Don’t forget – McCain was NOT in a “cone of silence.” While he claims not to have listened to the questions, I have not seen a denial that anyone on his staff gave him some of the questions.
No wonder he did better than expected!

MCCain seems a bit shaky on one point. If human rights begin @ conception, do they end as soon as you oppose the US.
The genius of Christianity is the understanding that what you do to the least of these you do to God. That is a hard thing because it means that what you do even to your enemies you are doing to God.
What struck me was MCCain seems to think being a Christian is easy. Obama recognizes that it is very very hard & you never really get there.

Regarding this whole event, I have a quote:”Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterane be regarded as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”
It is fascinating the divergence of opinion I am seeing about the outcome of this Saddlebrook event. However, so far Bill Crystal and this piece seem the most reasonable.
I personally agree that Obama could have done better on the abortion question.
But, according to my religious beliefs, I must resist the urge to take sides and realize that whoever wins we are one people with one destiny on this planet. And that religion and politics cannot be kept totally separate but the right relationship is so crucial and so difficult.
My hope is that John McCain will relax a little bit more and listen to his conscience and not so much the strategists. But being progressive I tend to favor Obama. I tend to be more like him, while my Catholic younger brother (Knights of Columbus) goes for McCain (I think). I used to like McCain more in the past but he seems to be holding his nose and doing what it takes to “win.”

I thought Obama’s answer to the question about evil was infinitely more Christian, and realistic, than McCain’s. Warren didn’t ask about specific evil enemies, he asked about Evil, with a capital “E.” McCain uttered the simplistic inanity of the evening: “defeat it.” And of course he responded as if Evil = Islamofascism. Obama answered the question as asked, he gave examples of evil including the evil within ourselves and our country, called for us to war against it, but concluded that only God could ultimately defeat evil.
Theological assessment: Obama gets an “A,” McCain an “F.”
Also, McCain’s answer to the definition of “rich” was completely out of touch with the reality of work-a-day America. He was raised in a wealthy family, married into an even wealthier one, and that has cleared shaped his understanding of this question.

McCain impression was outstanding but hardly lasting. Partly because everything he said was done with the purpose to touch the feelings of the audience. The only memories which remains today when you try to remember what he said are the impression that you were touched. Barack tried to answer the questions thoughtfully. When you are driven by somebody in his car which driving style would you prefer: smooth or stop-and-go? I think the lasting taste of the candidates is in baracks favor.

It’s so sad that our future brilliant leaders have to be forced to kowtow to groups who believe so strongly in archaic superstition. Can’t we all evolve? McCain is a yes man who said what they wanted to hear whether he believes it or not. At least Obama knows how to diplomatically lead a FREE nation made up of diverse cultures and beliefs.

Cross In The Sand: Solzhenitsyn’s Or McCain’s?
On August 16, 2008 McCain recounted his “Cross in the Sand” story at the Civil Forum at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. He tells the story in his 1999 book “Faith of My Fathers” and also used it in a 2007 television commercial:
“On Christmas, that same guard approached me, and without saying a word, he drew a cross in the sand. We stood wordlessly looking at the cross, remembering the true light of Christmas.”
In some tellings, McCain says the guard uses his shoe to draw the cross, in others a stick is used. It is a touching story, and unusual in that Christianity is not a particularly popular religion in communist China, but McCain’s prison guard was apparently familiar with it. However, McCain does not mention this incident in the 12,000 word story he told to U.S. News & World Report shortly after his return from Viet Nam. And, during his 2000 presidential bid, McCain told the same story, but in the third person, as if it had occured to someone else. Regardless, the story sounded eerily familiar to some (DailyKOs.com). After further research it was discovered that nearly the same incident occured to Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn while in a Siberian gulag. In Solzhenitsyn’s book “The Gulag Archipelago”, which was released in the U.S. in 1973, Aleksandr recounts:
“As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly, he lifted his eyes and saw a skinny, old prisoner squat down next to him. The man said nothing. Instead, he drew a stick through the ground at Solzhenitsyn’s feet, tracing the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.”
Interestingly enough, McCain is quite familiar with the writings of Solzhenitsyn. In fact, he praises him in a book he coauthored with Mark Salter, saying Solzhenitsyn was “a writer with unusual gifts, utterly devoted to his art, brilliant and exacting, producing work that would stun not just literary worlds but the entire Cold War political world…”
So…
1. either the same incident occured to both men
2. Nobel prize winning author Solzhenitsyn copied the story from McCain in time to get it inserted in his book which was released in the west in 1973, the same year McCain returned from Viet Nam
3. or Mccain, having read the story in Solzhenitsyn’s book, eventually took the story for his own
I guess “straight talk” now means plagiarism. Solzhenitsyn:http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/08/is-mccain-now-copying-solzheni.html
Interestingly enough, McCain even wrote an article on Solzhenitsyn, I guess he’s taking his story a little too much to hearthttp://www.nysun.com/opinion/solzhenitsyn-at-work/83117/
First Wikipedia, now this? Disgusting.

All scientific textbooks on embryology agree with the bible in that human life begins at conception.
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.
Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
So there is no question from a theological or scientific perspective. Obama even opposed legislation requiring care for a born infant that survived a botched abortion. So regardless of when life starts Obama does not care about protecting innocent human life. The question asked when does a baby get human rights. So as long as everyone agrees the baby is a human then the question is valid – “When does a human get human rights?” McCain’s answer would be at conception. We don’t know Obama’s specific answer except that it is sometime after being born, if ever. He would not give an answer other than saying “it’s above his pay grade”, yet his actions or votes reveal what he believes. He should have given a straight answer consistent with his voting record.
Obama said abortion rate has increased under Bush. Actually, Obama is mistaken – according to pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute the abortion rate last year was as low as it’s been since 1974. Also, the number of abortions was at its lowest since 1990.
Baptists believe people are saved by grace through faith. Baptism is a symbol or outward expression of an existing faith. Followers of Jesus Christ have recognized and admitted separation from God by disobediance. They turn from living by their own rules and commit to following God’s plan. Believe Jesus died to pay the price for your wrongdoing/breaking the 10 commandments and receive forgiveness. Commit by act of will and heart to trust him and follow him. Put him in the pilot seat of your life. Then be baptized because he commanded it and do it the way he did it – by submersion. Baptism is from Greek baptizo which means submersion or immerse.
Separation of church and state – this is not in the Constitution. The first amendment says, “Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” (emphasis my own) This simply means the gov cannot force Americans to follow a certain religion and cannot establish a state religion. There is no indication of intent to separate faith from politics. That is impossible. Everyone has faith in something. Everyone has a worldview.

I’d agree that McCain’s answers were remarkably quick and to the point. I wonder if his not being in the “cone of silence” as he had pledged to be, had anything to do with that.

Senator McCain’s “riff” on his personal faith would be even better if it didn’t appear to have been deliberately lifted from “The Gulag Archipelago” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Is it true that McCain supports human embryonic research? If yes why when an embryo is a human being? Embryonic research ends up killing the life he says starts at conception. If this is the case he is more of a hypocrite than Obama

What is Rich? McCain, born rich and marrying rich has no idea of what is NOT rich. Obama, born in a middle class family, being “fatherless”, and earning his way through school, know what rich is. Of course McCain wouldn’t want to pay higher taxes, he never earned his pay to begin with. He is a taker, Obama is a giver.
In my eyes that makes Obama a more faithful Christian. But then, I am a works orientated Christian. I volunteered to work for the Salvation Army for a year just to give them a hand and to learn how to be a better steward for Jesus.
Paul, living wholly for Christ.

McCain’s presentation was a perfect match for a Christian rally. He told one lie about a cross — ripped off from Alexander Solzhenitzyn — and he was aided by the “pastor,” Rick Warren, who told another lie about McCain being in a so-called “cone of silence” that didn’t exist.
The audience ate it up, being the fools that they are. It’s one more piece of evidence (as if we really needed it) that Christians are the worst sort of fools, liars, and hypocrites this country has to offer. They’re the ones who put George W. Bush in power, and look where we are.

I think Pastor Warren was entirely fair. If there were problems with the “cone of silence” that wasn’t what he intended, and it probably didn’t make that much difference.
The audience at Saddleback may have cheered McCain more, but that’s to be expected. The important thing is, Obama showed himself to this Evangelical audience to be a sincere Christian. And I really think Christ is a lot more important in his life than McCain’s — Obama may have been somewhat agnostic as a young man, but he married into a believing family.
The audience may have wished for a fiery anti-abortion campaigner, but I think they also wished for a candidate who hopes to apply Gospel principles when he can. Obama won on that count, quoting Matthew.
And, people who believe in the “Purpose-Driven Life” can’t help but admire someone who exemplifies that. McCain more or less backed into this nomination, benefiting from the supposition that McCain as a “maverick” will be a cure for the bad choices George Bush made. McCain’s ads promise he will solve what is wrong with “Washington”, and by that he means what is wrong with the current Administration.
I don’t think that will last. What will last is the realization that Barack Obama has, with the help of his God, formed a purpose and overcome incredible odds to achieve it. Of course, you have to then conclude that you *approve of* that purpose. Some won’t. But I think Obama’s appearance with Rev. Warren gives people who do think his aims are better for the country than McCain’s the confidence to support him, publically and proudly.

Obama did a good job. But, he gave credence–inadvertently, no doubt, by virtue of his verbosity–to the very criticism and suspicions so many people have of “liberals”–and that is no core moral center, too many if/ands/buts/maybes. This suspicion of “liberals” is one of the things that lost the election for John Kerry. Obama seemed Kerry-ish, without the irritating voice.
Gosh, can’t we ever get a “liberal” who can just cut to the chase and answer the question directly; there is, afterall, a liberal answer to each and every on of those questions that don’t involve “well, …” “if, ….” “suppose, ….” “but, ….” It just isn’t that hard.
McCain’s answer on the embryonic stem cell research question was perfect–not that it’ll convince or satisfy everyone, but gave an understandable, morally grounded reason for his decision. Even those who disagree with it will accept it. Not so with “well, with all due respect, there’s always the “but” blah blah blah
They drive me crazy as they are supposed to be representing my liberal views and values. It’s just not that hard, Mr Obama, Mr Kerry, Mr Gore, Mr Dukakis. Take some lessons from Bill Clinton, please….

I think it was obvious that McCain has been thoroughly busy holding Town Hall meetings, answering question after question from real American voters — while Obama has been making emotional speeches and basking in his rock-stardom.
McCain didn’t have to think long. I bet it’s entirely possible that he has been asked those same questions, just framed somewhat differently, in one of those many Town Hall meetings.
Even when McCain gives a speech, like he did when appearing before the NAACP last month, he allows time for questioning from the voters.
“To the surprise and delight of those in the convention hall, McCain took questions, which ranged from judicial appointments to faith-based initiatives.”
So, why did McCain seem sharper than Obama and ready to succinctly answer Pastor Warren’s questions? Good, old-fashioned hard work paid off, as it always does.

I thought Obama was rather dull but I was much more put off by McCain’s overtly political cheerleading and ended up changing the channel. In retrospect I think I just expected too much. Evangelicals are pretty much Republicans after all and this is an election. I just really wanted to hear more thoughtful answers from McCain instead of buzzwords and talking points.

McCain and Warren have lied to the public about this piece of fiction called a “cone of silence.” McCain was in the car listening to Obama’s questions. No wonder he was even able to interrupt Warren a few times and answer the questions.
Dishonesty…it’s what Christians do for the GOP these days.

Actually “Steve” Obama didnt say he would support a partial birth abortion ban that supported an exception for the life of the mother.
He opposed that bill which is now the law of the USA. Partial Birth Abortion is illegal unless a woman’s life is threatened and a doctor needs to partially deliver and then crush the skull of a viable or near viable infant.
What Obama said is that he would support a ban that included a “health” exception, which would nullify the ban because mental distress would be that health exception. Nobody actually needs to partially remove a baby and crush its skull, there is no actual health benefit to this. Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers flat out admits that partial birth abortions are almost never done for actual health emergencies, but always for issues like ” mental stress” etc..

I would like to know what proof exists that McCain had the benefit of hearing the questions asked by Warren and the responses given by Obama before he was given his opportunity to speak.
Christians ARE NOT dishonest. Those that fear Christ usually are.
In all sincerity, my belief (after hearing both of them) is that one was honest and one was not; and those of you who make comments like the one “Dishonesty…it’s what Christians do for the GOP these days”
are starting to get scared…really scared.