The Rev. Rick Warren, author of the best-seller "The Purpose-Driven Life," will spend an hour interviewing each candidate at his 20,000-member Saddleback mega-church in Southern California.The Purpose-Driven Life.... When did politics go all Oprah? I can't believe we're finally going to see the 2 candidates side by side and some spiritual author is doing the questions.
On CNN's "The Situation Room" earlier this week, Warren said he won't play the role of a political pundit or ask "gotcha" questions, but rather tackle four areas of interest: the role of the presidency in government, leadership, the candidates' worldviews and America's role internationally.
The Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency will be carried on CNN TV and CNN.com/Live. It will be the last time the two candidates share the same stage before their parties' conventions. Three debates between the two are scheduled after the conventions.
So: "share the same stage."Are they going to be there at the same time or is this one interview and then another? You know, I got all excited about this for a minute, but if they aren't going to be on stage together, I'm not even going to watch. I'm going to assume that's why I haven't heard about it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ah, no, I'm right. Funny how it makes such a big difference, isn't it?
I missed this, from Alan Wolfe in TNR a few days ago:
Regardless of which candidate benefits the most from this joint appearance, ... the biggest winner is Warren himself. A wildly successful author and church planter, Warren is leading an effort to focus the attention of Christian conservatives on questions of social justice....
[T]he most important [thing Warren does] is severing a link between conservative religion and conservative politics....
The joint appearance ... is ... a significant antidote to the poison that the religious right injected into American politics. The United States is unlikely ever to be as secular as Western Europe. If a better balance between religion and politics is to come about, it will because of what religious leaders do, and not because of what non-believers such as myself want to happen.
UPDATE: Actually, I am going to watch this. I want to blog it... and maybe bloggingheads it.
पोस्ट्स
८४ टिप्पण्या:
I keep getting emails from RedState about this thing, urging me to call Rick Warren and complain that he's not giving Obama enough fire over abortion, and that the people framing the questions are lefties. With all due respect to Erick, who's a real stand-up guy, I just think it's really funny that RedState thinks that Rick Warren gives a shit what RedState.com thinks, still less what the readers thereof think.
Ahh, so now we'll get our religious conservatism combined with a nice portion of Obama-esque "social justice". Sounds even less appealing than before.
Thanks, Rick!
Nice to see our candidates embracing the inseparable relationship between church and state!
If anyone wants to know more about Saddleback, I covered their AIDS days event a couple years ago, here.
The church is kind of a big Disneyland-esque freakshow.
Zach, it'd be fairly silly to suggest that this causes church-state problems. "Church" in that context means the broader sense of the term: "the Catholic church" or "the episcopalian church," not "the church at the corner of fifth and main." Faith and politics are inseparable; it's only when government seeks to place its imprimatur on (or single out for ill-treatment) any particular church that we get into church-state problems.
I have a problem with presidential candidates pandering to a mega-church and appearing in a major forum, at said mega-church, led by the most influential evangelical pastor in the country, and broadcast across the county.
This isn't some quick pop-in at a little chapel.
Whether or not this is a violation of church and state, I don't think so. But I have a problem with it.
It's not a coincidence that Warren isn't calling this a "debate" because that would have raised more eyebrows. A debate in a church! No no, it's a forum.
Until it's his turn to chat with Warren, McCain will be locked away, unable to hear Obama's answers, kind of like the bonus round on "Family Feud."
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"I have a problem with presidential candidates pandering to a mega-church and appearing in a major forum, at said mega-church, led by the most influential evangelical pastor in the country, and broadcast across the county."
And what would that problem be?
"Until it's his turn to chat with Warren, McCain will be locked away, unable to hear Obama's answers, kind of like the bonus round on 'Family Feud.'"
It sounds kind of demeaning, but insofar as evangelicals are a numerous and important constituency whose support both candidates want and yet have problems attaining, it's not hard to see why they'd play along.
ZPS said: "I have a problem with presidential candidates pandering to a mega-church and appearing in a major forum, at said mega-church, led by the most influential evangelical pastor in the country, and broadcast across the county"
hypocrite! Saddleback just spits rather than swallows your agenda-that's what irks you!
Zach hates Jesus, America and that is good and right in the world.
The problem?
I don't believe our politicians should have to answer to the #1 religious leader in the country in a nationally broadcast forum. As if Rick Warren should be the one, the first one I might add, to get them together for the first time and trot them out on stage in front of millions of people. If McCain and Obama want to talk to him in private or to appear without the Q&A forum, that would be different. But this is being hyped as some big "event"...a "showdown."
But as my mom said this morning about McCain and Obama pandering to evangelicals: "They have to do what they have to."
Sigh.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"I don't believe our politicians should have to answer to the #1 religious leader in the country in a nationally broadcast forum."
They're not "answering to" Warren, just answering questions; and they don't "have" to do so, they're choosing to. You're plenty smart enough to understand that, which reveals your previous answer a as dodge. So we're back where we started, albeit with a more precise formulation of the same question: what problem do you have - what's your real problem - with the candidates voluntarily answering questions from Rick Warren in a televised format?
"As if Rick Warren should be the one, the first one I might add, to get them together for the first time and trot them out on stage in front of millions of people."
They aren't going to be "together" on stage, and even if they were, I fail to see the criticism in Warren being the first one to do so; someone has to be. The first debate has to be somewhere. And you'll notice that a few months back, McCain proposed to do a series of debates with Obama, and Obama refused to do so. So if you really want to blame someone for this being the first televised "debate" (assuming arguendo it can be so characterized), the person to blame is Obama for refusing to do debates before, not Rick Warren for creating one and inviting the candidates.
Why can't we have a president who is free from the burden and constraints that religion places on people? I wish we had a free thinking politician to choose from who does not show preferential treatment toward any one cultural group. Someone who is able to be congenial toward everyone, considering this country is so diverse, it is a bit disengenuous toward all those people who do not practice Chrisitanity, so I think it would be a great idea to choose someone who is not constrained by any one belief system.
Read my blog, "The New Anti-Thesis" to learn more about why religion should not exist - simply click on my name to access it.
a free thinking politician
Why does 'free-thinking' always mean 'agree with me'?
They are free-thinking. They've freely chosen how to think. They align themselves, as you do, with a particular way of thinking.
"Why religion should not exist"
Why, that's not particularly free-thinking of you. Don't tell us how to think! How repressive of you. So evangelistic too. We don't want to convert! Don't make us! No, we do not want to read your literature or be asked pointed questions to steer us towards your prepared answers. We want to just think, freely!
I'm pretty uninterested in this too. Though, truth be told, I'm much, much happier with Rick Warren, who walks the talk, than with any of our other nominated Evangelical leaders like Robertson and Falwell.
It's funny to watch Dobson flailing along the last year realizing no one really cares what he thinks, as he utterly rejects McCain and McCain still gets the nomination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxEilePzwuU&NR=1
Maybe I should type the answer in all caps? My problem is that I don't believe our politicians should have to answer to the #1 religious leader in the country in a nationally broadcast forum.
They do have to, because if one of them would have said no to Warren, then they would be accused of ignoring the evangelical vote. And they are "answering" to Warren because he'll be asking them "questions" that are of importance to his congregation. Funny how that works.
Again, if Obama and McCain appeared at Saddleback and gave back-to-back speeches, and even took questions from the audience, that would be fine. But, and this is the last comment I'm making here, evangelical leaders have no business hosting and moderating a Q&A TV show between presidential candidates.
Two samples from Dan's piece:
1: ... The worst thing that has ever happened to our planets’ various ecosystems is the progressive advancement of the human species. Ingenuity born in the minds of men and women has created an evolutionary imbalance between us and the other species that we coexist with in our respective biodiversities. ...
2: ... These are just two examples of the way our ancestors have been able to overcome nature by cheating our counterparts in the Animal Kingdom out of a niche in the food chain. ...
Not sure how this sort of thing would/should translate into presidential policy and whatnot. Not entirely sure I wanna know.
***
I'm pretty allergic to the mixing of religion into politics (and, for that matter, politics into religion, but that's a different topic) myself. But there are far more alarming examples than Rick Warren, who I think is a decent man and for whom I have a certain respect--for reasons already alluded to elsewhere in comments--though we are in different traditions.
ZPS: I do find part of what you're saying interesting, not so much because you're saying it, but due to the phraseology. If the forum was before a large group representing another major bloc of voters, would you use the word "pandering"? It just appears to me that people seem more likely to use that specific word in connection with religion than with other defining characteristics. I'm not trying to single you out, personally: you just happened to provide an example of what I've noticed more generally. I'm interested in the unspoken premise[s] behind this, and how language is being used to present a particular POV or judgment, if that makes sense.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"Maybe I should type the answer in all caps? My problem is that I don't believe our politicians should have to answer to the #1 religious leader in the country in a nationally broadcast forum."
The problem isn't that you weren't clear in what you said, it's that what you said doesn't answer the question, and repeating the same dodge doesn't get you any closer to doing so, either. You don't believe that politicians should have to answer to the #1 religious leader in the country in a nationally broadcast forum. Fine. But that principle isn't applicable to the McCain-Obama-Warren conclave, because it doesn't involve (and can't credibly be characterized as involving) "politicians ... answer[ing] to the #1 religious leader in the country in a nationally broadcast forum." Ergo, your principle is either applicable but misstated, or else, if accurately-stated, inapplicable, meaning that your problem must be something else.
I think seeing how the candidates perform under pressure and how they interact with their family and close staff is very important in our decision making process. So I have one suggestion.
Family Feud.
evangelical leaders have no business hosting and moderating a Q&A TV show between presidential candidates.
How about black leaders? Or gay leaders? Or Hispanic leaders? Or union leaders? Or environmental leaders?
Do they have business hosting the presidential candidates? If so, why do you categorize Evangelicals as lesser citizens? Are they not Americans, given a right to vote as they see fit?
That seems dangerous thinking to say one group of people should be barred from political conversation and exerting influence. Next thing you know, I'll bet you'll argue Evangelicals shouldn't be allowed to marry.
I guess a more pithy way to put it (and, again, this is a generalized comment, not a call-out of ZPS) is this:
"Pandering" seems to be product of whether the individual choosing to use it likes the particular group or not, rather than the behavior of the "panderer" himself/herself.
That's just how it seems to me, anyway.
reader_iam said...
"ZPS: I do find part of what you're saying interesting, not so much because you're saying it, but due to the phraseology. If the forum was before a large group representing another major bloc of voters, would you use the word 'pandering'?"
Yes; one does have to wonder: if Al Gore was hosting a forum based on environmental and climate change issues if Zach would be similarly hostile to the candidates "hav[ing] to answer to the #1 environmental leader in the country in a nationally broadcast forum." If it was a form created by gay Americans or African-Americans or hispanics, if it would be a "problem" for the candidates to "answer to" their leaders.
I fancy that it really has to do with the fact that Zach is hostile to either Christianity generally or Rick Warren specifically, and wants to see their influence marginalized. (Don't get me wrong: I'm sure he has nothing against people believing what they want in private.)
It's time for the Family Feud! Introducing the McCain Family. John, Cindy, Sidney, Jack, Meghan and Joe Lieberman .Ready for action! And the Obama Family. Barack, Michelle, Malia Ann, Sascha, Granny Dunham and Reverand Wright and . On your marks... let's start... the FAMILY FEUUUUD! With the star of Family Feud, AL ROKER.
Sounds like a repulsive pander fest to me.
No to Al Roker! Richard Dawson!
To be a Christain means to be CHRIST-like. If JESUS was among
us in the flesh today, I can gaurantee you he would'nt 1). cut
school lunch programs for disadvantaged children,2). he would'nt cut programs that were
designed to help the elderly and
3) he would'nt impose on the free
will of an individual,neither should man or the goverment.
Rick Warren, the Republican
evangelicals, the Moral Majority
clan and the KKK are'nt teaching the doctrine of the GOD of Abraham,
Issaac and Jacob. Although they speak of the creator, their actions
prove exactly who they are. They
are wolves in sheeps clothing and
unfortunately they have brainedwashed and bewitched those
who harbour the same hate,fear and
insecurities. They call themselves
compassionate conservatives, but
JESUS calls them Hypocrits and
pharisees.
When did politics go all Oprah?
I don't know, exactly, but I'm tempted to say that the MTV appearances and the whole "boxers or briefs" thing back in the early '90s sorta set the ball to rolling, or at least gave it a good hard shove so it'd pick up speed.
Jesus wasn't particularly political was he?
Render unto Caesar and all?
Jesus would smite tom for his terrible grammar and punctuation deployed in His name.
I would SO love to see Richard Dawson lay a wet one on Michelle Obama's lips.
Survey says: SMACK! Get your nasty lips away from me, whitey!
Palladian: I laughed out loud!
My family was on Family Feud in the early 90's. Ray Combs was the host. They won 3 days in a row, and they won the fast money each time! At the end of each show, we got to run up from the audience and on to the stage. Combs was a really nice guy, on and off camera.
Sorry, no one is going to bait me into comparing evangelicals with environmental groups or ethnic groups or gay groups hosting "forums." And if you need me to explain the difference, we're obviously never going to agree anyways. I still like you.
Uh, Tom...you do realize that your option 3 kind of negates options 1 & 2.
A Christ who is willing to steal from people to fund nebulous "programs" to help the poor, regardless of the statutory authority to do so, isn't one who can lay claim to not impose on others.
So figure out if Jesus was an old time Che Guevara, or an old style Ayn Rand, before lecturing others, and comparing them to Klansmen. It makes you look silly.
"Sorry, no one is going to bait me into comparing evangelicals with environmental groups or ethnic groups or gay groups hosting "forums." And if you need me to explain the difference, we're obviously never going to agree anyways. I still like you."
Well Jesus hates you.
"Sorry, no one is going to bait me into comparing evangelicals with environmental groups or ethnic groups or gay groups hosting "forums." And if you need me to explain the difference, we're obviously never going to agree anyways."
In other words, I'm a bigot, I'll always be a bigot. I can't explain myself because bigotry such as mine is indefensible. So there.
Oh Palladian! You're the only one who can misuse the word "bigot" and still make it look sexy.
Sorry, no one is going to bait me into comparing evangelicals with environmental groups or ethnic groups or gay groups hosting "forums." And if you need me to explain the difference, we're obviously never going to agree anyways.
Allow me to interpolate that remark.
"I'm busted."
I have watched every presidential debate since Nixon-Kennedy. I am going to watch this one with great interest. I think we will find out more about these candidates tonight than we ever have before.
I carry no water for Pastor Warren or Evangelicals.
Having said that I fervently hope that Pastor Warren puts on a show that will show us just how appalling the moderators have been recently. I haven't seen a debate that has risen above farce in the last five elections.
Jesus a dirty effing hippie?
Let's see; anti-establishment, long hair and beard, hung out with poor, expelled the money changers from the Temple. I'd say Jesus was a liberal.
Rick Warren? How depressing.
What, was Dr. Phil not available?
It sure is Jesus-y around here today.
"I'd say Jesus was a liberal."
Really? I wonder what he thought about abortion, gay marriage, secularism, feminism...
I suspect the answer would surprise you.
It's really silly to graft modern political systems onto historical figures, but hacks have to have something to occupy them.
Jesus wouldn't and didn't have time for politics, whatever the flavor.
Palladian
Thanks for not asking for "proof and a link!" to back up my obvious tongue and cheek remark. I thought DTL was no sense of humor gay guy here.
Jesus wouldn't and didn't have time for politics, whatever the flavor.
This is probably the best answer. Jesus made everyone mad. He made conservatives mad for being so free and open with what he did and who he included. He made liberals bad with all that talk about "don't even lust" and righteousness exceeding the law and holiness crap. Everyone got pissed off at him.
Just when you thought he was on your side, he turned on you. The key was, and is, being on his side, not thinking he's on our side.
Politically, it seems his biggest argument was don't make government an excuse. Don't blame it. Don't suckle on it. You see something wrong, you work to respond to it. He was all about personal responsibility in helping others.
Don't blame others. Do what is within your ability to do right.
And even if I disagree with him on a lot of things, Rick Warren has, from what I can tell, followed up on this. He reverse tithes--gives 90% of his income away to help all kinds of needs, all over the world.
So, he's at least living up to what he preaches.
When have liberals ever hung out with the poor or expelled moneychangers?
this forum is and should be illegal. its illegal to battle two candidate's faith against each other, whether they are in the same room or not. Separation of church and state! This was created to preserve the integrity of all religions, including christianity.
I don't understand this need to say that religion, especially Christianity, deserves more of a role in American government and politics when it should be the opposite. Religious (un)Americans think that their faith acts above the constitution, and frankly it doesn't. Religion can't be controlled, and hopefully that chaos will not continue to destroy the American way.
Hey I might be bias being an atheist, but fuck. I am sick it.
As you know, is used to be the fact that the first family/team to $200 wins the game, and gets a chance to play Fast Money for $5,000/$10,000. The goal is changed. Now the winners get to be the first family with the daddy as President and you get to make the rest of America miserable for four long years. Good luck to both families, you know the way the game is played. Let’s play the feud.
First up John and Barry.
Richard Dawson: First question. We asked 100 men this question. You are away at war and come home from a prisoner of war camp but your wife is old and crippled. What do you do.
Buuuuuzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!! Barry
Barry Obama: You throw her under the bus.
Richard Dawson: Survey sez: O. John McCain you can steal the board.
John McCain: You dump the old bag and marry a hot blonde that owns a liquor store.
Richard Dawson: Survey sez. 78 people. You win and control the board.
Sorry, no one is going to bait me into comparing evangelicals with environmental groups or ethnic groups or gay groups hosting "forums." And if you need me to explain the difference, we're obviously never going to agree anyways.
No need to explain. I understand. It's that Evangelicals vote different than you do, unlike the other groups I mentioned. So, keep 'em from congregatin'! Give out a religious test to make sure only the acceptable folks have access to politics.
But, even with those opinions you're still likeable too.
Though, I'm not sure that would go over well with other categories. "I like handicapped people, just don't want them to be imposing their voting rights on the rest of us, what with their ramps, and elevators, and suchlikes they're always demanding."
And yet these same liberal democrats have no problem with their candidates showing up at a meeting held by Al Sharpton because he said if they didn't show at his place, he would not support them in the election. Right on schedule he had Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Al Gore at his place in Harlem. And not a word from the liberal democrats about it.
And no problem with John Kerry preaching a sermon in a black church during the 2004 campaign.
"this forum is and should be illegal. its illegal to battle two candidate's faith against each other, whether they are in the same room or not. Separation of church and state! This was created to preserve the integrity of all religions, including christianity."
Sigh. Don't they teach Civics anymore? When will this "separation of church and state" fallacy ever end?
The Bill of Rights, that holy piece of parchment, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
See? It doesn't actually say anything about the separation of "church" and "state". Furthermore, it puts your silly statement to bed, since making a voluntary religious forum "illegal" as you suggest would itself be illegal, since that would contravene the part about "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "abridging the freedom of speech". It's people like you who are the enemies of freedom, just as much as a raging "theocon" who wants to adjust government to suit his or her particular religious belief.
Richard Dawson: Let’s the McCain family, This is Cindy, Hi darling (leans over to kiss Cindy McCain on the lips) Oooh tongue. Ok then. You know the question.
Cindy McCain: You stay faithful and cherish the woman you pledged to love forever in your second marriage.
Richard Dawson: Survey sez; 0
John McCain: Stupid cunt.
Richard Dawson: What?
John McCain: Errr lets not punt on this one, heh, heh.
Best Family Feud answer ever.
Contest: Guess the survey question!
What did Titus have to do to everyday get a ride to school?
Fen -
I thought you would be the first to say Jesus was a liberal. Afterall, didn't Jesus tell us to love our enemies? Since liberals are incapable of loving their country they love our enemies instead. John Kerry is a liberal who loves our enemies and who could love him?
If Jesus wasn't political -- whether or not He was real or not, because this question works just fine in a literary context -- why did the Jewish authorities want him killed, and why were the Roman authorities involved?
I would argue that it's ultimately a political story.
Not really the Jews put out the contract and the guineas whacked him. That's how Meyer Lansky and Albert Anastasia used to handle it back in the day. It was just bidnez.
Fine. But business is politics.
I thought you would be the first to say Jesus was a liberal. Afterall, didn't Jesus tell us to love our enemies? Since liberals are incapable of loving their country they love our enemies instead. John Kerry is a liberal who loves our enemies and who could love him?
I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say "Love thine enemies and piss on thine friends."
Seven,
I don't know if you're serious but, of course, religion was politics back then. The Romans were pretty non-denominational so long as you gave the Emperor his props. The two things that got early Christians into trouble was: 1) they were secretive, which was illegal; 2) they wouldn't give the Emperor his divinity props.
And that's just the Roman side of it. How this Jesus guy walked around the countryside flouting the Jewish leadership without any of them seeming to care enough to write it down is another story.
Did anyone notice that CNN gave McCain about 10 seconds at the very end with the audience applause, and gave Obama about a full minute focusing on individuals clapping for Obama? That is so CNN, and so biased!!!!
To Paddy O.:
"They are free-thinking. They've freely chosen how to think. They align themselves, as you do, with a particular way of thinking."
Yes... after coming to fruition and a lifelong time of being misled, it took me until I was twnety-five to battle through the bias and see the true Light.
"Why religion should not exist...
Why, that's not particularly free-thinking of you."
Good point, but it becomes problematic when the basis of this debate assumes that America will be properly represented when hosted in a Christian forum. Ahemmm... a little biased to me!?
Don't get me wrong, the most right-wing side of my anthropological perspective is telling me that religion is adhered to by billions of people, and therefore must exist. OK, but when it comes to influencing the decisions for laws of the country that must I live in, I get really angry.
I think the comment by the blonde lady “expert” that Obama didn’t speak to the people and instead talked to Rick Warren was incorrect. Rick Warren was the question asker and should be the one addressed. McCain came off to me as making a bunch of speaches rather than directly responding to the questions Mr. Warren asked. He seemed more like he was saying what he thought people wanted to hear rather than what he believed from his heart.
but when it comes to influencing the decisions for laws of the country that must I live in, I get really angry.
Why? Our laws are nothing more than a codification of morality.
As for influence, America wouldn't exist if not for those pesky christians.
Rick Warren asked a bunch a good questions actually considering the setting, which are real concerns for real voters. It's just too bad that those voters decision making are largely influenced by faith, which framed the setting of the candidates trying to be more Christian than the other. If you've been following the candidates closely like me, you would already have a clear idea of who the candidate of your choice should be, there is no excuse for not knowing who you are going to choose by now.
I will argue until my death that religion is nothing more than an eternal battle for global dominance, hence the new Crusades we are witnessing, but still respect others. the great George Carlin once said, "Thou shall keep thy religion to thyselves."
but when it comes to influencing the decisions for laws of the country that must I live in, I get really angry.
Well, you could to a country that has a government that's not influenced by religion.
Better hurry, though, there aren't many left.
the great George Carlin once said, "Thou shall keep thy religion to thyselves
That is a great bit.
China is nice, I hear they have a booming economy... wait, I like Germany too, I can speak their language, and they don't mind integrating Muslims into their society without being gauked at every waking moment by Christians... I was considering moving there. I like having options, it's nice.
But that fact is, I'd rather stand and fight to teach and free the minds of young lost souls who are predisposed to follow like sheep.
But that fact is, I'd rather stand and fight to teach and free the minds of young lost souls who are predisposed to follow like sheep.
Wait. Are you homeschooling, too? And not for religious reasons?
Really? The RELIGIOUS thing is what you are focusing on? Not that fact that McCain came across as an exciting, focused, personable candidate (as opposed to what the main stream press has been saying about him) and Obama came across as an unfocused, uncomfortable inexperienced poser? I started watching not realizing the event was taking place in a church, that the questioner had any religious bias at all and felt this was the most informative occasion of the whole campaign. At the end when Pat Robertson was counting down the number of times each candidate said the word Jesus was when I sort of went HUH? OH! Who looked like a president tonight? I think McCain did. Color me shocked!
Why I wasn't watching this, at least in first run: We were exploring the virtues of the math curriculum I chose, and the learning arc and lesson plans I generated.
Success (at least so far, first bar; the true test will be, obviously, what it ought)! My engineer husband was totally impressed.
I'm not just about reading, you know. Or even words.
No, they are not having a debate.
You should know by now that Sen. Obama does not debate.
@ orangejulius
"That is so CNN, and so biased!!!!"
I think you should check out CNN's ticker posts during the forum... You might be surprised how far in the other direction the bias was.
So, McCain said he would, if he had to, follow Osama B. Ladin to the gates of hell and bring him to justice. Last I checked, if someone is going to the gates of hell, then justiced has pretty much been served. So my question to McCain, is, what the hell is he doing in hell. Maybe they both have been judged and maybe they have some mutual friends there also.
daryl -
"You should know by now that Sen. Obama does not debate."
We'll have to see about that come Sept/October. I think you'll be in for a little shocker.
General Sherman said...
"So, McCain said he would, if he had to, follow Osama B. Ladin to the gates of hell and bring him to justice."
That just shows you how dillusional Mccain is. He is willing to do whatever it takes to roll over his own people to follow the carrot Osama bin Ladin is leading down to the gates of hell... wherever those fictitious invisible gates of hell a great majority of people believe in.
By the way... the question about evil.. evil exists only i the minds of people who are already predisposed to believe in a good. If what America is doing to other countries can be considered good, then the supposed "evil" that the opposition is doing can equally be considered "good" from their perspective. In essence, I see no end. Just a perpetuation of death, bloodshed, and misery for everyone. Sounds like a great prospect for future generations, huh? Go Repubs!
Wow, Dan Rather has started commenting at Althouse. Cool.
Courage......
..
.
Evidently the 1st Amendment does not have the same meaning that it did when it was written. This forum was in total violation of what our country is supposed to stand for. Not only did this violate the Constitution, but it is disrespectful to every other religion in this country. These nominees should feel ashamed of themselves for caving into this highly conservative (extremist) group. I personally have no religion, but I firmly believe that these two nominees should now feel obligated to answer to every religion that makes up this wonderfully diverse country in an attempt to address their concerns as well. I thought that the last election had too much Evangelical influence, but it continues to get worse. Our country just took a huge step back. A step that has me considering a move to western Europe.
Well said JTH, but it didn't take a huge step back... it took a huge stand still. People will argue until they are blue in the face that this country was founded on Christian morals, blah blah blah. This just points out the fundamental bias of our country. Yah, yah - laws are based on a moral good, but you know what - I do not need a religion to guide my sense of right from wrong.
Look, religion grabs helpless kids while they are young so they can raise them into a narrow view of the world, and this narrow view would explain a whole lot of things, especially why the US is in the complexity of mess it is in at home and around the world.
Dan didn't you have some documents from the Sanhedrin that proved that Jesus wasn't God...and that he got out of the Texas National Guard before his enlistment was up?
I think you got them from Mary Magdalene Ramirez or something like that.
Wait. Are you homeschooling, too? And not for religious reasons?
Not if he's planning to move to Germany, he's not.
JTH said...
"Evidently the 1st Amendment does not have the same meaning that it did when it was written. This forum was in total violation of what our country is supposed to stand for."
I don't know how people this stupid even get through their everyday lives. Honestly, I don't. JTH, explain how, precisely, this forum violates the First Amendment. Not "the principle of separation of church and state" - that's a gloss, an abstraction at best. Explain how it does what the First Amendment actually enjoins. Explain, for that matter, how the behavior of three private individuals acting in their personal capacities violates any provision of the Constitution.
That's above his paypal.
He just wanted to put in his two cents worth.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा