The God Blog

Email | Print | Text - Text +

August 20, 2008 | 11:51 am

Columnist: Rick Warren wins, America loses

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Photo

“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,“ Kathleen Parker writes in her column in today’s Washington Post. “It is also un-American.“

Since Barack Obama and John McCain appeared on stage at Saddleback Church on Saturday, the discussion has centered around who gave the most meaningful answers to the Rev. Rick Warren’s questions about good and evil, and whether McCain had an unfair advantage by speaking second.

It’s natural by now for someone to take the contrarian’s position and indicate a fundamental flaw in the whole process. But Parker has a very valid point. As I’ve said over and over again, the religious litmus for presidential office that developed during the past eight years is a very bad thing for American politics.

Randall Balmer, editor-at-large for Christianity Today writes about this evolution in “God in the White House,“ which he discusses on NPR’s “Fresh Air” today. (Audio and a book excerpt here.) And Parker gets it right when explaining why this should make us uncomfortable, and in indicating that we shouldn’t trust what we hear. She continues:

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.

God for President | 8 Comments — Leave your comment

Share this post: del.icio.us Favicondel.icio.us Digg FaviconDigg Facebook FaviconFacebook Google FaviconGoogle Reddit FaviconReddit StumbleUpon FaviconStumbleUpon Technorati FaviconTechnorati YahooMyWeb FaviconYahooMyWeb

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

I completely disagree.  Faith is worldview and we need to understand our candidates worldview and how that worldview impacts their thoughts and actions.  If a man or woman is of Jewish faith I want to know how that impacts his or her political thinking.  To ignore the fundamental philosophical beliefs of our candidates is foolish.  Congratulations to Rick for doing a great job and allowing all Americans to get new insight into our candidates.

Comment by brett on 8/20/08 at 8:03 pm

The thing is, brett, we shouldn’t be interested in electing a priest or rabbi.  We should be interested in what the candidates think in terms of good secular governance, because neither you nor anyone else want a person of a different faith in office who will enforce the laws and uphold the Constitution based on their faith instead of yours.

Well, nobody _should_ want that.  Those who do want that (and I know they exist) are often not willing to suffer the consequences of a person of the “wrong” faith being elected, though.  If, that is, the “wrong” people are going to be granted the same leeway towards “faith-based governance” as the “right” people.

Or was Kennedy really governing as a proxy for the Pope?

Comment by Dave W. on 8/20/08 at 10:51 pm

Kathleen Parker’s artilces do not belong on the pages of
National Review. With her anti-Palin article, I
believe she should be on staff at Dailykos.
When Parker runs a city and a state ... and,
successfully fight’s corruption ... and gets a
9 billion dollar energy project for her state, and generates an 85% approval rating from her state,
maybe then her credibility, and opinion would be worth something.
Instead, she is merely a critic, who from the sidelines, has betrayed Republicans, and the readership of Nationalreview

Comment by Gina on 9/27/08 at 8:58 am

As I said elsewhere, stating religious views to religious groups are on the order of kissing babies and eating kishka and egg rolls and kielbasa in their neighborhoods. It is telling that nobody is taking the Bill Maher or P. Z. Myers approach to the question.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 9/27/08 at 6:58 pm

I have always believed that religious beliefs should be kept out of politics.  There are too many interpretations and religion can be a very argumentative topic.

Our country does not need these sorts of complications when it comes to Presidents, Governors, etc

Comment by steve r on 11/08/08 at 1:06 pm

Bloggers and swiftboaters were already saying Obama was the Antichrist; it was decent to let him speak for himself.
Faith is an important part of any leader’s character. Dubya and Reagan displayed little, and er bore the consequences.

Comment by hugh on 11/25/08 at 2:39 pm

I agree with Steve . Religion and Politics completely 2 different thing. But some people mix up this two things.

Comment by Litigation Document Management on 11/26/08 at 5:16 am

It has a lot to do with whether you believe that God creates the State, or that the State creates the god. But every interest group (Freedom of Assembly, remember?) has the right to ask what a candidate is likely to do for or against their interests. The answers can be trusted no more than any other political statement, and the best they can expect is that the candidate will stay off their backs and keep other people off their backs.

The obvious recent example of this is when Proposition 8 opponents tried to use brute government coercion to create a new right by fiat in order to encroach upon an essentially religious institution by enforcing a radical concept of marriage upon a fortunately insufficiently indoctrinated population.

The Prop 8 controversy is a good example. Marriage is a primarily religious statement that the State has mixed into.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 11/26/08 at 1:18 pm

Post a Comment

Name:  
Email:  
URL:  

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

RSS


Blog Archive