Is the shine coming off Saint Rick?
In the hours since Rick Warren granted God-o-Meter am interview on Sunday evening, a day after his Saddleback Civil Forum with John McCain and Barack Obama, GOM has been struck by Warren’s steadfast refusal to apologize for misleading Forum viewer’s about McCain being sealed inside a cone of silence during Obama’s interview. We now know that wasn’t the case, but unless God-o-Meter has missed it, Warren isn’t owning up to the error. He got defensive when God-o-Meter asked him about it Sunday night:
Some Obama supporters are claiming that McCain saw the questions before the forum began, giving him a leg up on Obama.
Warren: They’re dead wrong. That’s just sour grapes. They both did fantastically well. The only question he knew, I gave them the first question and I was changing the questions within an hour [before the forum began.] I talked to both of them a week before the debate and told them all the themes. I talked personally to John McCain and I talked personally to Barack Obama. I said, ‘We’ll talk about leadership, talk about the roles of government,’ I said I’d probably have a question about climate change, probably a question on the courts. I didn’t say, ‘I’m going to ask which Supreme Court justice would you not [nominate]. They were clearly not prepared for that.
A source at the debate tells me that McCain had access to some communications devices in the few minutes before he went on stage with you and that there was a monitor in his green room, in violation of the debate rules.
Warren That’s absolutely a lie, absolutely a lie. That room was totally free, with no monitors–a flat out lie.
An absolute lie? With McCain in a motorcade for much of Obama’s interview, how can Warren be sure?
Beyond the “cone of silence” controversy, God-o-Meter wonders if the forum also showed Warren to be muchless willing to embrace Democrats than he lets on. In his interview with God-o-Meter, Warren avoided any criticism of McCain or the Republicans. But he took repeated shots at the Democrats and Obama. For example:
1. In response to GOM’s question about how much headway McCain made with wary evangelicals with his stellar perfomance at Saddleback, Warren said:
For many evangelicals, of course, if they believe that life begins at conception, that’s a deal breaker for a lot of people. If they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted. They would call that a holocaust, and for them it would like if I’m Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don’t care how right he is on everything else, it’s a deal breaker for me. I’m not going to vote for a Holocaust denier….
So for evangelicals that believe that life begins at conception–evangelicals like Warren–voting for a pro-choice Democrat, say Barack Obama, is tantamount to backing a Holocaust denier. Strike one against the Democratic nominee.
2. When GOM asked about the Democratic platform’s new abortion reduction language, Warren said:
…The general perception was: too little too late–window dressing. I’m not saying I would say this, because I haven’t even read it, but what I was hearing form people was that [Democrats] were saying “It’s OK to be pro-life and be a Democrat now.” In other words, “You can join us. We’re not changing our firm commitment to Roe v. Wade, but you can now join us.” Well, for a person who thinks that abortion is taking a life, I’m sure that’s not going to be very satisfactory to most of those people. And to put it in right at the last minute at the end of a campaign, there was some question about that: Why are they doing this?
Strike two against Obama and the Democrats.
3. Asked about Obama’s “It’s above my pay grade” response to his question on when life begins, Warren said:
I think he needed to be more specific on that…. to just say “I don’t know” on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.
Strike three.
4. Here’s Warren on the Democrats stepped-up religious outreach efforts since the 2004 election:
….After the 2004 election the Democratic pundits were saying, “The Democrats lost in ’04 because they didn’t talk the language of faith.” And actually that’s kind of, not paternalistic, but it’s talking down. It’s basically saying, “If you just get the right words, then they’ll think you’ve got the lingo.” And just because a person can say God and Jesus and salvation and whatever doesn’t mean they have a worldview.
You get the picture. Warren offered no equivalent condemnation of traditional Republican positions.
And when GOM asked him what happened to all the post-Christian Right issues so close to his heart–AIDS, climate change, poverty–during the forum, which focused on culture war issues like abortion, judges, the power of religious groups to discriminate with federal funds, gay marriage, etc., Warren demurred:
…a lot of the questions I wanted to have answered I actually forfeited in the last section in order to let them share the stuff they wanted to. I had a question that got asked only of Obama about human trafficking. I had a question on AIDS that I didn’t get to ask. I had a question on climate change that I didn’t get to ask. I had a question on poverty, the causes of poverty and the solutions to poverty. Because they took up so much time in some of their answers, when we got down to the end, some of my questions got bumped…
But where are Warren’s priorities? Were questions about the ability of religious groups to discriminate, which Warren found time for, more pressing than those about international poverty or global warming? God-o-Meter thinks that’s a stretch. So might Warren’s vows that he’s willing to engage both parties in good faith.
6
posted August 19, 2008 at 3:52 pm
What questions are important to PETA? What questions are important to the NAACP? To pretend that certain sectors of the US voter base don’t have particular questions that are important to them is just poor reasoning. Within each political voter block there are different concerns. Though it might not be very important to some doesn’t mean it isn’t important to others. Christians happen to have their own group of questions and issues that can make or break a candidate for them. And Rick Warren did express issues with Obama and not McCain. Has it even crossed your mind that maybe John McCain performed better than Obama. I don’t like McCain but he whopped up on Obama in this forum! Obama is not perfect and he is no savior. He is a politician…Just like McCain. A politician who just got beat down in a forum of questions that reflect many of the concerns of evangelical voters. He’d win in a forum at PETA, NAACP, NOW, etc. It is just how these things go…
posted August 19, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I DO BELIEVE RICK SET MR OBAMA UP! HE HAD AN OPORTUNITY TO BE OBJECTIVE. BUT HE SHOWED HIS BIAS DISPITE THAT SMILELING FACE. HE REPEATED ASKED OBAMA NOT TO GET UP ON HIS STOMP, BUT CLEARLY ALLOWED McCAIN PANDER TO THE AUDIANCE ON EVERY QUESTION. AND I AGREE HE GOES OUT ON THE LIMB TO CALL OTHER A LIE WITHOUT THE FACTS, HE HAD KNOW WAY OF KNOWING WHAT McCAIN WAS DOING IN HIS LIMO. THESE GUYS WANT TO WIN AND THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET THE EDGE. INCLUDING STARTING ANOTHER CONFLICT TO BOISTER THERE POSITION. THEY’VE DONE IT ONCE AND ARE GETTING AWAY WITH IT, THEN THEY HAVE KNOW REASON TO FEAR DOING IT AGAIN.
posted August 19, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I do not understand why Rev. Warren did not simply announce that Sen. McCain was in route to the Church? Why did he feel the need to make the statements about the “cone of silence? What was he trying to tell the audience and why was it important?
posted August 19, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Pastor Rick lied about the “cone of silence” because he thought that he could get away with it. His interviews with Obama and McCain were obviously biased, even down to Pastor Rick’s impatience with Obama answering his questions completely. Most people lie when it serves an agenda of theirs.
posted August 19, 2008 at 6:57 pm
REVEREND Warren lied, plain and simple. McCain lied, plain and simple.
Good Christians all the while. Let’s see what the conservatives do now that their little lie has been exposed. Any bets that they will excuse it, belittle those who complain about it, and suggest that anyone who disagrees with them is anti-American?
What a bunch of liars.
posted August 19, 2008 at 7:18 pm
“Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.” –Voltaire
posted August 19, 2008 at 9:03 pm
In spite of being set upon with biased questions, Obama stayed true to form. He fold what he believed and why. You may not agree with him but you have to say he had the guts to be himself.
McCain stayed true to form as well, only he wasn’t challenged by how he avoided real answers to the questions asked.
My problem was why were there no questions that reflected how different the two are about energy, social services and the quality of life for the poorer of the world and America?
Rick Warren let me, a Christian who sees American support of Human rights violators as sin, hanging. And that is just one of many areas that McCain has not been challenged on.
Another is the fact that while many jumped on the chance to attack Edwards for his infidelity, nobody condemns McCain for the same. If fact, now they are talking about putting Rudy Giuliani on the ticket.
The Religious Right and the so called Evangelical circuit have shown their true colors. They are in fact, died in the wool Republicans first, Christians second. And while I listen to Rick Warren for his Christian outlook on Religious matters, I will not adhere to his political stance of Republicans, right and never wrong.
posted August 19, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Paster Warren is either too ego-driven to admit the event was out of his control or a liar. Right wingers will do what right-wingers do, make excuses for all of it and blame the other guy. Christian right-wingers will add that they are saved.
“If you just get the right words, then they’ll think you’ve got the lingo.”
Rather dissapointing to find that (by and large) Evangelicals are the same ol’ same ol’ single-minded excuse-making Republicans. It goes both ways, Paster Warren. You did us a favor by reminding us.
posted August 20, 2008 at 8:29 am
I’m not going to call Rick Warren a liar. But one more open bias towards the Republicans and that’s IT! He would’ve lost my respect.
John McCain opposes abortion, but supports Stem Cell Research and the Christian right gives him a pass. How’s that for hypocrisy? John McCain knows he lost the Republican nomination in 2000 because he didn’t pander to the Christian right. It is one thing for a Republican candidate to go into a Christian forum and tell them what they want to hear (that life begins at conception), it is another thing to be a man whose ways are ordered by the Lord. John McCain is an adulter, an angry man and a war monger. How’s that to people of faith?
If Rick Wareen believes that abortion reduction is not enough, that making it illegal is the only thing the right will accept, what does he say about divorcees and adulters who’re preaching the gospel? what does he think about pastors who’re enriching themselves with money collected from the pulpit by twisting the word of God? What does he say about Bishops who beat their wives, cheat and lie? What does he think of closet gay Republicans who’re vocal critics of same sex marriage and homosexuality? What does he think of Republican law-makers who claim a high moral ground, just before their addiction to pornography is found out?
If you ABSOLUTELY believe WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT that life DEFINITELY begins at conception or that you will not die but live to declare the wonderous works of the Lord, then you know everything and don’t need God.
The Bible says Lean not unto thy own understanding and that the things that are beyond our understanding should be left to the Lord. His ways are not our ways. Questions of life after death, why good people die and whether life begins at conception are things that are beyond our understanding and should be left to the Lord. As Barack Obama rightly put it, IT IS BEYOND MY PAY GRADE.
posted August 20, 2008 at 8:58 am
Yes. Rick Warren is less open-minded than he lets on. My opinion of him changed a lot after the Saddleback interview.
Previously I had seen Warren as someone who truly balanced the hot-button issues (abortion, when life begins, etc.) with things like poverty and global warming. I had thought he might be someone who stood against the prosperity gospel. But he just laughed at McCain’s five million dollar remark. He didn’t challenge it at all. I was appalled McCain would even make the joke (if it really was a joke). Warren let McCain get by with well-rehearsed talking points. He even laughed about them saying at this rate, the interview would end early.
For me, a central issue in this election is the growing gap between the rich and poor in the world and in the U.S. Recently I heard that ten percent of the people in the U.S. control ninety percent of the nation’s wealth. I think that’s a serious moral issue. How would McCain respond to those of us who say that gap will continue or even grow more lopsided under a McCain administration?
In the campaign itself, I see the smear tone as a central moral issue. Each candidate should have been asked about the tone of his campaign, whether it is appropriate to use religious symbols (Moses, crosses or whatever) to smear your opponent, and whether he would make a pledge to speak out against surrogates who write smears and lies. How a candidate campaigns shows a lot about his or her morals.
To me the whole Saddleback interview was too shallow, probably on purpose to give McCain a chance to use his rehearsed talking points, and yes, I do think Rev. Warren is less open-minded than he lets on.
posted August 20, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Frankly, I was never able to get onto the Saint Rick bandwagon. I was thumbing through “Purpose Driven” a long time ago and stumbled right into a passage where he equates contemplative traditions with superficial self help books.
Any minister who knows that little about Christianity and is that popular and influential I frankly find a bit scary.
posted August 21, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I think you’ve nailed the issue, PMM. MOST people who call themselves Christians know very little about Christianity and are either ignorant or willfully ignorant of the contents of their Holy Book.
The Bible is very clear on God’s opinion of adulterers. It is clear on many things, less clear on others. But the amazing thing about the religious right leaders in American is that they have succeeded in propagating and legitimizing their narrow view of Biblical morality, which vilifies gays and abortion above all else, while at the same time insulating themselves against charges of hypocrisy.
I only need to single out adultery here because, for the most part, an evangelical Christian who supports McCain, an admitted adulterer, over Obama will jump through hoops to use the Bible to justify their position, when really it’s not the Bible that justifies it at all. According to the wisdom of the Bible, both candidates have moral failings, as do we all. But only one has actually committed a sin as grievous as adultery.
This movement away from God’s Word, and toward Falwell’s word, is most troubling.
posted August 21, 2008 at 4:28 pm
So far, all the comments and the GOM article seem to be biased toward the left. It seems that Warren’s questions were spot on as far as priority. I think it is splitting hairs to say that Warren “found time for the discretion of religious groups question but not for climate change or international poverty.” I could pretty much give you the answers from both candidates on climate change and poverty. We would learn nothing new from these questions. You see it in every secular forum. I appreciate his use of time in getting each candidate to thoughtfully answer questions from the heart instead of giving the canned response and talking points we normally see.
posted September 16, 2008 at 11:47 pm
THIS IS ALL VERY INTERESTING. TWO THINGS POPPED INTO MY MIND WHILE LISTING TO THE INTERVIEWS WITH BOTH SENATORS..FIRST I THOUGHT SEN. MCCAIN MENTIONED A HUNDRED YEARS IN THE WAR IF NECESSARY, I KNOW HE WAS JOKING, AND ALSO WHEN SEN. MCCAIN WAS TALKING TO RICK WARREN I THOUGHT HE MADE THE REMARK TO ‘LET’S GET ON TO THE JUDGES’ ..HOW DID HE KNOW HE WOULD BE ASKED THAT QUESTION ???