Saddleback: Biased Questions and A Big Mistake

Unknown6:38PMAug 17th 2008

McCain stole the "cross story too" "Cross in the Dirt" story stolen from Solzhenitsyn (updated) by rickrocket Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:32:42 AM PDT Along with other prisoners, he worked in the fields day after day, in rain and sun, during summer and winter. His life appeared to be nothing more than backbreaking labor and slow starvation. The intense suffering reduced him to a state of despair. On one particular day, the hopelessness of his situation became too much for him. He saw no reason to continue his struggle, no reason to keep on living. His life made no difference in the world. So he gave up. Leaving his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to other prisoners. As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work. As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed. He knew he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet he knew there was something greater than the evil he saw in the prison camp, something greater than the Soviet Union. He knew that hope for all people was represented by that simple Cross. Through the power of the Cross, anything was possible. Solzhenitsyn slowly rose to his feet, picked up his shovel, and went back to work. Outwardly, nothing had changed. Inside, he had received hope. From Luke Veronis, "The Sign of the Cross"; Communion, issue 8, Pascha 1997.

If McCain can't even tell the truth in a Church, how can you expect him to tell the truth in the White House?

Obama was honest and factual in all his answers, he did not beat around the bush (sorry) and give the answers expected. It was clear to me that he was the winner to all those who are not evangelical right wingers. He went into the den of foxes and came out with the chicken. It was a small chicken but at least he came out with dignity and maybe even a few votes as some may have seen through the rhetoric of the McCain Stump speech.

Wow...McCain borrowed that story? That's appalling! I wonder how many people would back him if they knew that story was fake? Doesn't really say much for his morality. Don't think I'd want a guy in office who makes up stories just to get people's support. That's pathetic and disgusting.

Obama touched on the heart of the issues, but failed to forcefully make his points, and the real insight he offered is lost in his nuance. Example:

Abortion. The underlying issue is that women, the vast majority of which are unwed mothers, deem it necessary and expedient to have an abortion. The legality is not the issue. The reality that it is happening is. So Obama states we should find ways of "reducing the number of abortions"

Gay Marriage: Obama was in line with the party dogma in agreeing that marriage is between a man and a woman. But he is (to the chagrin of conservatives) willing to "afford that right to others" who disagree. And in this statement he encroaches on a vicious topic that most evangelicals deny or are blind to: that the edicts of the Christian faith need to be communicated to the world through the witness of the body of Christ, and not through the legislation of a secular state.

All these moral issues boil down to a Church/State dichotomy. Do we need a constitutional amendment defining marriage in order to prevent Christians from wanting to marry their homosexual partners?

Do we need a federal law against abortion to prevent Christians from having extra-marital sex and unwanted pregnancies?

If these two questions are answered yes, than the Body of Christ is quite obviously failing in its mission to lead and shepherd its own people and it's preposterous to expect a secular state to govern a spiritual body.

If we answer no, then we must at least admit to ourselves that we are attempting to legislate the dictates or our faith upon the unbelieving lost.

At the risk of asking yet another question, I ask any conservative evangelical: Is the light of Christ to the lost best communicated through the edicts of a secular state? I think Obama would answer "No." Moreover, I believe that forming a personal relationship with someone who believes or acts differently from me is the segue into helping the lost form a personal relationship with Christ.

Good Christian is not a title or a campaign slogan.

Glenda, I don't label anyone who has a different belief system than me a hypocrite. Never have and never will.

Experience has taught me that most politicians will sell their soul for a shot and if that means abusing the name of God without having any intention of following through in order to get elected they will do so.

I also believe that actions speak louder than words. Calling yourself pro-life doesn't mean much when you believe (& practice) that life begins at conception and ends at birth. The last time I checked most evangelicals live call themselves pro-life because they publicly oppose abortion, but the hypocricy comes in because in every poll and study I've seen, they also support the death penalty and most of them have supported the latest Iraq War which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and inniocent civilian men, women and children.

Glenda, thank you for your reply. Perhaps I should reiterate my thesis: In the Christian community the issues of homosexuality and abortion should be taken care of in-house regardless of what the state legislates. The quandary I presented was if the Christian community is capable of reaching out to its own, if it is capable of doing so, and if this push is an attempt to persuade a secular institution to intervene on a spiritual matter.

The push to define marriage and outlaw abortion only serves to legislate against non-believers, in effect making them criminals. Once this is done, reaching out to them will be almost impossible, for their criminal status and the penalties incurred as a result will be seen as having their source in the very people who propose to offer them salvation.

If homosexuality and abortion are really that rampant in our churches, we must as a community of believers focus on addressing the impact of these issues in our own spiritual community before we legislate to the lost how they ought to live. The name of God is blasphemed among them because of this apparent hypocrisy.

I do not propose that no laws need to be passed, but am asking specifically, how does outlawing abortion and defining marriage further the work of Christ and reach out to the lost? Would these laws win souls to the kingdom?

The Christian community will be largely unaffected by these laws if they are passed, so apart from ruining our testimony to the unbelievers, what do they accomplish for the body of Christ?

That we as a species are still using our enormous intellect to argue about how a bronze-age sky god wants us to behave during our brief time on earth never ceases to depress me. Oh, and Gary Michelberger, I'm not lost, I right here, enjoying life in my own way. And Christians wonder why the God-free can be so hostile at times?

What depresses and often irritates me is how people who provide no proper evidence for the existence of a god often take on such an arrogant attitude and then proceed to suffer from a superiority complex (as demonstrated in the belief that all non-Christians are "lost").

And don't get me started on the whole "we are not perfect, just 'forgiven'" spiel.

I wonder whether McCain ever read Anthony Boucher's 1951 short story, The Quest for Saint Aquin. It's set in a future where religion is outlawed. At one point the protagonist (a crypto-priest on a mission from the Pope) is stopped by a guard and has to produce identification, which he doesn't have:

He made a pretense of searching for it, first touching his right hand to his forehead as if in thought, then fumbling low on his chest, then reaching his hand first to his left shoulder, then to his right.
The guard's eyes remained blank as he watched this furtive version of the sign of the cross. Then he looked down. Thomas followed his gaze to the dust of the road, where the guard's hulking right food had drawn the two curved lines which a child uses for its sketch of a fish -- and which the Christians in the catacombs had employed as a punning symbol of their faith. His boot scuffed out the fish as he called to his unseen mate, " 's OK, Fred!" and added, "Get going, mister."

Thank you, Barry Lynn. As usual, you are right on target. As an evangelical Christian, I am disheartened at the attempts by others claiming to be evangelicals to legislate their beliefs. Force it into law and then their duty to "go into all the world and preach the gospel" (Christ's own words: aka The Great Commission) will be met.
What folly! I can remember when we evangelicals referred to these folks as "fundamentalists," the extremist arm of the evangelical movement. Extremists exist in every religion, even our own. Maybe they feel the need to have a civil law to govern their own behavior.
They need to study the period of history known as the Protestant Reformation. Thank you, again Barry Lynn! Keep up the good work!

I agree with Barry that this format was a big mistake. It was certainly good for someone's career: Rick Warren's. Obama spoke with humility, which as a non-Christian, I had always thought was an important principle of Christianity. I saw his thoughtful answers as embodying the kind of thinking president that we should want to have. Not a "guns and God" president like our current one. Or how McCain presented himself,... "Defeat evil". If only it were that simple.

Humility did not seem to be an important attribute for Rick Warren and his megachurch. Probably more people were google searching Rick Warren the next day, than looking up the candidates voting records.
I think there is far too much emphasis on, and curiosity of, a president's personal religion and question why as citizens we want to pry into something that many of us as people of faith find to be our deeply personal beliefs? But if the candidates had to agree to this format, why couldn't it be done by an unbiased interviewer? Or one whose church does not believe that dinosaurs and humans existed simultaneously? The Christian format and evangelical bias disenfranchised all of us who do not follow the tenets of Christianity. This interview at a megachurch was a sad day for those of us who embrace a pluralistic society.
It left in the dust notions of religious diversity and focused on one thing: What kind of a Christian are you? As a non-Christian, I am only concerned with whether as president, my constitutional rights will be upheld. You don't have to be Christian to do that at all.

To josie and dsjulian,
Thank you for reminding this atheist of all of the truely good and thoughtful theists that I know and like.
I live in The South, so am much more familiar with Evangelicals who begin to yell as soon as they are told that their message is unwanted. I respect your right to ask me if I desire to be informed, and I am now remembering those wonderful few who responded to my "I'm not a believer" with questions, the answers to which they actually listened, and decided to either abandon the debate, or have a true conversation (some of my favorite conversations).

Also, remember the irony of the fact that Baptists were fully supportive of Jefferson's secularism of government, as they knew that any support of any sort of religious thought by government would be akin to endorsement of some watered-down (to their thinking) religion.

This article totally confirms my belief.

The Bush Administration botched Katrina so that the faith-based groups could play the heroes.

The following outcry over 'getting rid of that incompetent FEMA' was followed by high praise for the faith-based groups.

Later, more money flowed to the faith based groups.

My fear is that we will be slowly replacing our government and it's services with the faith-based initiatives who can then cite the civil rights act saying they can discriminate.

And speaking of slaverly...WTF...it's the religious founders of our country that brought the blacks here to work as slaves.

Great article! But I don't see this as a foible by Obama. It's still early in the race and this will likely be the ONLY time McCain looks good standing next to Obama. There will be several more occasions between now and November where Obama will stand tall and McCain will be playing catch-up.

I'm also an atheist, and also bothered that the only choices for the elections belong to the majority religion of the US. I'd like to see the electoral college done away with as well as the party primaries. Put every qualified person on the final ballot. You'd see some un-seating there...

Also, McCain was allowed to fall back on stump speech rhetoric throughout the entire forum. Obama was not. You could actively perceive Obama mentally editing out his own stump rhetoric from his answers, thus the more thoughtful nature of his performance, versus the more forceful nature of McCain's responses.

Circumstantial evidence does indeed seem to indicate that McCain received the questions early, whether through his aides just before the forum, or via some other means. The questions were indeed biased towards McCain as well. However, the huge advantage here was the biased enforcement of preventing stump responses, not the questions or their timing with regards to the candidates receiving them. That is the meme that needs to be inserted into the national consciousness as the primary malfeasance, not the potential cheating on the part of McCain. Had Obama been allowed to answer with his well-rehearsed stump rhetoric to a fraction of the degree McCain was allowed, this forum would have looked very different indeed.

I think going to this event shows Obama as having nothing to fear. He knew he was going to face an environment and questions that were likely to be hostile. Still he went, and as a plus was able to show himself not a muslim, nor growing horns and exploding in flame.

This was to defuse arguments from Mccain's campaign, and force McCain to declare himself to his base, which means going again on record saying things independents don't like. And it was also for Obama to woo independents.

For the above reasons, I think this was a task well taken by Obama. Consider the opposite - "Obama's scared to go to a church, even to have a simple discussion! He must be a Muslim AntiChrist!"

I don't mind a fair debate, and I applaud Mr. Obama for meeting a hostile crowd on its own turf, but I don't appreciate Mr. McCain and Mr. Warren openly lying to the congregation and the entire nation.

Mr. McCain was not in a "cone of silence" as Mr. Warren stated, and Mr. McCain agreed. He was in a car, surrounded by aides with laptops and cell phones, in constant communications contact with everyone the entire time.

And even worse was when Mr. McCain tried to answer a question he knew was coming... Mr. Warren told him he was "jumping ahead." How could he jump ahead if he didn't know the questions and their topics in advance?

Personally speaking, Mr. Warren and Mr. McCain have lost all credibility. This presidential candidate cheats on his wife, cheats on a debate, and doesn't seem like he's any more honest than Mr. Bush.

Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not bear false witness?" Both men lied to the public, pure and simple.

I felt that Obama's answers were sincere and introspective. It's as if "Pastor Rick" had asked him to have a conversation with a personal friend about his beliefs and allow others to witness the conversation.
I was very moved by the Matthew 25 reference about the greatest moral failings of this country. Obama said little to disappoint me.
McCain, however, was not introspective. He simply raced as quickly as possible to his talking points, stump speech and tried-and-true stories.
The winner was Warren - with the Dobson/Robertson/Falwell/Reed crowd; and the loser was Warren - with those of us hoping for a more compassionate, Christ-like Christianity.

I found it very telling that the media seemed to think Obama's thoughtfulmness was a negative. Isn't it about time we once again have a president that is thoughtful and willing and able to consider all sides of an issue before rendering decisions and policies. While his answers were on point and on topic, McCain's answers were little more than pandering, rehearsed and more often than not, well off topic. His answer about the cross in the dirt told more about the faith of the guard than McCain's, in my humble opinion. In that instance, who showed the greater courage for having christian faith? it is a feel good pandering story that did not seem to relate to the actual question. Like many of McCain's answers.
i would like to see McCain agree to a similar forum before an historically liberal audience organized by an historically liberal organization where stump speech answers and softball questions would not play as well?

When Pastor Warren put the question to Sen. Obama as to the Hurricane Katrina issue, I was praying that Sen. Obama would ask Pastor Warren the question, "Why would a company want to hire anyone but the best person for the job - why would hiring a professed Christian for the job qualify one person more than another"? Two people applying for the job of a framer, one a professed Christian with 2 years experience, one who does not find it necessary to divulge his religious beliefs but has 15 years of documented framing experience and several verifiable glowing references - who should be hired for the job?

McCain gave his standard, canned stump speech, right wing "dog whistle" responses. Warren may has well not even been there, McCain all but ignored him.

Obama could not win that room, and he didn't try. He spoke to moderates rather than to those who've already made up their minds.

I think everyone who saw this came away with the same thoughts. Religious
hack job done by a church in a church and Mr Obama was not afraid. He entered the EVIL place and showed no fear. I also wonder how a house of
God? is getting away with putting on a political show ( separation of church and state ) and they still don't have to pay taxes? OH I see it's the Republican holy church of john mccain Give me a break can evangelicals get any phonier

Every CHRISTIAN I've ever met was a bigot.

The entire premise is just absurd. Why does THIS guy get a forum? It assumes the conservative/evangelical worldview is somehow the "norm". Why doesn't Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn get a forum?

I'm a non-believer, but I gotta tell you, Obama's answer on the meaning of his faith....wow. How could any thinking person prefer McCain's? McCain's was platitudes and all about HIM. Obama talked about how faith means you gotta DO SOMETHING, and especially for the "least of these". Beautiful.

God bless you.
from the moment mcain started answering warren's questions i sensed he hadn't been in a "cone of silence" (and was somewhat relieved to learn the next day that it wasn't simply a distaste for mcain on my part).
that notwithstanding, the last place i expected a critique of the forum, raising issues even more pertinent, was on beliefnet. (i was referred here by another blog). there are even more serious questions i think mcain, being the flagbearer of the party that has overseen the demise of the middle class and america over the last 25 years needs to be confronted on.
in the meantime, i'm considering sending my copy of "the purpose driven life" back to warren. there are many things he might've said in the aftermath. that he didn't makes me question the "purpose" of his life.

What gets me is that both candidates have to pass a religous test. When I served in the military I served everyone not just my fellow "Christian Americans" but every American. My Grandfather is probably turning in his grave and everything he fought for and against during WWII is going to pot.

For all three participants, and apparently mainly for McCain and Warren there is an issue of honesty. Honesty in a house of God.
Honesty of a man who wants to be President. And honesty of a Preacher of Christ's teachings.

They, at the very least deceived Warren's congregation, who may be quite happy with that -
But they also egregiously disrespected the American public, with their deception. And I hope the public is offended by that deception, whether or not they agree with either candidate's answers.

Rev. Lynn: if you're going to whip up a fake Obama reply note, at least give Obama the credit of being able to spell "alot" correctly ("a lot"). ;-P

There is no doubt before this took place that it was "sprinkles on a doughnut" for Sen McCain.

I cannot verify this yet I understand that those in the church paid a handsome fee to attend. It was predominent conservative (republican evangelicals of some wealth).

If anyone noticed, Obama recieved more applause when speaking on education than McCain when he replied. Noting McCain filabustered with privatizing schools and firing teachers.

Look, I don't think Obama figured they would go in and a miracle would occur to cause them all to vote for him. I think he spoke to the young in the church. I think he left with many there realizing Obama is not the anti Christ. That Obama is not a black muslim coming for their daughters. Therre were many dispelled conceptions and some issue stances they expected and already knew. Like his abortion stance.

I do not believe most evangelicals cared to hear Obama speak of reducing the unwanted pregnancies. You must unwantingly be pregnant to qualify for abortion. This is at the root. Banning abortion is at one of the tree's limbs. They have selective hearing and think banning abortion would stop abortions. Banning alcoho, consumption didn't work. Obama could have argued that abortion existed and was prevelant when it was illegal. it is only safer for those less fortunate. If it was banned only the affluent would have safe abortions and the poor would have unsafe ones and we would have more in prison.

Here is my question for abortion,
If you consider abortion murder. If a Female seeks out a Doctor to perform an abortion, what is your sentencing? ;
A) Give him life in prison?
B) Put him to death for murder?
C) Put the female (abortionee)in Prison for murder?
D) Give the Female the death penalty?
E) what combination?

Remember, your talking about murder ! Wealth and status won't matter.

It was fairly obvious McCain knew most of the questions prior somehow. Notice McCain answered early on as Obama about the questions getting harder?

When Rev. Rick asked McCain the same question on education that was a "THREE PAST QUESTION" ! Rev Rick didn't quite finish asking the first part of the 3 part question and Sen John McCain interupted and answered YES, YES and YES. This was the moment I realized McCain was truely prepted.

I thought Obama was more respectful to Rev Rick by not going off on stump speech and answering his questions respectfully and thoughtfully as possible without arguing or filabustering.

McCain on the other hand did in fact show disrespect for Rev Rick by filabustering and giving stump speeches and giving his old war stories when Rick if fact clearly asked McCain not to that he had heard them before.

Rev Rick did not use his position as interviewing Christian Leader to keep him on point. That is what we are to decide.

So we must accept that therre are those that have selective hearing disorders and narrow thought disseminating proccessing brain cells.

It is like all the Religious rights waring voices over that EVIL liberal Hollywood (that brang, Reagan, Gov Arnold, Chuck Norris etc). But for some reason all the evangelicals give Las Vegas a complete pass ! Gambling, Sex, Drinking-" what happens in Vegas, stats in Vegas". They have their conventions there? Go figure.

I would like to submit one question out of many that I would have liked Rev Rick to ask of McCain.

One issue question, in several pieces.

“Senator McCain,
Recently at a campaign stop at Sturgis,S.D.. Where you spoke with Hells Angels and thrill seekers, and were the opening act for Kid Rock, you offered and encouraged your wife, Cindy McCain, to enter in the Buffalo Chip Queens’s competition. You boasted from the stage, to these Hells Angels and other thrill seekers for your wife perform sex dances, urging them to encourage Cindy ..

*Sir, where was your God that day?

*How does your faith in the Lord allow you to offer your wife into a contest of public sexual content? (nudity and Banana acts to excite the bikers for votes).

*Did your wife refuse ?, And if so, what was her refusing reason ?

*If you excuse yourself for “not being aware of what the contest involved”, what else would you offer your wife up for & expose her to without prior knowledge? (would it include no clothes and sexual acts with bananas also?)

-And if President, what else would you offer America into without prior knowledge?

*Now knowing what the contest entailed,

A) Would you here and now like to appoligize to your wife in public after humiliating her in public ? (if you bellieve she was humiliated)?

B) Here and now, in front of these Christians here today, would would you sir, Sen John McCain state firmly that the Buffalo Chip Queen contest is Risky, sinful, sexual lewd activity?

Would you as President promise now to ban such Pagan acts in this Christian Nation?

Rev Rick would never ask that. The media won't. Will the religious right use selective hearing and selective sight for Sen John McCain?
Not believe it? Yet believe the worst of Obama?

Most of all,
What will Rev Rick say to his following about the two when they ask the Reverend, " So what do you think of them? ".

I watched this program and think that one result is that those looking for a reason to support McCain found it in McCain's simplistic, thoughtless soundbite responses to questions that required reflection.

What surprised me was the audience's openness to Senator Obama. I think that some of these voters will now consider voting for him and that they respected him for showing up at what they knew was a risky political event for him. He tried to reach across the aisle to a place where there could be a meeting of the minds on at least some issues. Some will laugh at this attempt and call it naive, but a few will not. Those who laugh would laugh anyway. I thought the audience was appalled at McCain's talk of "going to the Gates of Hell." There was a stunned silence after he made this remark. Too much talk of war. I don't think these voters support "endless war." Let us hope not, anyway.

Couldn't agree with you more. A mega-church located in a solidly republicon Orange County......what a complete farce.

The purpose-driven ego of rick warren is about the only thing that was right up front.

A total sham: Secret cone of silence, my prayer beads!!

How many commandments do ya think little rickie broke from start to finsh with this debacle?????

Rev Rick recently chose Hannity's show to appear on and toss out a unprovable alabi for McCain.

That unprovable alabi is Rev Rick posing the Secret Service detail for McCain.

Sorry, the Secret Service details for McCain (as wellas Obama) are in no way to get involved in the campaigns or make public statements or accounts in favor of or against thee secrurity prime objective.

Rev Rick knows well that the Secret Service would lose their jobs if they spoke out on this. That is very misleading into a dead end on the Revernds part (knowingly).

The Reverend probably should not have defeded anyone. He in fact tried to impose Obama had a question given prior and Mccain did not.

I think the Reverend should do a little more prying and self soul searching, than the misleading path he takes.
Or just come out of the extreme republican conservative religious right's closet. Be honest Reverend, Jesus compels you to.

It concerns me that Obama did not have the sense to avoid such an obvious trap. His inexperience truly showed in both the way he answered the questions and the fact that he agreed to the forum. Mccain didn't have to cheat the answers were clear for someone who has enough life experience to stand on their thought put and well reasoned principles.

I don't think Obama had much choice. Can you picture the headlines if McCain had agreed and Obama had refused?

Obama is a man of faith and firm in his beliefs so though he knew he was going into the lion's den (sic) he did so with the necessary assurance. I think he did a splendid job, myself, considering the loaded questions and rather hostile environment. His answers were thoughtful and respectful and much more impressive than McCain's sound bites.

"When Lynn croaks, Satan will say to him: “Well done thy good — strike that — thy bad, indeed my evil, and faithful servant.” No, seriously --I believe this. Lynn has never grown weary in his evil-doing."

Believing in the actual existence of Satan is no different than believing in Loki, the Norse god of mischief and fire. You’re a pagan and you don’t even know it, John.

Even IF Pastor Warren "set up" the questions as you say, weren't both candidates set up with the same set of questions equally? So why is there an issue of whether or not the questions were creatively fashioned if they were delivered this way to both sides? As a Harvard law grad., Pres. Barack knew or should have known the stakes going into the debate: that his audience was in fact predominantly evangelical Christians, in the physical church building at any rate, and that he would be questioned by an evangelical pastor (which really makes no difference anyways because most of the questions were secular). Each candidate should have prepared for the debate in advance, and if not, then it's their own fault for getting stumped. No one needs to make excuses for an ivy league graduate, that's for sure.