Saddleback

Barry Lynn doesn't think Barack Obama should have agreed to appear at the presidential forum hosted by Rick Warren's Saddleback Church on Saturday. Lynn argues that the evangelical megachurch was GOP home turf and thus the whole thing was a trap and a set-up the Democratic candidate should have avoided. Lynn thinks Warren's questions for the two candidates were biased and full of Republican talking points.

Alan Wolfe, on the other hand, points out that Warren's church forum didn't offer nearly as many biased questions and GOP talking points as the average CNN panel or that god-awful Charlie Gibson debacle on ABC a few months back.

But I will concede part of Lynn's point: Rick Warren was bound to ask certain questions framed to have a right answer and a wrong answer. The answers he knew John McCain would give would be the right answers and the answers he knew Barack Obama would give would be the wrong answers. But Lynn is wrong to consider that a trap. It's an opportunity.

The big question of this forum, of course, is the litmus-test question that has overshadowed all others for evangelical voters over the past 30 years: legal abortion. Lynn thinks the big news coming out of the forum was that the megachurch audience cheered wildly when John McCain gave the "right" answer to this question. But the bigger news was that the audience didn't boo when Barack Obama gave the "wrong" answer.

Part of the issue here, as Noam Scheiber points out, is that McCain had nothing to gain from telling this audience what they expected him to say. He drew some praise from audience members for answering this question so quickly and "decisively." But everyone knew what was really going on. John McCain was being quizzed on the Republican catechism. He was able to provide the correct answers, but he did so with all the conviction of a student who had memorized those answers by rote.

And what about Barack Obama? The Democratic senator wasn't there to try to win evangelical votes by touting his support for abortion rights. Nor was he there hoping to persuade them to change their minds on that question. What he did instead was this: He disagreed with them. Here was a man, not a monster, respectfully disagreeing with them. He seemed reasonable, thoughtful. He was familiar with the scriptures and with the language of church people -- familiar as in family. And yet he disagreed with them.

Hunh. Imagine that. Devout members of the family supposedly never disagreed on this. The people who disagreed were supposedly never reasonable or thoughtful. The people who disagreed were supposedly monsters. This guy was none of that. I wonder if that means ...

That's it. That's all he could hope to accomplish there, before this audience, when he knew that he'd be confronted with this question. And that's what I think he did accomplish. Not bad for a Saturday evening.

The bottom line was that John McCain went to Saddleback to try to get white evangelical voters to like him; Barack Obama went to Saddleback to show white evangelical voters that he liked them. I think they both succeeded. As such, I think McCain achieved something easy and Obama achieved something important.

Comments

[Cowboy Diva]

John McCain went to Saddleback to try to get white evangelical voters to like him; Barack Obama went to Saddleback to show white evangelical voters that he liked them.

yes, but where does the conversation go from there? or is that incumbent on those white evangelical voters you describe? Is it enough at this time to demonstrate non-demon characteristics or will Senator Obama be taken advantage of by people more interested in scoring points rather than sharing family?

[schism]

This guy was none of that. I wonder if that means ...

That's possible (however unlikely), but I have to wonder how well any Obama-generated contemplation will hold up in the face of the inevitable evangelical thought correction to follow. Hell, Warren himself already went on Beliefnet pointing out that Obama is still a scary liberal abortion-monger (even dredging up that oh-so-tired holocaust analogy in the process).

To be honest, I kind of agree with Lynn; Obama probably should have skipped this one, but because he just didn't have any real chance of affecting anything rather than some alleged GOP snare.

[mike.timonin]

What sort of reaction would have ensued had Obama actually skipped this event, though? Would he have been depicted as having something to hide?

What I found interesting - I only watched the first couple of questions for each candidate, because being Dad at Home was incompatible with watching several hours of video on line - was that Warren prefaced the first set of questions for Obama with Bible verses (which Obama turned to his advantage, I thought), but not so for McCain. Would McCain have been tripped up by Scripture? Is he, unlike the Devil, unable to quote scripture? Is that, perhaps, the underlying theme of the Obama questions - yes, he knows his Bible, but so does Satan - he's teh AntiChrist!?

[Abelardus]

Would he have been depicted as having something to hide?

He's passed up going on FOX News many times, hasn't he? And that hasn't affected him much.

[Abelardus]

In retrospect, I don't think the above comment is going to die easily.

[damnedyankee]

Part of the issue here, as Noam Scheiber points out, is that McCain had nothing to gain from telling this audience what they expected him to say. He drew some praise from audience members for answering this question so quickly and "decisively."

Sincerely and passionately, even.

[schism]

What sort of reaction would have ensued had Obama actually skipped this event, though?

Probably the same BS that's characterized the attacks on him for the past year or so. Elitist, ultra-partisan, secretly Muslim, etc.

Would McCain have been tripped up by Scripture?

More saliently, given the forum, it's kind of hard to convince people that you're the Most Jesusy Candidate when you look like you're getting stomach cramps talking about the guy. Though you're right; McCain does seem to eschew any substantive religious discussions. Half the time, I wonder whether he's religious at all (not that I'd have a problem with that).

[damnedyankee]

Though you're right; McCain does seem to eschew any substantive religious discussions.

Honestly, I've had enough of religious discussions on the campaign trail. They aren't running for Archbishop, fer cryin' out loud...

[Drake Pope]

Honestly, I've had enough of religious discussions on the campaign trail. They aren't running for Archbishop, fer cryin' out loud...

After this, I hear Brian Williams is going to invite McCain and Obama to his apartment for a Dance Dance Revolution tournament. Then after that, Ryan Seacrest will quiz the candidates on who they prefer in the all-important Paris vs. Lindsay feud. Finally, a few weeks before the election, the candidates will engage in the most crucial test of all; the naked Jello fight.

All of these would be equally relevant as what went on at that forum.

[SchrodingersDuck]

Is that, perhaps, the underlying theme of the Obama questions - yes, he knows his Bible, but so does Satan - he's teh AntiChrist!?

I'd rather doubt it. Remember, this is a group for whom following the literal word of the Bible is especially important - more so than following the general plan it outlines. These people seem far more obsessed with the idea that the Antichrist/False Prophet will be an atheist than a Christian, no matter what the underlying theme of the antichrist bits of the Bible is (beware people who carry out questionable acts in God's name). Having the "Antichrist" quoting scripture would be as out of place as Nicky Carpathia becoming a born-again RTC and penning a series of Chick tracts that just consist of the books of the Bible quoted in alphabetical order ("Acts! Amos! Chronicles! Colossians! Corinthians! Daniel! Deuteronomy!").

Not to mention, claiming that taking Bible quotes, twisting them out of context, and then using them to support partisan politics makes you evil... well, let's just say it may cause a little cognitive dissonance among the AC-watching crowd..

[Cowboy Diva]

At some level, I think of this forum as not unlike a VFW speech, or even doing an interview for Slashdot; it was a demonstration for a targeted audience, with topics perceived as relevant to that audience.

Yes, I realize this is an example of the presidential candidates speaking to specific echo chambers...

[Caravelle]

At some level, I think of this forum as not unlike a VFW speech, or even doing an interview for Slashdot; it was a demonstration for a targeted audience, with topics perceived as relevant to that audience.

I agree with another blog where they said how sad it is that the candidates refused to do the science debates but agreed to do this. Oh well...

[Queequeg]

Thanks, Fred, for pointing out something that's so simple and obvious that it goes over some people's heads.

I read a lot of commentary to the effect that Obama's campaign is unfocused. What does he stand for? Who is he, really? And blather of that sort.

Obama is running as the reasonable, thoughtful guy who won't call you a traitor for disagreeing with him. The Saddleback forum was a good venue for this.

I laugh at people who discount the judgment and political skills of the man who defeated Hillary and Bill Clinton in the Democratic primary. Can we stipulate that the guy knows what he's doing?

People saw Obama and McCain speaking on the same stage, though not at the same time. And you know what? Over the next couple of months, especially after the debates, people are going to look at those two guys -- their demeanors, their temperaments, their energy levels, the way they carry themselves and, frankly, which man looks better -- and they're gonna say, "You know, I'd rather see and hear this reasonable guy, and not McCain, whenever I watch the evening news for the next four or eight years."

Pro-lifers haven't gotten what they've wanted from Reagan or the current president, and they know McCain won't deliver, either. Some of these people are going to vote for Obama because they know McCain won't outlaw abortion. Many of them are going to vote for McCain anyway. A few are going to sit out this election (or, at least, not volunteer for McCain's campaign), figuring that Obama won't be so terrible, anyway.

A year from now, we'll be marvelling at Obama's political skills. He demonstrated those skills at Saddleback.

[Jeff]

You know, I'd rather see and hear this reasonable guy

Like Al Gore? Voters may be smarter now, but I wouldn't bet my country on it.

[J Neo Marvin]

This is one agnostic who was pleased to see Obama remind this particular audience that "helping the least of these" is a crucial element of Christian doctrine. If we're forced to endure pandering (and possibly unconstitutional) spectacles like these, it's nice to see an actual thoughtful Christian setting an example and quietly upstaging these grandstanding fakes.

[Monkay]

There was a good opportunity to point out that several cells, which may or may not become a being able to live outside of the womb, is Not a Baby. "Mr. TinyClumpOfCells, I have known babies; I have worked with babies; and you, sir, are no baby."

[Jared Bascomb]

I was on the verge of liking Rick Warren for not being so all-out hateful as Falwell, Robertson, LJ&H and their ilk, and for actually doing something about problems like AIDS. He seemed different, a bit more connected to reality, to the kind of Christianity that helps people regardless of who they are.

Then I remember that he didn't do squat about AIDS when it was affecting gay men, and I read in the LA Times this week that he would never endorse an atheist for president because anyone who couldn't accept help from God was too arrogant to be prez (paraphrasing).

[I'd italicize and link, but being a newbie, and seeing how other more experienced Slacktivites have problems doing that, I'd rather not risk it.]

[hf]

Like Al Gore? Voters may be smarter now, but I wouldn't bet my country

Journalists seem, if not smarter, at least less hostile towards the Democrat.

[Fred Davis]

Like Al Gore?

Wasn't Al Gore portrayed as slightly more wooden than Keanu Reeves during 2000? And the inventor of the internet and other lies?

I dunno, what seems to have happened is that a black man went into a far right church, talked about how it was okay to MURDER WHITE BABIES as he attempts to TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY and turn it into a RADICAL MUSLIM SECULAR BABY EATING NEW WORLD ORDER, and wasn't lynched.

Considering these are the same kind of congregation who can maintain both a seeving belief that jews are evil for killing Christ and consider criticism of israel as the vilest evil because israel needs to exist so that jesus can come back and use his laser eyebeams to depopulate the middle east of unbelievers... holding the notion that Obama is even more evil than they thought he was precisely because he's sincere and persuasive and made them doubt their deeply held beliefs wouldn't be that hard.

[bad Jim]

Here is the LA Times article Jared Bascomb referred to, and the annoying quote:

"I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, 'I don't need God,' " Warren said. "They're saying, 'I'm totally self-sufficient by [myself].' And nobody is self-sufficient to be president by themselves. It's too big a job."

I don't really feel I have the choice to believe in God, however much I might think I need Him. It would be like a parent on Christmas Eve who hadn't bought any presents for his children deciding to believe in Santa Claus out of necessity.

Warren probably thinks that atheists are aware of God but have rejected him, rather than alluding to Laplace, who, when asked why God wasn't mentioned in his monumental Celestial Mechanics, replied "I have no need of that hypothesis."

[EarBucket]

Nicky Carpathia becoming a born-again RTC and penning a series of Chick tracts that just consist of the books of the Bible quoted in alphabetical order ("Acts! Amos! Chronicles! Colossians! Corinthians! Daniel! Deuteronomy!").

Awesome. SchrodingersDuck wins the thread.

[aunursa]

Fred Davis: Considering these are the same kind of congregation who can maintain both a seeving belief that jews are evil for killing Christ

What does it mean to be a chosen people?

Rick Warren Counsels Jews on Recruiting Congregants

and consider criticism of israel as the vilest evil

What is Saddleback's position on political and foreign policies?

Rick Warren praises Syria

[Reynard]

Barry Lynn doesn't think Barack Obama should have agreed to appear at the presidential forum hosted by Rick Warren's Saddleback Church on Saturday. Lynn argues that the evangelical megachurch was GOP home turf and thus the whole thing was a trap and a set-up the Democratic candidate should have avoided. Lynn thinks Warren's questions for the two candidates were biased and full of Republican talking points.

I have to agree with Lynn on this one. Warren basically put Obama in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" box. That Obama was able to state his case for becoming President in a manner that transcended the confines of that box was (to me at least) no surprise, but the Rethuglican bloviators are only going to keep spewing their "Four (Republican) legs good! Two (Democratic) legs baaaad!" propaganda as long as they think the rest of us are listening to it. (And, as close as the polls are, there seem to be a *lot* of sheep in McCain's paddock right now...)

Posted by Drake Pope: Finally, a few weeks before the election, the candidates will engage in the most crucial test of all; the naked Jello fight.

I would *SO* pay to see that...

[not_scottbot]

'and possibly unconstitutional'

There was nothing, absolutely nothing, unconstitutional about two American citizens running for the office of president, participating in a public forum which was a church.

If you wish to make a fairly involved point about how the First Amendment is under threat from directions unanticipated from the founders, or how two American citizens talking about their candidacy for president in a church is a form of religious test, good luck.

But the odds are that the founders may not have anticipated the sorts of 'censorship' now routinely practiced by private organizations operating in a governmentally regulated area which have direct interests in forming opinions which result in governmental action that directly benefit those private organizations. For example, what is Fox's position on media consolidation, hmm? Or is that Murdoch's position? And why is Murdoch an American citizen? Possibly because under current law, only an American citizen can hold a majority stake in a network? These are the sort of questions that the founders are unlikely to have anticipated.

Two politicians using a religious forum as part of the political process in a democratic election? Nothing new there. And nothing, nothing at all, remotely unconstitutional.

[Sarah]

I would *SO* pay to see that...

I would pay to never have to see it, ever.

[Caravelle]

I would pay to never have to see it, ever.
Yeah. Remember, one of the two candidates is McCain.
Though he would probably send Cindy, as his champion as it were. Go Jello fight !

[bad Jim]

Of course there's a constitutional issue here. The Consititution states that there shall be no religious test for public office, but in practice, and this is a particularly egregious example, there is. An atheist doesn't have a prayer. Washington or Lincoln, Jefferson or Adams couldn't get elected nowadays.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the president took the oath of office exactly as specified in the Consitution, with perhaps a couple of exceptions, but in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries it has become the norm to add a gratuitous "so help me God."

(I've endured a number of depostions, mostly involving patents, and each time had to swear an oath, and God was never invoked, to my relief. Maybe that's just the practice in California.)

[konrad_arflane]

IANAL, or even a US citizen or resident, but it seems to me impossible to implement "no religious test for office" in the sense that bad Jim seems to want.

It is true that there is a de facto religious test (for the presidency anyway - isn't there an atheist congressman somewhere?) in the sense that a publicly atheist candidate would have absolutely no chance of gathering sufficient votes to win the election; but what are you going to do about that? Tell people that they can't vote according to how well the candidates' religious beliefs square with their own? Outlaw any discussion of a candidate's religion in the media? How would those things square with free exercise and secret balloting (in the first case) and free speech (in the second)?

And in any event, a constitution generally places restrictions on the government, not on the citizens (I'm aware that there are exceptions) - under that assumption, "no religious test" means the only thing it can mean and remain practicable: that a candidate's beliefs or lack thereof can never be a barrier to *eligibility*. What happens in the voting booth is the business of the voter and nobody else.

[Praline]

I don't see what Obama could possibly have had to lose by speaking to a megachurch. He's already being portrayed as the Antichrist; staying away from right-wing evangelicals cannot possibly drop his stock any lower. It just means he'd never be there to defend himself when the hints started flying.

As an agnostic liberal non-American, I fervently wish that the megachurches weren't such an engaged and active political bloc. But since they are, it seems silly to ignore them, and unwise to let your opponents be the only ones to talk to them.

In fact, I'd see it as turning your back on citizens you hope to benefit: neoconservative policies tend to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and middle-class, and I sincerely and passionately doubt that megachurch congretations are made up of rich people.

Megachurch congretations are among the many groups of people who are being actively screwed over by the current administration's policy. The administration promises reforms on issues dear to their hearts, while politically - which is a government's acutal area - makes life economically harder for them. I don't like a lot of right-wing Christian opinions, but it doesn't mean right-wing Christians aren't in the same boat as everyone else when it comes to robber baron government, and I don't want to see them economically punished for holding opinions I don't like - especially as everyone else gets punished too.

Failing to address them is throwing them to the wolves. No politician has to promise everything they want, but people deserve to hear as many opinions as possible. I get the impression that a lot of Christian right-wingers are very seldom exposed to more than one viewpoint; there's no merit in waiting around for their leaders to get more ecumenical. If we want them to consider our viewpoint, they're going to have to hear it from us, because no one else will represent it properly. And as a government led by Obama would undoubtedly benefit all of us, it seems lazy and petty to refuse to speak to the megachurches.

[not_scottbot]

A couple of notes about the 'religious test' -

'The following are excerpts from James E. Wood, Jr.'s very fine article that appeared in the Journal of Church and State 29 (Spring 1987), which sums this up quite nicely.

The only reference to religion in the original Constitution, Article VI is written in the form of an unequivocal denial of any place to be given to religious considerations in determining qualifications for public office. The prohibition applied at this time, of course only to federal office, not state or local. The adoption of this proposal in effect, precluded the possibility of any church-state union or the establishment of a state church in the absence of any religious test for public office.'
http://candst.tripod.com/testban1.htm

From the same link (but harder to source), detailing what effect no religious test means -
'The names and subordination of the clergy, the posture of devotion, the materials and colour of the minister's garment, the joining in a known, or an unknown form of prayer, and other matters of the same kind, must be left to the option of every man's private judgment.'

And this is where some people seem to completely miss the point. If a majority of citizens, in their private judgment, decide to elect officials that reflect a certain religious belief or creed, that is simply democracy as practiced through majority rule in action.

However, a process determining who can serve as an elected official based on the criteria of a (state) church that decides whether said official is allowed to serve, independent of the will of the majority, was rejected by the writers of the Constitution. And the writers were able to completely stop such nascent theocratic leanings elegantly, by simply rejecting even the possibly of a religious test.

Not of religion, but simply of a religious test which, by necessity, would be administered by a church beyond the power of the state. After all, the Founders knew all about state churches and religious tests.

Sometimes, I think Americans have little idea how incredibly diverse even their 'religious' voters are - both Baptists and Catholics, for example, have little problem in supporting a sincerely anti-abortion candidate who is Lutheran. And the supporters of this candidate would basically consider themselves to be the same religion, while this candidate's opponents would also see the various creeds as belonging to the same religion. This is not really imaginable in Germany, where Catholics and Lutherans are considered to belong to two very different religions in and of themselves, with long traditions of opposition to each other.

Or I could be nasty, and simply note that American binary thinking has even managed to reduce religious diversity to those who are religious and those who aren't, while conveniently ignoring anyone who doesn't fit so easily into that schema - 1 million American Buddhists come to mind, for example.

[SchrodingersDuck]

isn't there an atheist congressman somewhere?

You're probably thinking of Pete Stark, although technically, he wasn't an atheist (at least not openly) at the time of the last election. No one has ever been elected to Congress while openly atheist, although quite a few have without stating their religion (there are currently 10 members that have not given a religion).

[aunursa]

SDuck: No one has ever been elected to Congress while openly atheist

That will change on November 4th. Stark routinely runs against token opposition and gets 75-80% of the vote.

[spencer]

Like Al Gore? Voters may be smarter now, but I wouldn't bet my country on it.

I don't think that's a good comparison. For one thing, Gore ran a terrible campaign, and while Obama may make mistakes from time to time, he and his staff seem to have a better handle on things than Gore did. Second, while it was clear in 2000 that Bush was an intellectual lightweight, he didn't seem angry and maybe a little off his nut, as McCain can. He (Bush) also managed to hide his spitefulness and pettiness fairly well back then, though he couldn't keep that up forever.

Not saying the original commenter is right, necessarily - just that Al Gore is probably not the best point of comparison here.

[aunursa]

not scottbot: Or I could be nasty, and simply note that American binary thinking has even managed to reduce religious diversity to those who are religious and those who aren't, while conveniently ignoring anyone who doesn't fit so easily into that schema - 1 million American Buddhists come to mind, for example.

REV. LOVEJOY: He was working in the hearts of your friends and neighbors when they came to your aid. Be they Christian, Jew, or... miscellaneous.
APU: Hindu! There are 700 million of us.
REV. LOVEJOY: Aw, that's super.

[Fred Davis]

Oh wow Aunursa, those are some fun links.

A summary for people who can't be bothered to read them all:

Saddleback church believes that one day most of the jews will convert to christianity en mass.

The guy who runs Saddleback church often teaches rabbis of reform judaism and some people from ISNA how to convert random passersby during the holiday season.

Saddleback church believes that the bible doesn't actually include a well thought out stance on US foriegn Policy.

Syria apparently isn't the US's ally in the War On Terror, hasn't been a place the US (and the UK and Israel and Hamas) has been sending "suspects" from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to be tortured*, and Syria hasn't thrown the blood libel around at israel now and again, and also persecuted various groups inside syria. Articles like that are why I like american media so much - you guys can have such a weak grasp on reality that you can have a person saying stupid things being criticised in such a stupid way that it very nearly makes the original stupid person look vaguely intelligent.

I'll admit that I assumed that saddleback church was some breed of unification church-esque crazy-tarian place. I was wrong.

* They also use sleep deprivation, water boarding, physical beatings, burning of cigarettes upon prisoner's skin, the occasional dousing of prisoners in gasoline and mildly immolating them, starvation and stress positions - all of which Are Not torture. The real torture; Syrian Prison Coffee.

[aunursa]

Fred Davis: Mock the links all you like. They refute your unsupportable points that the Saddleback congregation believes

that jews are evil

and

consider criticism of israel as the vilest evil

Unless you're going to argue that a congregation whose leader supports Syria is going to find any and all criticism of Israel anathema.

[Amaryllis]

What I hadn't realized about Sadddleback was that they were Young-Earth Creationists. At least, so I infer from the "What About Dinosaurs?" link. I'd have assumed creationists, probably, but not The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth. "The Bible's picture," in case you wonder, shows that "behemoth" clearly means "dinosaur."

I thought they were more sophisticated than that. Obviously, I haven't been paying enough attention.

[NateDog]

I don't know how anyone cannot see through the smokescreen, but this is no less than a religious test for office. That sort of thing is SUPPOSED to be unconstitutional. I heartily disagree with both McCain's and Obama's theology, but who gives a rip. Its not a congregational meeting to elect a new pastor...this is a national election for God's sake!

[jmc]

I agree, Amaryllis. Saddleback's potential influence on science education is worrisome. Kay Warren even helped develop a small group curriculum that includes several creationist/anti-evolution talking points.

However I'm going to disagree with everyone who claims this forum was unconstitutional. The government cannot impose a religious test, but people can cast their vote based on lucky lotto numbers, religious beliefs, policy positions, or the color of the candidates' shirts.

[not_scottbot]

'That sort of thing is SUPPOSED to be unconstitutional.'

Please. I'm not even sure if it is worth the time to try to explain how very wrong that statement is. At least in the eyes of the Founders, American citizens are welcome to assemble to discuss pretty much whatever they want (treason is a constitutional exception, and that is about it). Suggesting that such a meeting by candidates during a political campaign is somehow supposed to be unconstitutional would almost be frightening if it wasn't so ludicrous.

However, I would be a lot more pleased if Obama and McCain could have a discussion in one of our secret prisons, featuring a debate of how McCain was or was not tortured, since when the same treatment is meted out by Americans it doesn't meet the definition for torture, though when it is done to Americans, it does. That would be interesting to watch, to see how either of our likely future torturer in chief would respond. Seriously, you don't think the secret prisons and torture is going to stop with the inauguration of the 44th president, do you?

Torture is unconstitutional, by the way, and not merely supposedly. Get concerned about what is happening, and not merely by what supposedly shouldn't happen.

[Becca]

Are we going to suffer fools like this again during the entire time leading up to the election?

There is a speration of church and state to protect all God's children in this country. I find it offensive, and more than boring.

Will we citizens ever get to hear the real issues???? After the bush gang has wreaked havoc and endangered the country on every level, will we get more of the same, or actually have a real election this time?

I am so very tired of all this sham and drudgery......get the cons out, and save our country.

[Mold]

Obama went into the lion's den and walked out...remember this one from Sunday School? Showing fear to the lower orders is tantamount to admitting a lack of qualifications. McSame gets a pass as he was a POW. Obama had to face the Morlocks on their home turf.

[Praline]

Obama had to face the Morlocks on their home turf.

It's that kind of remark that makes Christian evangelicals disinclined to vote for Obama, or even consider listening to him. Would you give any ear to a politician whose followers referred to you as 'the lower orders'?

Let's have some common respect and courtesy for our fellow human beings.

[Me!]

What I hadn't realized about Sadddleback was that they were Young-Earth Creationists. At least, so I infer from the "What About Dinosaurs?" link. I'd have assumed creationists, probably, but not The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth. "The Bible's picture," in case you wonder, shows that "behemoth" clearly means "dinosaur."

I thought they were more sophisticated than that. Obviously, I haven't been paying enough attention.

Huh, I thought they would've been more likely to be Old Earth Creationists. Fun fact: St. Augustine, way back in the 4th/5th century, basically said that people should be willing to reconsider their "literal" interpretation of Genesis if our new information appeared to contradict it.

[Drake Pope]

It's that kind of remark that makes Christian evangelicals disinclined to vote for Obama, or even consider listening to him. Would you give any ear to a politician whose followers referred to you as 'the lower orders'?

That's not the main reason why they don't want to vote for him. Many if not most Evangelicals don't want to vote for him because their political views are different from his political views.

[Cowboy Diva]

Me!,
remember Augustine was Catholic; therefore not a few evangelicals consider whatever he wrote both heretical and useless.

[Fred Davis]

Unless you're going to argue that a congregation whose leader supports Syria is going to find any and all criticism of Israel anathema.

I was mocking Saddleback actually.

I dunno now, I said I was wrong, gave reasons why I agreed with you about the being wrong thing so...? Cookie? Panda? Cake?

[Sean]

remember Augustine was Catholic; therefore not a few evangelicals consider whatever he wrote both heretical and useless.

So as someone with an Evangelical background (now liberal Protestant), I must say that I disagree. Augustine remains a favorite in Evangelical circles, partly because of his formulation of the doctrine of original sin, and his focus on the Pauline epistles. Many of my friends who went to Evangelical colleges for their undergrad have told me that Augustine's "Confessions" was required reading (we've had lots of discussions about him).

While I don't think most Evangelicals (or Protestants of any stripe) would accept Augustine's writings as completely authoritative, I'm pretty sure very few would denounce Augustine as "heretical" or "useless" either.

Remember that Evangelicals accept, either implicitly or explicitly, most of the early Church's decisions on doctrine, including the Nicene Creed and the Trinity.

It also helps for Evangelicals with a Calvinist bent that Calvin got most of his core ideas from Augustine.

[Cowboy Diva]

*shrugs shoulders*
Whatever. I tried to couch it in language that was not too generalizing ("not a few"), but be that as it may, being raised by evangelical clergy going back at least 3 generations in the south/central region of the continental US, Augustine did not come up for me until I went to my then-evangelical (no longer) college, and then only as his Deo Civitas (sp) compared to Machiavelli's Prince.

Evangelicals in my experience are not terribly interested in "academic" theology, and again speaking from personal experience, wouldn't know a creed from a hole in the ground except they would know to avoid the hole.

The first creed I came in contact with was while singing in a high-anglican church, and that was in Latin. Sean, you were blessed.

[Cowboy Diva]

oh, and evangelical calvinists SCARE me. I keep thinking they like the limited atonement precept far too much because it justifies their exclusive religion clubs.