An interesting piece by Kathleen Parker, who was deeply offended by the Saddleback "interrogation". (Thanks to Loretta, a recovering Catholic of this parish, for prodding me to blog about this.)
At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister -- no matter how beloved -- is supremely wrong. It is also un-American.
For the past several days, since mega-pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church, most political debate has focused on who won...
The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state. The loser was America.
It's a fair point. Speaking as an atheist--but one who feels no desire to convert others to my lack of faith--I was indeed struck by the anomaly of my finding the event both interesting and informative, much more so than the other TV debates, even though the religious trappings ought to have made me uneasy. Parker continues:
His format and questions were interesting and the answers more revealing than what the usual debate menu provides. But does it not seem just a little bit odd to have McCain and Obama chatting individually with a preacher in a public forum about their positions on evil and their relationship with Jesus Christ?
What is the right answer, after all? What happens to the one who gets evil wrong? What's a proper relationship with Jesus? What's next? Interrogations by rabbis, priests and imams? What candidate would dare decline on the basis of mere principle?
Both Obama and McCain gave "good" answers, but that's not the point. They shouldn't have been asked. Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that "Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him," or that McCain feels that he is "saved and forgiven"?
In the end, I think Parker has chosen the wrong target. If presidential candidates profess faith, and promise to be guided by it in office, then their faith is a legitimate and indeed necessary area of inquiry. And I think Warren is to be congratulated on his courteous and informative probing. It is an error, in my view, to say this violates the principle of separation of church and state. The aim of that principle is not to stifle faith (or lack of it) but to assure that no one faith (or lack of it) is granted an official licence to stamp out the competition. This is a very frequent confusion. Nothing in the Saddleback event threatens anybody's religous freedom.
The proper target for Parker's displeasure, it seems to me, is the great American public, which insists that its leaders be God-fearing types (or at least say they are). That is certainly a species of intolerance; but the remedy is not to shroud candidates' faith in silence. Parker says:
And while, yes, everybody has some kind of worldview, it shouldn't be necessary in a pluralistic nation of secular laws to publicly define that view in Christian code.
Perhaps not, but it certainly is necessary that they define it in plain English--and if that worldview includes the belief that Christ died for our sins, then I for one want to know that, and to understand what (if anything) it implies about the candidate's likely conduct.
Outstanding discussion and response. This is not a separation of church and state issue and I was so pleased that Warren handled the whole thing in a dignified manner. As an Evangelical, I am weary of the many preacher types, Evangelical, Catholic, and African-American that prostitute their pulpits.
From my perspective God's agenda is bigger than either political party and no church should allow it's worldview to be co-opted by a political party.
There was noting outstanding about the forum. Warren is not dignified. He lied to Obama. He lied to his audience. He played along with Mccain and the first words out of Mccains mouth were lies. Why on earth would Warren have said or even implied that a "cone of silence" was being implemented? Why would Mccain go along with it? Evangelicals are easily busted.
Clive, an atheist does not have a lack faith, he has faith in the lack of a god. An agnostic has a lack of faith.
So which is it for you?
Oops should have finished reading your post, before contributing the last comment.
I have to disagree with your claim: The proper target for Parker's displeasure, it seems to me, is the great American public, which insists that its leaders be God-fearing types (or at least say they are). That is certainly a species of intolerance;.
I agree that the great American public does seem to insist that its leaders be religious. I do not see this as an aspect of intolerance, however. Is the public similarly intolerant of uncharismatic people? Perhaps most Americans view religious belief as an asset, like intelligence or people skills.
Keith, a couple of points.
First, you are wrong to say that atheists have faith in the lack of god. “Having faith” involves a bit more than just accepting a proposition as true (cf. “the devils also believe, and tremble”), otherwise we're left saying I have faith that my car is red and that cats don't lay eggs. So, even if all atheists accept and defend the view that there aren't any gods, it by no means follows that they have any faith to speak of. And moreover, the term ‘atheist’ is often used in a broad sort of way, to include not only those who wholeheartedly accept the view that there aren't any gods, but also those who simply dismiss the whole idea of gods, or who don't think the question makes much sense, or who don't know what to think. All these people count as ‘atheists’ on this use of the term, just so long as they “don't believe in God”; and it would of course be absurd say that they have any faith.
Second, your attempt to wriggle out of the ‘intolerance’ point doesn't accomplish anything. We agree that those who prefer not to vote for black people are intolerant racists. But if someone came along and tried to give a redescription of their intolerant attitude -- they merely “view being white as an asset” -- and then claim they weren't intolerant after all, we would all condemn this as pathetic and dishonest sophistry. Likewise, if you look at this intolerant national preference not to vote for nonbelievers, and you decide to redescribe it as a sunny “viewing religious belief as an asset”, you haven't in any way eliminated the intolerance you started with. You've just come up with a sophist's way of talking as if it doesn't exist.