amendment states fairly clearly that the government will not make a law establishing religion and will not make a law prohibiting it’s free exercise. So the amendment clearly is intended to protect religion from government and not vice versa. Just for reference the “separation of church and state” is not in the constitution. It’s a statement by Jefferson.
2)_ ” Religion has no place in politics as we are a secular nation.” Actually we are historically and currently a religious nation. Further we are a Christian nation. This is evident from the founding documents and from the establishment of Thanksgiving by Washington, our currency, the 10 commandments in the supreme court and any number of other measures. Our society is secular and our government leans towards secular. But we are very clearly Christian in word and deed.
3)_ “According to the Constitution, using religious ideology in the public arena is not allowed.” Wrong again. It is in fact supported by our freedom of speech. Further, provided it’s not “establishing religion” we are free to put our religious symbols in the public space.
I would encourage you to read the founding documents to find out what was really said and meant. You’ll find that NPR and PBS often don’t present clear, truthful or complete information on this subject.
11 Thranil // Aug 18, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Aubrey,
You seem like someone who ought to be able to think for themselves.
1) Think for a moment of what your life would be like if the prevailing religion in this region were Islam. Would it suddenly be such a great thing that people like you want to have their religion be given deference by governmental figures? I’m going to guess that the answer would be ‘no’.
“So the amendment clearly is intended to protect religion from government and not vice versa.”
Wow, that’s probably the most retarded idea I’ve heard in a while. Think about it. If government is limited in how it can interact with religion, how would it be remotely ok for religion to act unrestricted with government? Clearly if there is a restriction in one direction, the same restriction applies in the other.
To illustrate this point: our society places a strict restriction that no high school teacher is allowed to have an intimate relationship with a student. This is the policy put forth by various state governments (at this time, I’m not aware of any state that allows it). Nowhere in these policies does it say anything about whether the student is allowed to have an intimate relationship with a teacher… because it’s IMPLIED!
So regarding “Separation of Church and State”, I was clearly interpolating, but not in any way that was unfounded. Just like christians like to do, if I want to understand what an author (or set of authors in this case) meant by a particular passage, I read more of their works and what I can about who they were etc…
2) “Actually we are historically and currently a religious nation. Further we are a Christian nation. This is evident from the founding documents and from the establishment of Thanksgiving by Washington, our currency, the 10 commandments in the supreme court and any number of other measures.”
Sorry, but you fail. All these things are evidence of are people putting religion into our government not that the government itself is religious… First, I will question the Thanksgiving issue since it does not take a belief in a god to be thankful. “In God We Trust” was not on our currency until the LATE 1800s. Christmas wasn’t even a recognized holiday until around the same time! If we were a supposedly “christian nation”, then why would these two items be added 100 years AFTER the founding of this nation?!
3) “Further, provided it’s not “establishing religion” we are free to put our religious symbols in the public space.”
Alright, so I mis-stated that. The public arena I’m referring to is government related areas. You are clearly free to put your symbols on private property, but that right ends the moment we start talking about government spaces.
“I would encourage you to read the founding documents to find out what was really said and meant.”
I have actually! However, based on what you wrote, I wonder if you have followed your own advice… or did you just read the few that appear to support your position and ignore the rest?
“You’ll find that NPR and PBS often don’t present clear, truthful or complete information on this subject.”
Next thing you’ll be saying is that Fox News does… you really are a piece of work!
12 Iron Pol // Aug 21, 2008 at 3:38 am
Thranil,
The first (and all) amendments to the Constitution restrict ONLY the government. They specify what government can and cannot do. “Congress shall not” is repeated consistently. The amendments don’t restrict the ability of religious groups to pursue their agendas within the government. Government cannot, however, pursue its agenda with regard to a (any) church. Congress cannot establish a religion. Nor can they do restrict it.
Nowhere in the Constitution, amendments included, does it preclude people having, expressing, sharing, or pursuing their religious beliefs in conjunction with government. Aubrey is correct. The concept of “separation” comes from the “wall” comment made by Thomas Jefferson. Oddly enough, in a letter written at a time when he attended church services at the US capitol.
And I don’t believe anyone said “religion” could operate “unrestricted” within government. Simply that this absolute separation is extra-constitutional (if that’s a word. I mean it is something that was created out of whole cloth).
Regarding the holidays and other symbols, the timing is really a poor argument. Using that argument, I would question why they ever came to exist if the country didn’t somehow value Christian origins. We could just as easily have placed an equal emphasis on Ramadan, Hannukah (sorry if that’s misspelled), the solstices, or any of a great many other religious events.
Now, to be fair, I will conclude by saying that the founding fathers had left a country where religion and politics were horribly intertwined. They wanted to avoid that in both directions. They wanted to be free to worship how they saw fit. The best way to do that was to ensure the government couldn’t interfere. AND that no single religion could “take over” the reigns of government.
13 Iron Pol // Aug 21, 2008 at 3:40 am
And now for something completely different…
That wasn’t even the post I wanted to read. Funny how that can happen.
Leave a Comment