Faith Quizzes Get an F
An article in the Washington Post On Faith section in response to their question: At the Saddleback Church Forum, pastor Rick Warren began his interviews with John McCain and Barack Obama by saying: "We believe in separation of church and state, but not faith and politics." What's your response to that and to the forum?
For me, the God quiz that Barack Obama endured with barely concealed sweaty palms and that John McCain breezed through with seasoned casualness has no place in American politics. Rick Warren is a feel-good preacher who softened the interrogation and administered no canings, but that's irrelevant. To claim that "faith and politics" is different -- and more acceptable -- than "church and state" is semantic sleight of hand. The reason that any contemporary presidential candidate is forced to suffer the indignity of confessing his religious beliefs in public goes back to the Reagan revolution. Pandora's box was opened by the right wing in 1980, admitting not just inappropriate matters of religion into political life but also making acceptable a range of prejudice, bigotry, and divisiveness that had been banished by an era of liberal social legislation. Reagan, after all, was the president who, if left to his own devices, would have let thousands more AIDS victims die through neglect and lack of funding for basic medical research. The implicit reason, well understood by the right and endorsed by fundamentalists, was that gays deserve what they get if they pursue a lifestyle that doesn't match right-wing Christian ideology. Minorities, women, immigrants, and progressivism in general were given the same back hand.
The Obama-McCain evening, being a stepchild of conservative beliefs, was stacked against Obama, or any secularist, Democrat or not. Indeed, it was stacked against anyone who understands the basic reason for separating church and state, which is to keep closed the box of religious divisiveness that Reagan sprang open. As a performance, neither candidate displayed either the unvarnished truth or unblemished integrity. The real message that was meant to come across from Obama was "I really am American," and from McCain was "I'm really right as Reagan." Viewer's notes: Dull pandering to the audience from both sides. Lots of mention of Jesus, sin, faith, prayer. McCain came off as more prepared and polished in his responses. He went for Reagan's easy folksy confidence, catering to the audience's craving for moral simplicity. His answer to the question "Is there evil and how to deal with it?" was typical: "Yes, there is evil and we will defeat it." Obama said, roughly, "Yes there is evil, and we can't hope to defeat it on our own, but we can be soldiers for the Lord to do what we can."
For McCain, it's all as simple as what Reaganism carved out almost thirty years ago: Gay marriage is bad, abortion is bad, activist judges are bad. Winning in Iraq is good, getting Osama bin Laden is good, offshore oil drilling is good, and freedom is great. Obama talked about the hard work and sacrifices we need to make in order to overcome energy dependence and academic mediocrity, also the respect we need to accord others on the abortion issue--not quite as stirring as reactionary platitudes.
In short, McCain appealed to our escapist magical morality, Obama appealed to reason and practicalities. That has been the story throughout the campaign. Everyone concedes that Obama's way is more mature, realistic, and ultimately right. But I doubt that's enough to cure a case of sweaty palms.
Get a sneak peak of our new venture at http://intent.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Great insight, thank you!
The existence of a religious forum for political candidates is absurd, considering Article VI of the Constitution forbids any religious test for office. I can imagine the skewering someone like Thomas Jefferson would have received at such an event. He was considered a Deist, but probably a rational agnostic at heart. He would never be elected in today's political climate.
Mr. Chopra: I disagree with you on many, many issues - but this article is on point. Well done.
This country needs to grow up and heal the wounds the Religious Right has inflicted in the name of God. Our media needs to stop giving the frauds the attention they crave and our candidates need to stop going to them for votes. The famous, millionaire tv preachers do not represent me or any other Christian I know so I do not understand why they are the ones given the welcome mat by our media to speak on behalf of Christians. I do not recognize their "religion.
I was disheartened after watching the 'Rick Warren Show.' John McCain was definitely the winner. The Right has done an effective job of manipulating evangelicals and directing their allegiance to the Republican party, in spite of its lack of heart for the needy and hopeless and in spite of this war and the pain, suffering, and loss it has caused. If only evangelical voters would pay attention to Obama's pro-life platform to reduce the loss of unborn lives while caring for children and families, reducing arms and preventing war! The Right has done nothing to save unborn lives, to prevent unwanted pregnancies, or to love "sinners." I hate knowing that a few 'sins' could decide who our next president will be -"sins" the Right has enlarged and claim are just too terrible. I am sick of the hatefulness, dire warnings, and the cruel, self-righteous finger pointing and name calling, using God's word in convenient ways as a weapon against any democrat. Pat Robertson teaches about his angry God and how He lifted that "veil of protection
The reality that Barack has to face with the White religious right is this:
many of these people have no intention of voting for any Democrat, for reasons that span decades. However, very many of these same people find McCain objectionable, for obvious reasons - he not only cheated on his wife, he left her for a richer and younger woman. He has obviously flipped on issues important to many "christians", and one is left with the impression that he flips on issues to pander to those from whom he wants support.
Thus, what Barack needed to do at the Saddleback forum was show White "christians" that they do not need to be afraid of him. I think he succeeded in that admirably. He did not pander to them, but he did not incite them. He showed himself to be a very intelligent, compassionate, honorable man of faith.
As an example, I have talked to two voters in Orange County, California who normally vote Republican, and both told me that they will not vote this election. They never had any intention of voting Democratic, but they do not like McCain. Obama did nothing at Saddleback to make them want to rush out and vote for McCain, and he may have even gained a few votes.
Good article, thank you sir.
I think Obama was very brave and wise to attend this forum. He is willing to address issues that affect all Americans, in the forums that they want to hear the issues discussed. That is a very mature way of dealing with the problem of the religious right, and I think he may have defused the problem somewhat.
As has been said, Obama is smart, and McCain is simple and direct, if often confused, mean, and just plain wrong. What people want in a leader is up to the people, but I am very happy with what I saw in Gore, Kerry, and now Obama. I just pray that the outcome of the election this time is different.
I was interested to see the good people of Saddleback expose their true selves. The loudest applause of the evening came in response to McCain's promise to lower (or at least not raise) their taxes. They also seemed pretty excited about war.
Well, the notion that 'faith' is an equivalent of 'church' is proof to me that the right wing religious coalition has succeeded in thoroughly framing our dialog.
Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
church:the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
Not the same thing whatsoever. Warren does use them interchangeably- you are correct on that. But it doesn't make his usage correct. Right wing fundamentalist religion narrows the power of faith. It's like squeezing MLK or Ghandi into an extra small girdle.
Separation of church and state is a construct that goes back farther to the time of Inquisition, when making any statements or observations about nature which deviated from Church teachings was perceived as heresy. At that time it became critical for the survival of science to remain at arm's length from religion.
From Matthew Fox:
Science itself, of late, has done much more to further the concept of
creator within all creation. I think of Einstein-P
Bell in regards to non-locality and entanglement; Bohm's theory of
wholeness and the implicate order has a large impact on our
understanding of the universe. The challenge now is the
schism which continues to separate the spiritual from science; what
would happen if science found an indication of intention in material?
Would it ignore it as a false data rather than opening to the
possibility that spirit may exist in matter?
well since so many people in this country are simpletons, this makes sense. The average IQ is 100 and you have to appeal to those on both sides of the smart meter and the Repugs have figured out how to appeal to those they know will not look for or understand the nuances of the important issues.
It is not a semantic distinction. There has to be some sort of State action for separation of church and state to be breached. The Saddleback forum doesn't qualify.
I think what Warren was saying about "faith and politics" mean simply that the voting public can't and shouldn't be expected to set aside their most deeply held convictions---which for most of them are grounded in a religious tradition---when electing their leaders.
Didn't Jesus already teach to this point?
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).
Mr. Chopra, there is nothing to add. You said it all, and thank you for reminding people that Reagan was not the God some make him out to be. The problem I am having is not with McCain but with those who eagerly consume what he offers as something worthy of consumptio
Whoa! Deepak saying something about faith and religion that I'm actually in full agreement with. Must be a full moon or something.
I'm in shock myself... never thought in a thousand years I'd agree with anything the author ever wrote.
HOORAY!
At last someone has said it!!
In all the hoohah after the Saddleback event, with all manner of pundits analyzing every bit of minutiae spoken by each candidate, I have been fuming- why did this event take place at all?!?
The supreme arrogance of Rick Warren, thinking that he, as a church leader, has any business poking his nose into presidential politics, and the supreme gutlessness of the two candidates, failing to decline to answer questions that are clearly out of place in a presidential campaign, have got me furious.
I don't care if my president bows in obeisance to a statue of Baal that s/he keeps in his/her basement. What I do want is competence, knowledge, and skills. I don't want my president to be holy, I want him/her to be SMART.
I have been deeply outraged at the injection of this religious nonsense in government for years. Thank you Deepak. It's time to live up to our founding fathers' hopes and openly disparage any attempt to direct political conversation/debate towards anything%
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
