Posted on 08/23/2008 3:15:06 AM PDT by rhema
Suffice it to say that I was not very hopeful about the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency held at the California megachurch last Saturday night. In the first place, I am not really comfortable with the idea of hosting such a politically charged event in a church. No matter how the event is planned and projected, once the event starts it can turn into something far more politically volatile than planned. That is a truth I have learned by hard experience.
Secondly, the advance publicity about the event touted it as a platform for a kind of "third way" movement that would avoid the serious worldview issues and would instead limit the conversation to vague generalities. A good many media reports suggested that Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain would be asked only "soft" questions that would demonstrate common ground and agreement between the candidates. That would be an exercise in wasted time and a squandered opportunity.
Thirdly, I was concerned that Pastor Rick Warren, the moderator of the event, would be reduced by the format to the role of a therapist or spiritual guru. Like all of us, Rick Warren likes to be liked, and being liked by two of the most famous political figures in the world is quite an achievement. Yet, if Rick Warren was to fulfill his role in moderating and leading these conversations, he would have to risk being liked a bit less. Maybe even a lot less.
With the press pushing the event as a "new face" for American evangelicals, I was not overly hopeful. Given the hype, I was positively unhopeful. But . . . the event turned to be quite worthwhile after all. I still have deep reservations about identifying the event so closely with a church, but the conversations really did get to urgently important and controversial issues, and Pastor Rick Warren handled the conversations with aplomb, demonstrating both civility and candor.
Pastor Warren's questions ranged from the deeply personal to the overtly controversial. He often asked questions that made it difficult for the candidates to avoid giving direct and revealing answers. He let the candidates speak for themselves.
He asked about their greatest moral failure. Obama spoke of drug and alcohol use as a young person. McCain referred directly to the failure of his first marriage. When asked about the reality of evil, the two candidates revealed very different approaches. When asked about abortion and same-sex marriage, a great chasm appeared between the candidates. Obama declared his complete support for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. When asked, "at what point does a baby get human rights?" Obama said that the question "is above my pay grade." That is a particularly evasive answer, because the President of the United States must frame policies that are predicated on some assumption of when a human being, born or unborn, deserves the full protection of the law.
On same-sex marriage, Sen. Obama attempted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but he made clear that he would actively oppose any constitutional amendment designed to protect that definition, and he gave full support to civil unions. He suggested that the matter should be left to the states, but he has opposed Proposition 8 on the California ballot -- a citizen-initiated referendum that would define marriage as a heterosexual union.
Sen. McCain offered more succinct answers. When asked the question about when a baby gets human rights, McCain said, "at conception." He pledged to be a pro-life president and he opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage. The worldview differences between the two men were made clear, but the conversations were calm, respectful, and unhurried.
In other words, something of genuine significance happened at the Saddleback Civil Forum. Millions watched the event on CNN and the event set the stage for many lively conversations to follow.
But, not everyone is pleased. Writing in the editorial pages of USA Today, columnist DeWayne Wickham complained that the event was too overtly Christian. "What we need in the White House is a devout believer in this nation's democratic principles, not the vicar of Saddleback," he asserted.
The "vicar of Saddleback?" Neither of these candidates is running for that office. That comment reveals more about DeWayne Wickham's commitment to a secularist vision of politics than about the Saddleback event.
He wrote:
As his interviews made clear . . . Warren's doublespeak cloaked an effort to get the candidates to take a stand on many of those non-negotiable issues, which he apparently still considers matters of religious faith — and qualification for public office. His questions about their "worldview" on Christianity, abortion and the definition of marriage reflected not so much a civil forum as a push for a theocratic presidency, one that would be deeply influenced by Warren's evangelism.
Sound the alarm -- "a theocratic presidency?" That hyperventilation is remarkable. Anyone who talks about Obama or McCain in terms of a "theocratic presidency" has been reading too much science fiction in the secularist apocalypse genre. Furthermore, Rick Warren is no theocrat.
Wickham continued:
Just as worrisome for me was his call for McCain and Obama to confess their "greatest moral failure." That's a pretty far-reaching inquiry that would be better answered in a pastor's study than on national TV — unless, of course, the purpose is political persuasion, not personal salvation. Even so, Obama said it was his drug and alcohol use during his youth. McCain said it was the failure of his first marriage.
Wickham's real issue here is probably not the question itself at all. It's hard to imagine his umbrage if Lesley Stahl or Bill Moyers asked that question of the candidates. No, the real issue here is the setting. But, then again, Wickham went on to argue that it is a good thing that many famous presidents of the past did not have to answer that question.
Finally, Wickham argued:
The president's job is not to rid the world of the Bible's Beelzebub but rather the worldly devils that afflict us. It is to properly handle the difficult issues of war and peace, to manage the domestic affairs of this great melting pot, and to ensure this country's longstanding guarantee of religious freedom — and protect its commitment to a secular government. CNN did these causes a great disservice by giving a leader of just one of this nation's religious faiths a platform to influence the outcome of the coming presidential election.
There is much in that paragraph to unpack, but the central issue here is Wickham's definition of a "secular government." The Saddleback Civil Forum revealed once again that government must necessarily deal with many decidedly "unsecular" questions. These two candidates were not forced into this conversation, they embraced it. Once there, they had to answer the questions.
Neither candidate is seeking to be the new vicar of Saddleback. Instead, both are running for the highest political office in the land. As both candidates were reminded Saturday night, that means there are certain questions you just can't duck.
As long as God rules supreme over Heaven and Earth, the majority of people will recognize his authority and at the very least, show respect for it in public life.
And truly, if secularist here haven't been touched by the spirit, that's their business. I won't however, be pursuaded to abandon my faith in favor of respecting their beliefs.
And don't call for me when he shows up at your door some dark night:
Chrissy Matthews was on a similar toot on PMSNBC last nite. He railed against the idea that candidates might be asked questions about the moral aspects of their lives and their belief systems. Chrissy sounded just like the guy in this article. Maybe Chrissy read this guy’s article and was parroting him. Maybe. But it was funny to watch Chrissy hop up on his high horse about this, as the real reason his nose was in a snit was because his guy, Obama, got creamed by McCain at Saddleback. That’s why there is all this outrage. If Obama would have done well, then it would have been a hunky dory debate, but he didn’t, so now the “moral” outrage of Chrissy and the Libs at the line of questioning by Warren at Saddleback. Funny, these libs. They are so obvious.
Good article. I think “secularists” are just in a fluff because B.O. came off looking like a Marxist Death Eater.
In the Saddleback interviews, questions were asked that required both candidates to dig deep and come up with answers, not just related to foreign and domestic policy, but answers that give us, the voters, the CRITERIA by which they would make important Presidential decisions. The interview was most valuable and gave voters info they would never have gotten anywhere else.
I think that is what has them upset.
That's why the heathen are raging: they saw Obama dig deep and come up with . . . platitudes, evasions, and obfuscations.
The secularists' messiah is revealed as Bromide Personified.
Suffice it to say that I was not very hopeful about the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency held at the California megachurch last Saturday night. In the first place, I am not really comfortable with the idea of hosting such a politically charged event in a church. )
Why be uncomfortable? Where do you think the first political meetings our ancestor had were held? In the Civic Center? No they held them in the churches and the schools. The only places vailable to them. They saw no problemk with it and neither do I. Just because I beleive in God does not mean that I should be excluded from the conversation. In fact the CONSTITUION specifically forbids the Government from doing so.
Therein lies the problem: you're referring to the actual Constitution; too many activist judges spend their careers discovering "rights" in the penumbras and emanations of the "living" Constitution.
“I am not really comfortable with the idea of hosting such a politically charged event in a church.”
Yeah, right. Just up the street from me is St. John’s Church, where Patrick Henry gave his “give me liberty or give me death” speech.
ping for later read
Ahhh so the event was very productive and civil but just can't get past that stigma of being church-related ay? Well church members are also tax-paying, productive members of society too. Rick Warren functioned like a true pro journalist would if there were any in America that is.
These are EXACTLY the types of questions that need to be asked.
Integrity, morality, and one's beliefs are the core of the person. Elect the wrong core and the whole country rots.
leftists lose when their beliefs are exposed to the public
that’s the basis of the outrage.
**But, not everyone is pleased. Writing in the editorial pages of USA Today, columnist DeWayne Wickham complained that the event was too overtly Christian. “What we need in the White House is a devout believer in this nation’s democratic principles, not the vicar of Saddleback,” he asserted.**
I wonder what Mr. Wickham thinks the main religion choice of most Americans is?
At least they got the picture right - they put Obama on the left.
There is a phenomenon, well defined in human Psychology, called projection. David Axelrod, Obama's professional people manipulator/creator and handler has sought to fabricate a vague screen upon which voters can project what they think they want in a leader. Rick Warren removed the 'vague' to reveal some of the actual under the 'veil of vague' Axelrod has skillfully fabricated.
What Rick Warren did so naturally is precisely what a skilled Pastor does in his non-pulpit time, he deals with the real human nature he is able to expose via personalize questioning. And Obama was left exposed for the secular Marxist he is, which is maddening to those who have so embraced their own projections onto the vague screen of Axelrod's construction. Once that dose of reality settles in, Obama will not even get the moderate votes because he is first a carefully constructed 'non-person' and second a supporter of abortion on demand, Marxist wealth redistribution through heavy taxation, and a man uncomfortable with America's status as world leader for improving human conditions through a capitalist approach protected by a strong standing military.
In simpler terms, Rick Warren exposed the real Barack Obama which shattered the false image Axelrod has encouraged people to fabricate personally in their yearning minds. Warren popped Axelrod's fancy balloon, revealing the real Obama who is not so pretty to confront.
What Rick Warren did inadvertently for McCain was expose the human side of a man perhaps ready to lead, and lead not by the wet finger in the wind methodology the media and pollsters have insisted is 'the American way' but by relying upon his internalized values, the values Rick Warren exposed for us during that golden hour.
BTW, rhema, thanks so much for the ping and opportunity to offer this different perspective. I was genuinely surprised and pleased with Rick Warren's masterful work in that venue. America can be the better for such an effort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.