McCain and Rick Warren

I saw some of John McCain’s interview with Rick Warren last night. I have to say that I was quite impressed.

I know that he supports embryonic stem cell research, and I’m not sure how he can reconcile that with his unhesitating view that the right to human rights begins at conception. But given that Obama is entirely in support of a woman’s right to choose murder, I have to go with McCain.

Otherwise I thought he answered well. Even though I’ve only seen clips of Obama’s performance, all the news reports indicated that McCain gave much more direct answers throughout.

The only question is whether McCain’s forthright approach and his answers on other issues will resonate with enough evangelical voters to motivate them to vote.

Warren has not made an endorsement. It’s not that I think a pastor (regardless of how famous) should make an endorsement. Rather it is that it isn’t obvious that he’s supporting McCain. Seems like a no-brainer.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “McCain and Rick Warren”

  1. exemployee Says:

    I, myself, have an uneasiness about he embryonic stem cell research. However, being in the medical field, I do know that even the embryo that is frozen for future use can be used in stem cell research. Taking into consideration that these embryoes are just thrown away, they might as well be used for research. But…no research should ever be done on embryoes that are aborted.

  2. John of Indiana Says:

    I thought I had read that Warren was promoting this event as focusing on “non-hot button” issues, and what was in the first batch of questions?

    “When does Life begin?”

    Blindside ya!

    I have to agree with the wag who said life begins when the last kid leaves home and the dog dies.
    Life begins at birth, and this is the Law of the land. If life indeed begins at conception, then why wasn’t i allowed to buy a beer 9 months before the date on my birth certificate?

    My country is embroiled in a major Charley Foxtrot in the mid-east, seems intent on re-starting and heating up the “cold war” with Russia, I see more and more of my income eaten away by servicing Bush’s debt to China and have realized that I will never be able to “enjoy” the same standard of retirement living as my father AND grandfather, and i’m supposed to be concerned about picking a possible President of my country based on their opinion on a question that a whole stadium full of philosophers and theologians couldn’t settle if you gave them 100 years to decide it?

    Nor do I give a fig for Grumpy McLame’s *OR* Obama’s opinion of Ellen Degeneress’ impending wedding.

    I’d had really been on the spot if I was a candidate, wouldn’t I? “Hi, I’m an Atheist and I believe in the Golden Rule…”
    The audience would have drawn and quartered me.

  3. Philippa Says:

    I find it odd that that event occurred at all. Afterall, don’t we live in a country (USA) that believes in the separation of church and state? Yes, yes…I know people are saying these questions are related to moral issues, etc. But the church, and evangelical pastors need to stay out of the way. IMHO.

  4. sol Says:

    Philippa, the idea of the separation of church and state (a term which comes from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson) has evolved over time. It was never the intent of the Framers to keep religion or religious leaders from influencing politics. The First Amendment was designed to protect the church from state interference, not the other way around.

    Pastors, evangelical or otherwise, absolutely should opine about the intersection of faith and politics. If people are living out their faith, it will, and should, affect everything they do, including how they vote. A nation’s collective righteousness will be reflected in it’s elected leaders and the decisions they make. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

    John, the candidates were briefed on a number of the issues that would be raised, and I’m sure that both campaigns knew the abortion question was going to be on the agenda. Clearly this isn’t a key issue in your choice of candidate, but you know that it is for many people. And it was only one of many questions, after all.

    I can’t imagine anyone at Saddleback would have drawn and quartered you. They just would have greeted your statement with silence or perhaps discontented murmuring. But let’s face it, an avowed atheist would not stand a chance in a race for the presidency. An atheist who has been briefed on the right answers and can stomach attending church on occasion might have a shot.

  5. John of Indiana Says:

    “But let’s face it, an avowed atheist would not stand a chance in a race for the presidency.”

    That is an undisputed truth. This screwed-up country would vote for a corrupt, adulterous, possibly mentally-unbalanced white guy just because he makes a show out of attending church. Wait, what do I mean “would”? they already did, and an alcoholic one at that.
    And that makes me want to pull out what little hair I have left, this idea that America will only elect a Christian to the oval office. Oh, things are loosening up, after all, we’ve actually had TWO BLACK people serve as Secretary of State, and it would seem that a lot of these good God-fearin’ Bubbas might not be as aghast at the idea of a JEW being “A heartbeat away from the preisdency” (I think McLame will pick LIEbermann for his Veep)as there daddies, but an ATHIEST? Hell, don’t we all worship Satan, eat babies, and kick cute little puppies?

    “An atheist who has been briefed on the right answers and can stomach attending church on occasion might have a shot.”

    In other words, a fraud. I would NOT support such a candidacy.

    Didn’t Grumpy cover just that issue in his repeated assertions that Obama will “say anything to get elected”?

    And OK, so I went overboard with my assertion that Warren’s flock would dismember me. They’d leave that to O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the right-wing whack-jobs and their minnions.

    As for what exacrly was the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, would that we could sit down with them and ask them to explain it (in terms the stupid modern-day American fortold by Mencken can understand) to us. We could settle the intent of that oh-so critical comma in the 2nd amendment, amongst other things.
    And correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the private letters and personal papers of out founders given great credence by the Right when they support THEIR agenda? If everything we needed to know is what was laid out on that piece of lamb’s pyjamas, then being a Constitutional Scholar would be a piece of cake:. “Here it is, Read it and weep (for Joy or otherwise) it’s all there and needs no interpretation or speculation as to original intent.”

    And I still maintain that when we find a self-identified Fundamentalist church that’d let me take to their pulpit and read Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” to them, then we might be on the way to finding common ground.
    Not gonna happen, is it?

  6. Michael Says:

    John (& Philippa), I’m definitely not a constitutional scholar, much less a scholar of the private letters & personal papers of the founders, but I think there’s a clue to the original intent of the writers of the Constitution right in the first five words of the 1st Amendment, which are “Congress shall make no law …” I believe their intent was to place restrictions on congress, not on private citizens or private institutions such as churches.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: