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
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ???
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.