Wednesday, August 20, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version

Pastor Rick's Test

by Kathleen Parker, Washington Post

Reposted from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/19/AR2008081902396.html?referrer=emailarticle

The Candidates Submit, and a Principle Suffers

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, since mega-pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church, most political debate has focused on who won.

Was it the nuanced, thoughtful Obama, who may have convinced a few more skeptics that he isn't a Muslim? Or was it the direct, confident McCain, who breezes through town-hall-style meetings the way Obama sinks three-pointers from the back court?

The candidates' usual supporters felt validated in their choices. McCain convinced and comforted with characteristic certitude those who are most at ease with certitude; Obama convinced and comforted with his characteristic intellectual ambivalence those who are most at ease with ambivalence.

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.

In his enormously successful book "The Purpose-Driven Life," Warren begins: "It's not about you." Agreed. Nor is this criticism aimed at Christians, evangelicals, other believers or nonbelievers -- or at Warren, who is a good man with an exemplary record of selfless works. Few have walked the walk with as much determination or success.

This is about higher principles that are compromised every time we pretend we're not applying a religious test when we're really applying a religious test.

It is true that no one was forced to participate in the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency and that both McCain and Obama are free agents. Warren has a right to invite whomever he wishes to his church and to ask them whatever they're willing to answer.

His format and questions were interesting and the answers more revealing than what the usual debate menu provides. But does it not seem just a little bit odd to have McCain and Obama chatting individually with a preacher in a public forum about their positions on evil and their relationship with Jesus Christ?

The past few decades of public confession and Oprah-style therapy have prepared us perfectly for a televangelist probing politicians about their moral failings. Warren's Q&A wasn't an inquisition exactly, but viewers would be justified in squirming.

What is the right answer, after all? What happens to the one who gets evil wrong? What's a proper relationship with Jesus? What's next? Interrogations by rabbis, priests and imams? What candidate would dare decline on the basis of mere principle?

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.

Warren tried to defuse criticism about staging the interviews in his church by saying that though "we" believe in the separation of church and state, "we" don't believe in the separation of faith and politics. Faith, he said, "is just a worldview, and everybody has some kind of worldview. It's important to know what they are."

Presumably "we" refers to Warren's church of fellow evangelicals. And while, yes, everybody has some kind of worldview, it shouldn't be necessary in a pluralistic nation of secular laws to publicly define that view in Christian code.

For the moment, let's set aside our curiosity about what Jesus might do in a given circumstance and wonder what our Founding Fathers would have done at Saddleback Church. What would have happened to Thomas Jefferson if he had responded as he wrote in 1781:

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Would the crowd at Saddleback have applauded and nodded through that one? Doubtful.

By today's new standard of pulpits in the public square, Jefferson -- the great advocate for religious freedom in America -- would have lost.

Kathleen Parker is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. Her e-mail address is kparker@kparker.com.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 133 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #233767 by Quine on August 20, 2008 at 11:47 am

Very troubling.

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. " - Thomas Jefferson

Other Comments by Quine

2. Comment #233769 by idragosani on August 20, 2008 at 11:48 am

How come no one interviews the candidates to find out what their positions are on dinosaur research?

Other Comments by idragosani

3. Comment #233771 by mada2002 on August 20, 2008 at 11:49 am

The "forum" was pretty awful. Like the article said, it did little to sway any voters in either direction, it merely showed that both Obama and McCain are willing to do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish Obama could have blown it off and pointed out that this breach of seperation of church and state has no place in America, but that more than likely would have lost him the presidency. I fear that as long as faith and religious figures are prominent in American society, we are doomed to suffer through this dribble to get an ally in office.

Other Comments by mada2002

4. Comment #233783 by kaiserkriss on August 20, 2008 at 12:03 pm

So is Warren running for presidency and the other two are running for the VP job??

This is what things have come to, when so called Presidential candidates have to submit themselves to the power hungry religious mafioso. It seems as though control over Warren's own flock is not enough, now he wants to control and influence legitimate presidential candidates..

It would seem as though if there was a Fundamental Christian party in the US, the candidate would gain significantly more support that the 2.5% the fundamentalist religious party in Pakistan got in the February elections. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

5. Comment #233793 by squinky on August 20, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Obama would not have to do this venue if his name was different. The Obama-is-a-Muslim or un-Christian labels have some stickiness here in America. He's also courting moderate Republicans that hate the war in Iraq more than they love Jesus for president.

Let's have a parallel scientific invite: The Presidential Scientific Forum hosted by Michael Shermer at CalTech (post your favorite moderator and venue).

On the agenda:
1) global warming and alternative energy
2) stem cells, reproductive technology, and early human life.
3) Condoms, Plan B, abortion, HPV vaccination
3) American scientific competitiveness
4) Separation of Church and State, the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers.
and finally, the clincher:
5) EVOLUTION

McCain would wither on the vine after that debate

Other Comments by squinky

6. Comment #233801 by kaiserkriss on August 20, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Go for it squinky!! Great idea.

I think even Obama would be a no show. Too many potential land mines to trip over. Don't forget BOTH candidates are catering to the lowest common denominator. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

7. Comment #233806 by DrShell on August 20, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Of course the candidates have been invited to such a forum and, as far as I know, are still declining to appear:

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php

(Sorry--no idea how to create a link here.)

Other Comments by DrShell

8. Comment #233807 by Mango on August 20, 2008 at 12:28 pm

I'd much rather have seen a forum wherein the candidates discuss their views on scientific matters.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php

Other Comments by Mango

9. Comment #233808 by bamafreethinker on August 20, 2008 at 12:30 pm

McCain would wither on the vine after that debate

Wither on the vine?

It could possibly catapult him to the presidency.

Remember... we're talking about the US here!
Obama answering these questions honestly and correctly would convince even more people that he is the Antichrist!

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

10. Comment #233810 by DrShell on August 20, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Jinx, Mango! (Not that we believe in such superstitions, of course.)

:)

Other Comments by DrShell

11. Comment #233813 by Stevezar on August 20, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Its too bad McCain wasn't the McCain of old, who called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance".

I don't understand why anyone is surprised at Obama, however...didn't anyone read his biographical "Audacity of Hope"? Obama is the most religious candidate we have had in decades.

Other Comments by Stevezar

12. Comment #233815 by Shaden on August 20, 2008 at 12:35 pm

DrShell and Mango,

I love to see them at a debate that's actually important. But that would be risking the votes from the pro-stagnates.

Politics.

Other Comments by Shaden

13. Comment #233817 by BigJohn on August 20, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Please read the last sentence of the U. S. Constitution, Article VI. WTF are we doing even discussing this travesty! Neither of these idiots deserves, by any stretch of the imagination, to be a candidate for the office or President of the United States of America.

Other Comments by BigJohn

14. Comment #233820 by bamafreethinker on August 20, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Stevezar,

I tend to agree with you. I think McCain is much less religious, as he talks about his beliefs much less. I think he's less of a politic and I like him for that. Obama has said some pretty scary stuff. If it weren't for the likelihood that a couple of Supreme Court justices may be appointed by the next prez, I would strongly consider McCain.

Wasn't McCain the only republican that raised his hand when asked if he believes in evolution, or was that someone else?

Of course is doesn't matter since I live in Alabama. We will vote McCain in on a 70/30 landslide.

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

15. Comment #233821 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I posted this earlier on another thread. It's an interesting look at worldviews and christianity from a philosopher.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/08/fun_with_christians_and_worldv.php

Other Comments by Brian English

16. Comment #233823 by TIKI AL on August 20, 2008 at 12:42 pm

The godbot inquisition showed just what delusional crap we are up against in Murica.

Will McSame do a simulated speech with Regan on a big screen behind him at the convention?
You know, like when Hank Williams Jr. sang a duet with his deceased daddy.

That would confuse the simple minded GOP godbots into thinking Regan had pushed the rock away from his burial cave and emerged to join the rapture ticket.

Slogan: "For change you can REALLY believe in, vote for McCain-Reagan to bring on the rapture."
Background music: "And the end times ...they are a chay-en-gen."

Other Comments by TIKI AL

17. Comment #233826 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Stevezar - Is that just a coincidence that you have a similar name to Steve Zara. Would another tag be better?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

18. Comment #233827 by Diacanu on August 20, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Yeah, that town hall to appease the biblethumpers made me sick, but whatever.
Necessary evils thrusted on reasonble people by society.
Let's just get Obama in there, then next time, we can get a blacker president in there, then an atheist, and slowly knock all this shit down.

I hate that progress in politics is a dead crawl, but it is.

Other Comments by Diacanu

19. Comment #233831 by catskill on August 20, 2008 at 12:54 pm

I always figured McCain to be much more religious. And I keep getting sick every time he starts defending action in Georgia because Georgia is a Christian nation. WTF? Plus his 'this nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles' thing he always says. Blech!

I am troubled by Obama in a worst of two evils situation. Does he really buy into the religious drivel? Or is he pandering to a block of religious voters he needs to win over? Either way its bad.

p.s. - My GF said that if McCain said "my friends" one more time she was leaving the room

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M

Other Comments by catskill

20. Comment #233832 by NormanDoering on August 20, 2008 at 12:55 pm

I blogged on this one:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/when-is-question-lie.html

I was disappointed to see that neither candidate pointed out just how loaded Rick Warren's questions were. One of the more glaring examples of a dishonest question was the one Warren asked about abortion:

... abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

My answer would shock Warren's evangelical audience because my answer is "never." There is no point in time when a baby gets all human rights. Does Warren think that a fetus has a right to drink alcohol and vote? If there is a single point in time when we get rights then shouldn't that include all the rights? Warren's question is a fraud, loaded with simple minded evangelical assumptions. Warren should never have used the word "rights" in plural because there is only one right in question, the right of a fetus to continue living and developing. To use the plural is to subtly lie and suggest a fetus is more human than it is. It simply can't do anything else besides grow and develop. There is also a conflict between this right of the fetus versus the rights, plural, of the mother. Warren's question totally ignores the other human being, the mother; what about her rights?

The real question Warren should have been asking was "when do the rights of a fetus supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus?" Or, more precisely, "when does a fetus' right to continue living and developing supercede the rights of the woman carrying the fetus to deal with whatever issues her pregnancy introduces into her life by terminating that pregnancy?"

Other Comments by NormanDoering

21. Comment #233834 by Diacanu on August 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm

NormanDoering-

My answer would shock Warren's evangelical audience...

And then you wouldn't get elected.
:P

I know, I know, I did MST3K commentary through the whole thing.
I would've verbally strangled that fat fuck with his unearned presumed authority.

But then, I ain't running for president. :P

Other Comments by Diacanu

22. Comment #233838 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 1:03 pm

So, lets compare what the candidates think is a waste of money:

Obama: the billions of dollars spent on accomplishing nothing in the middle east it the waste.

McCain: A couple million spent on genetic research is the waste, lets follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell!

How fucked in the head is McCain to say this crap.

Other Comments by J Mac

23. Comment #233843 by canatheist on August 20, 2008 at 1:09 pm

And while, yes, everybody has some kind of worldview, it shouldn't be necessary in a pluralistic nation of secular laws to publicly define that view in Christian code.

Thanks Kathleen, that one line defines the whole crux of the matter.

A dangerous precedent has been set, now anyone vying for public office needs to be validated by the Christian community. It's absurd, but unfortunately, the absurdity and the danger are probably lost on the general public.

Where is the secular counter to this process? Maybe we should petition CNN to host Richard Dawkins to interview the candidates.

Other Comments by canatheist

24. Comment #233845 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 1:11 pm

"The most precious asset we have is american blood. Throughout our history americans have gone to all four corners of the world and shed that blood in defense of someone else's freedom, no other nation on earth has ever done that."

Is McCain that ignorant, or just arrogant? Many other nations have done that. In fact our little revolutionary war a couple hundred years ago wouldn't have gotten very far without the french.

Other Comments by J Mac

25. Comment #233847 by TIKI AL on August 20, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Diacanu 18: Can the first atheist president be a woman?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

26. Comment #233848 by Diacanu on August 20, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Tiki al-

Of course!

Hell, an atheist black woman would be great, get it all in on one go.

Other Comments by Diacanu

27. Comment #233854 by BigJohn on August 20, 2008 at 1:22 pm

You have no more reason to believe that McCain will appoint ideologically wrongheaded judges to the Supreme Court than you do to believe that Obama will not activate the Black Muslims to take control of the major cities of the country. You do not know what either of these incompetents will do if given the immense power of President of the United States. Neither has given any indication of what they really intend to do(or what they can, indeed, do) beyond the fact that they will do or say anything to garner votes. Phooey! This whole thing is an unresolvable mess at this late date.

We have four years to make a real 'change' to the system and find some better way to select a thinking candidate which can lead the U.S. back to 'real life'. We need someone who has read, and understands, the Constitution of the United States of America and will abide by its every nuance. The men who wrote that document actually thought about it. That is much, much more than the two who are now in position to run this country have done. Bah!

Other Comments by BigJohn

28. Comment #233866 by NormanDoering on August 20, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Diacanu wrote:

Hell, an atheist black woman would be great, get it all in on one go.

How about a gay/lesbian atheist black woman from Suadi Arabia?

Other Comments by NormanDoering

29. Comment #233867 by rod-the-farmer on August 20, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Both Obama and McCain gave "good" answers, but that's not the point. They shouldn't have been asked.

Pardon me for voicing an opinion as a non-U.S. citizen, but they should not have accepted is the correct response here.

My limited understanding of U.S. politics and the Constitution tells me there is no litmus test on religion allowed. What else was this but exactly that ? If Mr. Warren wanted to get some questions answered by either or both candidates, he should have asked for time on their schedules, and met them individually at some place other than his church. They would be polite if they managed to fit him in, but they are most emphatically not required to meet with him, nor to get his approval for their candidacy. At least that is the way I understand U.S. rules.

This looks to an outsider as though a religious figure has set up his own, personal debate where he gets to quiz the candidates on their positions. I simply cannot imagine this happening in any other western country. And of course, in a muslim country, I don't think they have much of an historical tradition of political parties.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

30. Comment #233870 by TIKI AL on August 20, 2008 at 1:40 pm

J Mac 25: I told many ignorant godbots here in Phoenix how there wouldn't even be a Murica without the help of the French when that "freedom fry" nonsense was going on in congress.

Hell, we never did pay them for the guns, and now we're broke.

Diacanu 26: OK! And they better not try to give her a pay cut.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

31. Comment #233876 by TIKI AL on August 20, 2008 at 1:54 pm

BigJohn 27: Both candidates are on record as to what type of SCOTUS justices they would appoint. Will they follow thru? Who knows for sure?

Norman Doering 28: You have to be born in the US to be emperor.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

32. Comment #233881 by Ivan The Not So Bad on August 20, 2008 at 2:05 pm

For some background, the following article from the Economist a short while back is illuminating.

(And yes, I would insert a link here rather than paste the whole thing in if only I could get this whizzy new laptop to obey me. Like Basil Fawlty, having given it due warning, I am now going to thrash it.)

"Both Barack Obama and John McCain have problems with religion

Few Democrats have seemed more comfortable talking about God than Barack Obama has. And yet few, if any, have had more problems with God at the ballot box�"from rumours that he is a Muslim to doubts among Catholic and Jewish voters to repeated "pastor eruptions".

This is a serious worry for the Democrats as they gird their loins for the general election. Four years ago the party finally grasped what should have been obvious for years: that running as a secular party in a highly religious country is a recipe for defeat. George Bush not only beat John Kerry by huge margins among "values voters". He also profited from a visceral sense that there was something unAmerican about the Democrats' secularism. Seven out of ten Americans routinely tell pollsters that they want their president to have a strong personal faith.

The Democrats sensibly (if cynically) set about closing the God gap. The party ran candidates with impeccable religious credentials�"Ted Strickland, a former Methodist minister, in Ohio; Tim Kaine, a former missionary, in Virginia; and Robert Casey, a pro-life Catholic, in Pennsylvania. The Democratic National Committee also hired a new species of political professionals�""religious outreach specialists".

The leading Democratic candidates all talked about God with a gusto that had once been reserved for the Republicans. Hillary Clinton said that she was a "praying person" who had once contemplated becoming a Methodist minister. She also outraged some of her hard-core supporters by describing abortion as a "tragedy". John Edwards said that his crusade against poverty was rooted in his Christian faith. The New Testament, after all, has a lot more to say about poverty than about gay marriage.

But none of them talked about God as well as Mr Obama. Mr Obama had a great conversion story to tell�"he was the child of agnostic parents who had "felt God's spirit beckoning me" as a young man and had been baptised at the age of 26. And he talked about religion in a way that appealed to both his party's religious and its secular wings. The Republicans may have co-opted religion for reactionary political ends. But the religion that Mr Obama embraced�"the religion of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King�"was a force for social reform. In his career-making speech at the Democratic convention in 2004 he noted that Americans worship the same "awesome God" in the red states and the blue states. Surely the Democrats had discovered the perfect solution to their God problem?

Two high-octane preachers in Mr Obama's hometown of Chicago put paid to that hope. Jeremiah Wright's cries of "God damn America" almost shook the wheels off his campaign in March. Then last week America witnessed another "pastor eruption"�"Father Michael Pfleger, a white Catholic, mocking Hillary Clinton as an "entitled" white crybaby. Hardly the stuff of religious reconciliation and responsible social reform.

Mr Obama's problems with God are not limited to Trinity United Church, which he formally abandoned this week. He may have done enough to quell worries among Jewish voters with a robust speech on June 4th. But the persistent rumours that he is a Muslim�"contemptible though they are�"will remain a problem during the general election. A poll for Newsweek in May found that 11% of Americans believe that Mr Obama is a Muslim, and a further 22% could not identify his religion.

Mr Obama may also have problems with Catholic voters�"a group that has been one of the most important swing votes in America since Ronald Reagan and that is over-represented in almost all the swing states. Mrs Clinton won 72% of the votes of white Catholics in the Pennsylvania primary�"a nine-point improvement on her performance among whites as a whole and a 13-point improvement on her performance with white Protestants. Only 59% of Catholic Democrats, compared with 70% of Protestants, said that they would vote Democratic in November if Mr Obama were the nominee. Mr Obama's failure with Catholics was not for want of trying: he was backed by Mr Casey and recruited an army of "faith community contacts". Nor was it a one-off problem: exactly the same thing occurred in Ohio, where Catholics put Mr Bush over the top in 2004, and Massachusetts, where even the Kennedy name could not rescue Mr Obama.

And then there's McCain.

The good news for Mr Obama in all of this is that he is up against a Republican candidate in John McCain who has plenty of God problems of his own. Mr McCain has a tin ear for religion. He is in many ways a throwback to the pre-Reagan Republican Party of Nixon and Ford�"a party that regarded religion as something that you did in private. He is much happier talking about courage than compassion. At one point recently he sounded confused as to whether he was a Baptist or an Episcopalian.

Mr McCain has also been making a hash of dealing with his religion problem. He initially embraced the support of the religious right's own versions of Jeremiah Wright in the form of John Hagee (who believes that the anti-Christ will return to earth in the form of a "fierce" gay Jew) and Ron Parsley (one of the leaders of the anti-gay marriage movement), though he recently rejected both men. He seems blind to the fact that the leadership of the evangelical community is shifting to a new generation of much more appealing leaders such as Rick Warren.

All this makes for a much more even fight for the religious vote than for a long time. But it will also make for a more intense fight�"with the Democrats aggressively courting Catholics and evangelicals and the Republicans relentlessly trying to tie Mr Obama to Mr Wright. Those people, in both secular Europe and on the secular wing of the Democratic Party, who had hoped that America's God-soaked politics would disappear with Mr Bush are in for a disappointment."

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

33. Comment #233905 by Border Collie on August 20, 2008 at 2:43 pm

I made a point to NOT watch it. I knew that I'd throw a brick through the TV screen and I can't afford a new TV right now. I mean, what on Earth could I have learned?! ... that presidential candidates have no guts and will do anything to pander votes, that a preacher can ask a bunch of questions to make someone squirm, that there are tens of millions of dumbasses watching it believing it is profound ... makes me sick at my stomach.

Other Comments by Border Collie

34. Comment #233913 by mordacious1 on August 20, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Ah, good ol' Rick Warren...the next Billy Graham according to Rick Warren. This is the guy who told Time Mag. that he turned to christ because he was having serious problems with his brain. That was an understatement.

Other Comments by mordacious1

35. Comment #233917 by Quetzalcoatl on August 20, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Border Collie-

I made a point to NOT watch it. I knew that I'd throw a brick through the TV screen and I can't afford a new TV right now.

Why don't you just stop keeping bricks next to your chair?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

36. Comment #233924 by Border Collie on August 20, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Quetz ... I'd just break them off the house ... I'll consider it, however ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

37. Comment #233925 by Quine on August 20, 2008 at 3:17 pm

I'd much rather have seen a forum wherein the candidates discuss their views on scientific matters.

I fear that if there is a science based debate, the public will vote for the candidate who has the highest number of wrong answers.

Other Comments by Quine

38. Comment #233927 by Border Collie on August 20, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Quetz ... in what part of the world are you? No, I'm not going to throw a brick at you.

Other Comments by Border Collie

39. Comment #233933 by OhioAtheist on August 20, 2008 at 3:34 pm

bamafreethinker:

Wasn't McCain the only republican that raised his hand when asked if he believes in evolution, or was that someone else?

At the first Republican primary debate, the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not accept evolution. The only three to do so were Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. The other seven (there were ten candidates at this time) left their hands down and implied that they did believe in evolution. Not a terrible state of affairs, really; if only we could get 70% of the public to come around!

Other Comments by OhioAtheist

40. Comment #233939 by Border Collie on August 20, 2008 at 3:44 pm

The truth is that even if Obama had shown up nailed to a cross, bleeding from his side, with a crown of thorns, glowing in the dark, with a verifiable halo, performing miracles and ascending into the heavens, the fundy vote in the US would still go to McCain.

Other Comments by Border Collie

41. Comment #233943 by james1v on August 20, 2008 at 4:09 pm

The candidates should have asked him how much he had in his personal bank accounts and how much of this came from poor parisheners! Both should have told him they would take all his money and distribute it amongt the poor! just like his Jesus would have! Then sat back and watched him squirm like a worm on a fishing hook!
America?
Iran?
Becoming twins!

Other Comments by james1v

42. Comment #233949 by SPS on August 20, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Here's an article about the Q&A by a christian on HuffingtonPost.com:

Obama vs. "Oh, Bomb 'Em" --Who's the Christian?

Other Comments by SPS

43. Comment #233965 by Duff on August 20, 2008 at 4:43 pm

I give Rick Warren about six months before we find him either "cavorting" with a male/female prostitute, or spending "church" money on his personal G5 Gulfstream. What do you bet?

Other Comments by Duff

44. Comment #233998 by stptrck75 on August 20, 2008 at 5:19 pm

"...Warren, who is a good man with an exemplary record of selfless works"

Selfless? Selfless?!! What could possibly be more morally despicable than masquerading under the guise of "selflessness" when really you are just trying to get your fat ass (he IS a bloater) into heaven and avoid the ball-singeing flames of hell?? That's not morality. That's doing good things because the big man upstairs has a gun to your head. Makes me want to vomit. And the candidates have to cowtow to this moron and his moronic "flock". Unbelievable.

I'm with you Duff. The man is morally corrupt and that corruptness is bound to manifest in other ways than just trying to get a get-out-of-hell pass.

Other Comments by stptrck75

45. Comment #234001 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Its not just his goal of heaven... Warren has made millions in book sales.

Not much selflessness there. Of, and there of course is the little thing about the notoriety that enables him to just call up the presidential candidates for a personal interview.

You know who a truly selfless person is? Of course you fuckin don't, if their actions were SELFLESS they would not get the recognition for them.

Other Comments by J Mac

46. Comment #234011 by Serious on August 20, 2008 at 6:12 pm

squinky: "Obama would not have to do this venue if his name was different."

Maybe, but this was not the first time Obama had a publicity even in Warren's church. In fact, the very first photo I saw of Obama (last year) was with Warren in his church. It has troubled me ever since.

(McCain has the potential to be even worse than Bush II, but who/what is Obama?)

Other Comments by Serious

47. Comment #234019 by mordacious1 on August 20, 2008 at 6:31 pm

I'm so excited. Rick Warren's, "The Purpose of Christmas", will be out in October. I think the purpose is to get a lot of useless junk, so the Chinese have money to train their Olympic Athletes.

Border comment #233905

"I knew that I'd throw a brick through the TV screen."

Start buying your smoking materials in little baggies, those won't break the TV.

Other Comments by mordacious1

48. Comment #234022 by Border Collie on August 20, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Mord ... I don't smoke or drink or snort anything. It's all natural. But, thanks for the recco. We're just so saturated with this religious muck here in the US and esp. in Texas and other southern states, that every time I hear one more thing about religion and politicians I want to scream ... on second thought, maybe I will try some of that baggie stuff.

Other Comments by Border Collie

49. Comment #234024 by J Mac on August 20, 2008 at 6:38 pm

You don't drink water?

I think what he was referring to is natural too.

Other Comments by J Mac

50. Comment #234028 by Border Collie on August 20, 2008 at 6:48 pm

J Mac ... well, water, of course ... I did try that other natural stuff when I was a young man. Rather enjoyed it. I was referring to my normal everyday insanity as all natural and not induced by ingested substances. So, where is Quetz? I like his wit.

Other Comments by Border Collie

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last