Did Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum with John McCain and Barack Obama violate the separation of church and state? Was it right for a pastor to ask U.S. presidential candidates about their belief in Jesus Christ or their worst moral failures? Will the success of the Saddleback Civil Forum mean that major televised interviews or debates about faith will become a regular fixture in American political campaigns?
I didn’t think questions like this got enough of an airing in U.S. media before Saturday’s event. The fact that Warren made it such an interesting evening made me think the fundamental question — should there be a televised “faith quiz” at all? — would be crowded out of the public debate. The initial reactions angled on the winner/loser question or the “cone of silence” issue seemed to bear this out. But some commentators and blogs are now zeroing in on the deeper question.
In the New York Times, columnist Willian Kristol (Showdown at Saddleback) applauded the event and said: “Rick Warren should moderate one of the fall presidential debates.” That says a lot about the quality of the usual televised debates but little about the church-state question. Ruth Ann Dailey’s op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette put her answer about the church-state question right in the headline: At Saddleback, the wall stands firm.
On the other side, Kathleen Parker wrote in the Chicago Tribune that Candidates’ church chat erodes U.S. principles. DeWayne Wickham of USA Today wrote the Next president need not be the vicar of Saddleback.
Hat tip to the Washington Post On Faith blog for probably the most comprehensive selection of views for, against and in the middle. This is not a simple question and it was good to see so many thoughtful responses.
As religion editor, I naturally have a strong professional interest in seeing religion discussed in public. I also think a candidate’s religious views are relevant when they clearly shape his or her political stands. So I’m not against asking such questions in principle. But a session like the Saddleback Civil Forum raises some fundamental questions about the role of religion in politics and where lines between the two should be drawn. There is no hard and fast rule. Anyone who reads religion news from around the world regularly, though, has surely seen enough cases of politics interfering too much in religion or religion interfering too much in politics to take the issue of church-state relations lightly. Just saying “it can’t happen here” isn’t good enough.
Since television loves to repeat a successful formula, it’s a good bet we’ll see more of these sessions in campaigns to come. With that in mind, here are a few questions I hope to see debated before the next “God quiz” rolls around:
- Has this “soft” kind of interview created a “soft” religious litmus test? One that does not require a certain religious belief, but some religious belief, to pass?
- Is there a border line between appropriate and inappropriate questions? Are some questions too prying, something only for a private session with a spiritual advisor?
- If there is going to be one televised faith “showdown,” should it should be conducted by only one interviewer from a specific faith tradition? Does that skew the questions to the kinds of questions that faith tradition asks, and favour answers that faith tradition gives? Does it give the impression that questions that are high priority for that tradition — in this case, evangelical — are the only faith questions out there?
- What about Jews, Muslims and others, even other Christian denominations? Are they overlooked in this process? Would a mixed panel of interviewers be more inclusive?
- What about atheists and voters who believe such events violate the separation of church and state? Will they have a televised forum?
P.S. Since we take a world-wide view of religion news, I did a quick search for comments on the event in some non-U.S. media. It’s striking how many chose the term “confession” to describe the event.
U.S. religious forum would not have happened here - The separation of church and state is more notional than real in the U.S. (Montreal Gazette, Canada)
Obama&McCain:Confession in front of puritans (Journal du Dimanche, France)
McCain and Obama confess their sins (Elsevier, Netherlands)
Campaign launched for religious voters – Obama and McCain “confessed” to the pastor of the nation (DieStandard.at, Austria)
McCain trumps Obama at faith summit (Spiegel Online, Germany)
“Television Confessional” (Financial Times Deutschland, Germany)
Religion test for Obama and McCain - an unusual event in the U.S. campaign (Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Switzerland)
Obama and McCain proceed to the media confessional (Libération, France)
Obama and McCain reveal their dark sides on stage (La Stampa, Italy)
Confession road to the White House (El Periódico de Catalunya, Spain)
Trackback
46 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
Posted by: Tom Heneghan: “As religion editor, I naturally have a strong professional interest in seeing religion discussed in public. I also think a candidate’s religious views are relevant when they clearly shape his or her political stands. So I’m not against asking such questions in principle.”
Unlike Mr. Heneghan, Mr. & Mrs. Reader, I am against asking ANYBODY what their religious views are…INCLUDING those of politicians…and ESPECIALLY including the religious views of presidential candidates.
The referenced unconstitutional political-religious forum (i.e., so called Saddleback) is certainly worth commenting on…and strongly…from my point view. It was designed by Warren to trap Obama and was clearly a McCain/Warren v. Obama “extravaganza”.
Why an American presidential candidate feels that it is somehow necessary to cater (i.e., pander) to a particular religion…and in this case a particular protestant congregation (i.e., the Warren group)…is beyond me. Frankly, I’m astonished! I’m also astonished that the so called free press in America has not issued a public challenge to all politicians when it comes to their mixing of religion and politics/government. The First Amendment covers the press as well as religion…not to mention the freedom of speech that I am personally engaging in here through a Reuters web log.
First and foremost, the First Amendment (Bill of Rights) to the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits the U.S. congress from making any law with respect to the establishment of ANY religion…and grants the personal irrevocable freedom to each American to exercise his/her personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in private, i.e., outside the public political policy arena.
The U.S. Constitution’s banning of congress from passing a bill with respect to religion means that no such bill can reach the president’s desk for signature. Therefore, the First Amendment also tells all Americans that the president cannot publicly dabble in any particular religious public policy either. That is, the president can do what he likes in private…but when it comes to exercising the office of the presidency, religion has no place in public policy.
This is not my idea, but I certainly agree with it…and to prove it, I (and not just Mr. McCain by the way) wore the active duty uniform of our great nation in wartime in a war zone to ensure the separation of church and state. For a quarter of a century, I was prepared to give my life to keep this separation of church and state, and would gladly do so again.
Amendment I
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.
As far as I’m concerned, anything religious is a personal and private thing…and should remain so. This includes the personal and private beliefs of a presidential candidate.
A candidate simply cannot cater to one religion, without insulting all other religions. As a matter fact, catering to only one particular protestant voting block insults the Catholic voting block (and other protestant voter groups as well)…even though all are Christians. In other words, where does a candidate draw the line? The framers of the U.S. Constitution figured this out more than 2 centuries ago!
Personally, I think that catering to protestant evangelicals is simply catering to white voters. It is nothing more than a masquerade for racial favoritism. Mr. McCain, for instance, has not tried to hide his racial courting of voters. Neither did Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama is now resorting to the same thing. Unfortunately for him, his white half doesn’t show…so it is much more difficult for him to court white voters who vote according to their race.
Since the dawn of man, more people have been killed in the name of religion (to include Christianity) and racial purity than for any other reasons. This is precisely why the founding fathers, i.e., the framers of the U.S. Constitution, specifically banned any relationship between government and religion. Of course, they did this through the Bill of Rights, i.e., the first of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights required ratification of 3/4 of the states.
Mr. Warren knows as well as anybody, that he and his congregation are making an obvious end run around the U.S. Constitution by preaching politics from the pulpit. Perhaps if his nontaxable status was questioned, he (and his religious group) would keep their personal beliefs private (i.e., out of the public policy arena)…instead of literally throwing them in the face of others by trying to make Americans believe that a presidential candidate’s faith (or lack thereof) is a constitutional litmus test for election to the presidency. As a matter of fact, Warren and his protestant evangelical group are making Christianity itself a litmus test for election to the presidency! How blatantly unconstitutional can these people possibly get!
I’ve been watching this type of unconstitutional nonsense for a long time, and it scares me just as much if not more than the Russians or the Iranians do. It is what I call the sabotage of “this Constitution for the United States of America”…sabotage from within. As a matter of fact, all of our First Amendment rights, privileges and responsibilities are under fire…and have been for a long time. This applies especially to the past 8 years of an administration whose members have been masquerading as being Christ-like in order to garner the votes of such as Mr. Warren and his group.
Frankly, it has been both embarrassing and disgusting to have to watch all of this…just as watching the Clinton administration was (only for different reasons).
After 16 long years, I’m looking forward to getting some fresh air in Washington…both on Capitol Hill and at the White House. I’ve got my fingers crossed…real tight.
OK Jack
- Posted by OK JackFor anyone trying to find the balance on this issue, check out Martin Marty’s eloquent post “Using God Politically” on On Faith (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ith/martin_marty).
- Posted by Tom HeneghanSeparation of Church and State is not in our Constitution. It is an error to condemn religions participation in voting, government, education, etc.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html #Am1
“Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.”
If it did appear in the Constitution, this is what it would NOT mean:
White House, House of Representatives, Senate:
Making decisions: ??? what to do ??? what to do ???
Suggestions for solutions: man’s idea, woman’s idea,
president’s idea, military’s idea, God’s word.
Unacceptable solution: God’s word.
God is His word, His wisdom, His guidance,
His protection and His faithfulness to His word.
In what important decision
- Posted by Marie Devinewould you want to ignore His wisdom?
Even unbelievers want righteous people in government. All things must be done the Divine-Way to have God’s blessings and not cursings of Leviticus 26.
Well, now that Steven Strang has left a vacancy for a religious endorsement, on the stage at Barack’s coronation ceremony, maybe Barack should come out of the closet and recruit the religious leaders who have always supported him … and, who Barack has always supported. Pastor Jeremiah Wright … Father Phleiger … and the rest of the radicals. But, we know Barack won’t do that, because even though that represents who Barack truly is … it wouldn’t help Barack deceive us … and get him elected. In November, vote for Senator John McCain, a man who truly loves America, with over 40 years of service and sacrafice … not Obama, an inexperienced, incompetent, empty suit, who is being agressively packaged and sold to the American people.
- Posted by GinaI’m not sure what the purpose of the Saddleback Session was, I did watch it just out of curosity. I learned nothing from it, McCain’s answeres were so scripted and memorized it was boring, my friends! If he used that term one more time I will scream. Equally, I was not impressed with Obama’s answers, although I truly believe that his answers were more personable, unlike my friends!
I would have never agreed to something of this nature, it proved nothing for Obama, amist his fellow republicans in the audience, it seemed to me it was a payback, for the NAACP convention that McCain attended.
- Posted by Ann BurgeABSOLUTELY NOT! FINALLY, THEY WERE BOTH AT THE SAME PLACE. NOW — WE NEED THEM ON STATE TOGETHER SO “AMERICANS” CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS — WE WANT TOWN HALL MEETINGS WITH BOTH CANDIDATES! OBAMA SAID HE WOULD DO THEM ANY TIME, ANY PLACE — THEN HE BACKED OFF. AT THIS POINT, I DO NOT TRUST OBAMA.
Of COURSE McCain knows how many properties he owns. It just makes better sense to say “I’ll get back to you on that”, IN ORDER TO SPEND TIME DISCUSSING IMPORTANT ISSUES.
I’ve heard all my life that real estate is a great investment (long-term). I imagine McCain heard the same thing.
Senator Obama, how many states will you be presiding over if you get a term in the White House? — 57? Really? Well, we’ve known for months that Senator Obama might have trouble with his counting skills!
The fact is John McCain is the real deal. A man who put his country first before himself. He is a true patriot who is willing to stand up against a resurgent Russia, developing China and to continue the war against Al Qaeda.
Being a community organizer in Chicago, cannot compare to John McCain’s sacrifices for his country.
Vote for John McCain in 2008!
- Posted by OBAMA HAS VISITED 57 STATES???