How Soon They Forget: Megachurchgoers See No Evil In McCain

At the megachurch known as Saddleback, Barack Obama and John McCain last night fielded questions from the popular right-leaning pastor, Rick Warren. The candidates were presented in serial one-on-one Q-and-A sessions (transcript) with the evangelical preacher, addressing topics ranging from leadership to human rights for fetuses to the nature of evil. That last topic was asked this way of each of the candidates:

WARREN: How about the issue of evil? I asked this of your rival, in the previous debate. Does evil exist and, if so, should ignore it, negotiate it with it, contain it or defeat it?

Now, imagine this was the year 2000, just a few days after the South Carolina primary, in which John McCain was defeated in no small measure by the efforts of televangelist Pat Robertson and the Baptist bloviator, Jerry Falwell.

The answer might have gone like this:

McCAIN: Defeat it. A couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Pat Robertson and his agents of intolerance. No one, no one should be exert the evil influence on the Republican Party that he and that blowhard Falwell have had.

Of course, evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century -- radical Christian extremism.

The very fact that McCain sat across a table from the affable Warren shows that he learned his lesson from his 2000 primary defeat, which was clinched when, during one of those legendary sessions with reporters on the Straight Talk Express, McCain decried the "evil influence" the Revs. Robertson and Falwell, whom he really did call "agents of intolerance," had visited upon his party. He also compared the two religious-right figures to the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Nation of Islam's Minister Louis Farakkhan. Within days, he apologized for his use of the word "evil," calling it a joke. But no one bought that explanation -- neither the righties nor the reporters who covered McCain so breathlessly during that hot minute he played the insurgent challenger to George W. Bush.

And so, the McCain of 2008, if not a model Christian soldier, is eager to win the support of people he, not so long ago, disparaged. His rapprochement with the religious right began two years ago, when he patched things up with Falwell (who has since died), and agreed to speak to the 2007 graduating class of Falwell's Liberty University.

If McCain's efforts to woo the religious right seem a bit tone deaf (as in his promise to follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of Hell") and disingenuous, last night's audience at Saddleback didn't seem to mind, enthusiastically applauding McCain's promise to defeat evil, even after politely applauding Obama's thoughtful plea to remain humble in the battle against evil, reminding his Christian audience that the eradication of evil is God's task, and that too often humans have perpetrated new evils in the name of eradicating evil.

Here's McCain's actual answer to the question about evil:

WARREN: How about the issue of evil? I asked this of your rival, in the previous debate. Does evil exist and, if so, should ignore it, negotiate it with it, contain it or defeat it?

McCAIN: Defeat it. A couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that. And I know how to do that. I will get that done. (APPLAUSE). No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of American -- innocent American lives.

Of course, evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century -- radical Islamic extremism.

Not long ago in Baghdad, al Qaeda took two young women who were mentally disabled, and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace and, by remote control, detonated those suicide vests. If that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is. And we're going to defeat this evil. And the central battleground according to David Petraeus and Osama bin Laden is the battle, is Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and Iraq and we are winning and succeeding and our troops will come home with honor and with victory and not in defeat. And that's what's happening.

And we have -- and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us al Qaeda continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America. My friends, we must face this challenge. We can face this challenge. And we must totally defeat it, and we're in a long struggle. But when I'm around, the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform, I have no doubt, none.

Here's how the question was asked of Obama in the first segment of the forum, how the candidate answered:

WARREN: OK, we've got one last time -- I've got a bunch more, but let me ask you one about evil. Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?

OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.

Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil's been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.

WARREN: In the name of good.

OBAMA: In the name of good, and I think, you know, one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good.

Obama's is clearly the theologically superior answer but lacking the bloodletting promised by McCain, it failed to move this very holy crowd.

When I saw Obama take on each of Warren's questions thoughtfully, for the most part, and direct his gaze at his questioner as if the two were in conversation, I thought he had done magnificently. I thought he had aced the test.

The audience seemed to like him. They even liked his stance against torture, it seemed. The McCain came on and stole the show with his resolute, angry old warrior schtick and Vietnam torture stories, and this audience seemed to just love being played by a guy who desperately needs the religious right's get-out-the-vote machinery engaged on his behalf. (For the record, I really do admire McCain's decision to stay with his comrades in the Hanoi Hilton when he could have gone home, but that won't do much for me when he's adding another Alito or Roberts to the court, which he all but promised last night to do.)

It's said by people smarter than me that all Obama has to do in a room like Warren's made-for-TV sanctuary is to survive, be not scary, and earn respect. If that's true, he surely did that last night, and among some of the younger evangelicals, he may actually win a vote or two. But with Warren's claim to a kinder, gentler biblical imperative than is found by elders such as Robertson's, it was profoundly disheartening to see an almost knee-jerk response in favor of unbridled, war-mongering jingoism, advanced by a guy who probably doesn't even like them.

ASIDES: If you haven't yet, check out this post by Shireen Mitchell and yours truly, advancing the cause of seeing Hillary Clinton's name entered into nomination in order to unify the Democratic Party (and heal the women's movement).

Follow Adele Stan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/addiestan

Comments

[zoozey]

Ms. Stan:

You have just written one of the best assessments that I have seen about the Forum. Thank you, thank you for saying so well what I and others thought about the other night. I wish you could have gone on some of the pundit shows to express this on our behalf.

Thank you!

[KarlaElisa]

Great article. Obama DID best reflect God's values.

[meanguy]

after ll, he IS the messiah...

[Bitsko]

I wish the candidates would appear at a humanist forum, or hold a debate focused on science and technology, instead of pandering to folks who believe the sun circles the earth, that evolution is "just a theory," and that a man who died two thousand years ago is coming back accompanied by a blast of trumpets.

[Bitsko]

The more I learn about megachurches, the more they sound like giant land grabs and tax shelter scams.

[BillyShears]

Isn't lying and cheating - in a church - in a faith based forum - to a pastor - kinda sinful?

[CtJean]

I believe it's called blasphemy

and I think they are guilty

[luziannagirl]

Don't be so quick to discount the value of Obama's having participated and done well/held his own on "enemy soil".

Fundamentalist evangelical Christians who make up the core voting demographic of the R's are already not as enthusiastic if not outright divided over McCain. A segment of them is already so conflicted about this "non-choice" that they will probably stay home on election day rather than vote, or, they'll throw their vote away in protest by pulling the lever for a third party candidate. Obama stands to gain by NOT rousing this presently yawning and nodding demographic, by NOT presenting himself as a choice they could easily hate.

And then, there's that religious-­influenced "swing" voting demographic, those who value religion and what the telepreachers tell them, but whose lives aren't exactly built around it. Some of these folk have been over the last 2 or 3 yrs, quietly losing faith in the divinity of BushCo & the R's, over torture, the war, and even hurricane Katrina. They are on scan for a new direction, and Obama stands to gain by also snagging a few percentage points from them.

So, while it would certainly have scratched my itch to have seen the Big O lay into this crowd and berate them for being that very evil which they seek to battle, it would have done him little political good, and possibly a great amount of harm to have done so.

[rboylern]

Let us not forget that Pastor Warren and Sen McCain were "preaching" to the already convinced. The Senator did his best to suck up to these people as much as he could get away with. Very sad indeed.

[kathy001]

Exactly!!

[DrCalif]

The audience didn't mind because the pathetic event took place in Orange County, the reddest place in California besides Fresno.

[milo9]

Truth!

[TrueIndy08]

you've got that right... I live in CA... I just the weekend with my bestfriend in Laguna and let me tell you, these people are soooo brainwashed to the right, its sad and disgusting!

[Brillig]

It's me in the corner...l­osing my religion

[LAB10]

You're not alone!

[shel3364]

I'd have to say and you and I see eye-to-eye on this.

I thought Obama did very well also.

Reminds me of the scene from "election" where the candidate speak in front of the student body.

[sothsegger]

Why do I have to suffer obama's pandering toward the religious right? It's offensive to me that he would even appear at saddleback.

[Brillig]

This is a political race. You appear where you have to. Some might ask "Why do we have to suffer seeing politicians kiss babies"?

And many politicians cant stand the little brats...BU­T you do what you have to do....the word pandering is being overused - like the word paradigm was in the late 80's.

[egal]

Is it better to let the GOP or the fanatics control the dialogue?

Sure, probably most of the people in that room woudln't honestly vote for a black man for president; do honestly believe Obama's a Muslim because somebody said that there was an email that insisted another email said as much with PROOF since forgotten (but not saying "since disproven"); think that the Bible says gays must be eradicated, and all other religions can be slaughtered as long as megachurches get some money from the deal; and would be told by Christ that he doesn't know them and they never did his will or followed him.

But for those who have brains they like to use, who prefer to follow the tenets of their faith over their extremist leaders, who have questions for which they want honest answers, are mor interested in BEing a Christian than DEMONstrating that they are Christians by donating money to big names, maybe his visit was fruitful.

If its the biggest venue in which he'll be seen by those who don't know him or believe the false hearsay, it would be foolish for Obama to not go. There are plenty of people who don't know how evil many of the self-proclaimed leaders are, and maybe a few will see past the bloodthirsty applause to the heart of McCain's opponents answers, beliefs, and future leadership.

[JustMyWords]

Why should it be offensive? And why should his appearance be "pandering"? From what I've seen and read, Obama is a thoughtful, man whose religion is important to him. Why shouldn't he appear at a gathering of religious people, and take part in a discussion that could possibly lead to finding common ground?

If you're not religious, fine. But it would be nice for there to be a little more recognition that the terms "liberal" and "nonreligious" are NOT synonymous. I'd like to see religious people take their faith back from fanatics who are more interested in power than in actually following the tenets of their faith.

[Starlight5]

I will never be able to understand how the Chirstian Evangelical Right Wing can support
a man who seems to glorify war so much, has a very bad temper and a foul mouth while
they are so suspicious of a soft spoken, eloquent speaking man who advocates seeking
peaceful sloutions to the world's problems and caring for those who are least fortunate.

What Bible are they reading from???????????

[paixa3]

They do not follow Jesus and read BETWEEN the lines of the bible, or follow directly some of the crazies who should have NEVER made it into that book.

[sandpiper1]

Calling themselves Christians does not mean they are. Unfortunately people for centuries have used religion to perpertrate mass murder in trying to shove their ideology to non believers. To think of all the ills in America and the world, and their only topic of importance is abortion and gay marriage. Discrimination in all it's ugly aspect eg. social, gender, racial does not concern these sanctimonious hyprocrites. As Jesus said " He doesn't listen to hyprocrites" but they would never think they are. I sometimes think they are doing the work of the devil instead of God.

[shel3364]

My Grandma was a "Christian" and could be one of the nastiest most judgmental people ever.

Sitting in a pew doesn't make you a Christian. Jesus would be pissed.

[BCubedReg]

They are not christians and they do not believe in the tenets of the Bible. If they did, they would have found Obama's compassionate and moving response to have been persuasive. I am so tired of these people calling themselves christians and thinking they have cornered the market on religious rightiousness.

[GJKBEAR]

UltraClassic,
I think I could be considered a bleeding heart liberal. I get so angry sometimes that I talk to the TV and the computers.­..That being said, I don't hate evangelicals and I don't think most liberals hate them either/ What I do hate and what most of the liberals hate is hypocrisy - people angry about abortion - but don't want kids to have basic sex ed because they feel it promotes sex.
Liberals also hate the fact that they are all for getting the babies born; but then it is "their problem". Don't take money from their pockets to pay for prenatal care; adoption fees; day care so the mother can get a good job or some kind of program so that the mom can stay home and provide a stable first few years. No money for anything other than technical training either - we don't want to pay so someone can get a better job and make more money. Or ones who claim to be pro-life but would not balk at bombing an abortion clinic, or shooting a physician who performed abortions. Nor those who claim to be pro-life but are pro death penalty. There are many people that I consider Evangelical. They truly live what they believe. We don't agree on a number of issues; but I can respect them. Don't sell liberals short - we are not all hate mongers any more than Evangelicals are.

[torrrep]

I agree with you that people should not be lumped in large categories. However, your examples are just wrong. It is not the job of the government or anyone else to raise you from the cradle to the grave. Abortion has nothing to do with raising a child. It's called life and it comes with responsibilities. Your assumption is that if someone has a child rather than aborting it then everyone else should be responsible for taking care of the mother and the child. That is wrong. Abortion is simply a life or death issue. Saving a baby from abortion does not put the burden on society is you like to put it. The mother and the father need to responsible for their own actions. Not many pro lifers I know favor abortion bombing or doctor shooting and for you to suggest otherwise is just false. Pro-life and and pro-death penalty are different situations. One involves saving a life of an innocent person. The other involves taking the life of someone who has performed a heinous crime. I have no problem with the death penalty. Especially if the person knew the consequences of their actions. You are trying to mix all of the issues into one and it just isn't going to fly.

[Brillig]

It is the JOB Of CHRISTIANS, not the GOVERNMENT, to take care of the widow and orphan, clothe and feed the homeless, entertain the stranger, take care of "the least of these"

YOUR MONEY has blinded you to any of the real christian virtues - you are scared to pay tax in case someone you despise benefits.

You should WANT to pay taxes, so that everyone can be helped - of course you should want the money wisely spent - that is another matter...b­ut rightwing evangelicals are just about the meanest ( in spirit and wallet) people I know...

[aspen]

Zygotes and fetuses are not fully developed children. As much as the religious right calls them children, they are not. If they want to say that zygotes the size of a period have a soul that is their religious belief one not shared by all religions.

Perhaps such ignorance and religious zealousness are responsible for the US losing ground to other nations in the field of science.

[Daps]

"ASIDES: If you haven't yet, check out this post by Shireen Mitchell and yours truly, advancing the cause of seeing Hillary Clinton's name entered into nomination in order to unify the Democratic Party (and heal the women's movement).­"

The Democratic partty isn't in actuality fragmented and this only serves to set back the womens' movement.

When the best female candidate is ready, we'll be ready for her. It's anti-equal to throw her a bone and forgive racist tactics that cost her the nomination simply because she's the only SHE there (no insult intended to McKinney, of course.)

[muffler]

Hillary was out maneuvered period! She should retire gracefully and her people should support the candidate running. Otherwise it's just divisive and counterproductive to bringing a Democrat to the White House.

The whole idea of her expecting a nomination or the reading of her name is egotistical. If and when Obama wins in November I am sure that he will run in 2012. Is Hillary going to just jump in and again run against a sitting president? Probably because the whole thing is self-serving.

[iride]

I am so sick of seeing conservatives voting for a president over 1 issue: abortion. I myself would rather vote for a pres. with a real concern for other important issues.

[torrrep]

What makes you think we vote over one issue? I can name several issues that matter me. Unfortunately Democrats don't vote the correct way on these issues.

[Brillig]

Because it is all you talk about...wh­y not be anti-sex? That would get rid of abortion in a flash -