A Purpose Driven Event
I think the Rick Warren discussion/debate showed the following:
1. John McCain is not reluctant to discuss his POW experience; I don't think he should be, but I don't think reporters can write any more that he is reluctant to express himself on this topic.
2. Barack Obama is a Christian -- through and through. He has read and thought about Christianity and showed a deeper understanding of a Christian way of approaching his life and his goals than his opponent did. For example, the problem of evil and the notion of good are each topics on which his answers were more profound than John McCain's.
3. Barack Obama ought to be very acceptable as a President to the members of Rick Warren's community. Most of them are comfortable, I suspect, with the conventional nostrums of the Republicans: lower taxes, bellicose language about evil enemies, and so forth. But Obama, as opposed to McCain, talked about purpose, sacrifice, difficulty, community, caring, and a commitment to the world. In fact, these are the major emerging themes in Pastor Warren's community.
In theory you are right. In a sense we've seen this movie before with Carter vs Reagan, the true Christian vs the false Christian. (I don't really understand why Andrew Sullivan trashes Carter so constantly.) I likewise sense a discomfort among many of the new generation of evangelical leaders with the religious nationalism so easily manipulated by Bush, Cheney, and the Neocons. I guess it remains to be seen the extent to which "emerging church" values will have an impact on votes.
August 18, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
What this episode REALLY showed is that:
- McCain benefits from low expectations and he in fact overdelivered against them
- McCain's performance MUST be seen in the context of "Celebrity" ad. There is a clear connection in his effort to define himself on his own terms while taking down Obama.
- Obama needs to watch out, he is getting perilously close to becoming a cross between the naive Carter, booking Al Gore and windsurfing Kerry, all in one.
August 18, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
correct, he's allowing McCain to define him.
And, he has yet to learn that nuance only goes so far, it might have helped kill Kerry.
In that forum McCains answer to "Evil" was to mention Osama and how he would follow him to the gates of hell, a real applauds line, Obama mentioned a number of things, all valid, but the audience liked McCain's simplified answer better.
August 18, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The correct response from both candidates should have been to decline to come.
The could have said something like: "My job is to attend to the secular needs of the population, yours is to the spiritual needs. I don't tell you how to do you job and I don't expect you to tell me how to do mine. My specific belief system must remain private if I'm to serve all the people fairly."
But, that, of course, would mean that the candidates were willing to uphold the secular principles upon which the US government was based and that they had enough spine to stand up to "Christian" bullies. Kennedy understood this and managed to get elected and anti-Catholic feelings were much more prominent than "anti-Christian" ones these days.
These religious leaders know what they are about and it's not saving souls, it's all about political power and money. They are aided by a complacent press which allows itself to be manipulated. Start with newspeak: faith-based instead of religious or NGO's instead of charities.
Show me a non-religious "faith-based" organization or program. What would they have faith in, if not supernaturalism?
What is an NGO if not a charity? If it gets its money from the government than it is not "non-governmental". If it doesn't than it raises money from contributions, charity.
How about we stop with the pandering, misdirection and euphemisms. Religion has caused more civil strife in the history of mankind than anything else. Letting one sect tell politicians how to act is a sure fire way to revive the conflicts that the US was designed to avoid.
What a miserable set of people we have claiming to be our leaders.
August 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said! We're electing a president, not a head bishop, cardinal or mullah.
August 18, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
rdf,
hear, hear...or is it here, here?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal
August 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more. This was definitely a religious based evaluation of both candidates. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans have a definite religious bias and are inclined to support a candidate they think supports their religious views while actively working to undermine another candidate solely because that other candidate is not of their own faith. We really need to get religion out of this equation. The equation is unsolvable with it in the mix.
However, I've no idea how that can be done without making a huge fuss. Maybe Obama should just quote the constitution when this comes up and just say that religion is off the table from here on out. Then you would really find out who is a patriot, who is a religious zealot and who doesn't undersatnd the principle for why government needs to remain secular.
I know this won't happen but it would be nice if someone in Washington started following the rules. And this one is a good one to start with given it is absolutely trashed by most politicians.
August 19, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
So is George W. Bush, mass killer, whose favorite philosopher is Jesus. So are the Russians and Georgians, currently killing each other.
US Constitution, Article VI:
". . .no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This was written because whatever myths one believes should have nothing to do with one's qualifications for public office.
August 18, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush already said "the Constitution's just a goddam piece of paper!"
August 19, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are the candidates appearing with a charlatan?
August 18, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because they too are charlatans?
August 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much.
August 18, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like IOZ's take reminding us that the Church holds to the "essential sinfulness of post-Edenic man" doctrine and that defeating evil has to await Christ's return.
So, why does McCain get the biggest cheers when he promises to defeat that old evil evilness lickety-split?
Well, no one ever said the pews were full of theologians, now did they.
August 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post! You are absolutely right, that Barack Obama ought to be very acceptable as a President to the members of Rick Warren's community. But, I think that fact that he is not (by large margins) says more about Rick Warren's community than it does about Barack Obama's Christianity. So many of them have gotten use to the taste of Karl Rove coolaid and equate Christian with Conservative, not realizing that evil has no party!
August 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Andrew Sullivan keep bashing Jimmy Carter? I can't answer for Mr. Sullivan, but I can think of good reasons to bash Carter, who made a much better ex-president than president. The reasons ought to act as a warning to Obama.
President Carter's administration was, by and large, a failure. In my mind there were two major reasons for this:
1. Carter came into office as an arrogant, "anti-Washington" candidate. He'd been a governor; when he and his associates came to DC, they assumed that the national government would work the same way as the state government -- and if it didn't, they'd bend it to their will. It didn't happen; Carter and his people quickly alienated both Congress and the "permanent government", the civil-service bureaucracy that does most of the day-to-day work (or can stop it from being done). Within six month, Carter couldn't get anything through Congress, despite Democratic majorities in both houses.
2. Carter came into office having run on a platform that was essentially "feel-good". After the scandals of the Nixon administration, Carter ran on the platform of being "a president as good as the American people". There were few concrete positions; basically Carter ran as a smile and a shoeshine, or a new incarnation of Mr. Rogers (who actually had rather more seriousness to him). Having promised something close to the second coming, Carter unsurprisingly failed to deliver.
Sen. Obama should study the Carter administration carefully.
Peace,
Paul
August 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither candidate should have agreed to this religiousity. NO religious test shall be....
August 18, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you - a terrist? Off to Gitmo...
August 18, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tsk, tsk. I see a headline like 'A Purpose Driven Event' and I think, oh good -- maybe somebody noticed that the purpose driving the event was to promote 'Pastor Rick' and his brand of feel-good superstition. Alas, no: I read a post about why Obama should appeal to Pastor Rick's flock. Feh.
I watched that damned 'event', shushing my nearest and dearest periodically so as to not miss a single drop of the swill on offer. Obama was a disappointment. McCain ... well, let's just say he lacks any power to disappoint me, strictly speaking.
Don't get me wrong: Obama is a thoughtful and decent man, and his answers showed it. But he's also running for president in a country which is closer to Iran than to Britain in terms of religious fervor, and he seems to think he must kowtow to self-appointed mullahs ... er, pastors. However sincere his 'faith' may be, it was obvious that he felt constrained to pander to the congregation. Obvious to me, and no doubt obvious to them. He certainly did not lose my vote, but only because he did not pander enough to gain theirs.
His 'above my pay-grade' comment was the perfect example of what I mean. It was an overt appeal to the god-botherers, but a timid and counter-productive one. It's all well and good to suggest you recognize a higher authority, but talking as if you don't really know His will implies that maybe the hard-core faithful don't, either. Meanwhile, people like me for whom the Constitution is real and God is at best hearsay, feel a bit shortchanged: OF COURSE there are questions above the President's pay grade. Going to war, for instance.
The only satisfaction I got out of the whole event was seeing how much 'Pastor Rick' looks like a younger, hairier 'Reverend' Falwell. It's good to know that evangelism is, as I have long suspected, fattening.
-- TP
August 19, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the event showed was that the former Rove proteges who populate McCain's campaign staff knew exactly what these "evangelical voters" wanted to hear and gave McCain his lines in advance. All he had to tell them was:
1. Ban all abortion
2. Ban gays from getting married.
3. Appoint justices who will ensure 1 and 2.
This is what McCain did to appear "sharp, commanding and passionate" as has been foolishly reported elsewhere.
God bless these evangelicals, you would think that after being lied to, conned and strung along and laughed at behind their backs by George Bush, they'd learn something. Apparently Abe Lincoln was right, you can fool some of the people all of the time.
August 19, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink