News Intelligence Analysis
Rick Warren’s Forum:
How to Trick Candidates Into Giving Themselves a Religious Test
September 6, 2008
Katherine Yurica
[Updated December 19, 2008]
[Yurica Report editor's note: See the video in order to ascertain Mr. Warren's position on marriage. Note that he omitted Barack Obama's full answer and note how he omitted and distorted Obama's statement to make it appear that Mr. Obama was in favor of Proposition 8, when Obama made it clear that he was in favor of civil unions and civil rights for all people.]
[Yurica Report Editor's Note: For a contrasting discussion of Mr. Warren's forum from the right-wing, see Star Parker's article in the Dallas Morning News, "Why Rick Warren's Forum Was a Bad Idea." Parker asks, "What exactly is going on in America when our obsession is to cleanse every inch of public space from religion, yet somehow we think it is appropriate to bring a presidential political forum into church? Our world is turning upside down. Rather than raising our public and private lives to a higher moral standard, we're politicizing religion. It's actually worse, I think." If you think Parker is neutral, know that Parker is an African American woman who is an advocate and spokesman for conservative causes. She asserts in her article that "the pretense of neutrality is really a left-wing illusion. It's a sleight of hand to buy into relativism and somehow Mr. Warren seems to have fallen into the trap."]
This note was added on September 16, 2008. On September 20, 2008, the title was changed from "Rick Warren's Trap" to "Rick Warren's Forum" to avoid conflict with another article on the web.
On August 16, 2008, Rick Warren, the affable pastor of the 83,000 member Saddleback Church in Southern California made history by setting up a sequential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain at his church. Warren threw an hour of questions at each of the two presidential contenders, beginning first with Obama and in the second hour with McCain. The candidates fielded his questions before a live audience and the forum was televised and watched by over five million people.
Obama appeared to be carefully thoughtful and analytical as he went through the process. John McCain in comparison seemed fast, lively, funny, sharp and prepared! He was so prepared that he seemed to run circles around his younger opponent, which led to speculation that McCain was prepped—that he knew what the questions were in advance.[1] However, when one studies the transcripts of the two candidates—comparing only the stark words on paper—Obama’s answers clearly reveal a substance that was entirely missing from his opponent’s words.
In spite of the natural tendency to rank the competing candidates’ performances, it is Rick Warren’s character traits that deserve closer scrutiny here, particularly the words he chose to say to the press, prior to the Saddleback forum. For instance, although he told Time Magazine reporter David Van Biema, that he intended to shift emphasis away from the “sin questions” on abortion and homosexual marriages to issues closer to his heart, “uniting issues” such as poverty, and a cure for HIV/AIDs, global warming, and the “role of the Constitution,” he nevertheless asked the “sin questions.” [2] Unfortunately, we cannot know if he intended to misdirect the Obama camp—but the fact is—if someone relied upon the statements he made to Time which were published days before the forum—they were more than deceived.
The problem is, the “sin questions” are trick questions and this brings us to the reason for this article. By definition “sin” is a matter of religion. It means literally, “the transgression” of biblical law.[3] And the question for all Americans is: Do we want biblical law—as interpreted and pushed forward by some political religious advocates as the law of God, to dominate our national policies? Evangelicals have made it a point in recent years that Christians must believe that every word of the Bible is inspired and is equivalent to an edict by God. In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention states as a matter of a Baptist’s religious conviction that the Bible is:
“[T]he supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.” [4]
Thus as a matter of faith, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians must judge the words, beliefs and opinions of candidates according to biblical standards. However if a candidate tries to answer a religious “sin question,” he voluntarily submits himself to a religious test in contradistinction to the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against establishing a religious test for office.[5] In other words, he becomes an accomplice to his own unconstitutional test.
Even though Mr. Warren insisted to Time Magazine prior to the forum, that there would be no “Christian religion test,” [6] he asked the “sin questions” anyway. We can’t know why Mr. Warren did it; however, he has admitted that he does have a religious test, for he responded to Larry King’s question on August 18, 2008:
King: “Does a person have to believe in God to be president?”
Warren: “I would say so. I couldn’t vote for a person who was an atheist…”[7]
Here Rick Warren admitted that he believes that a religious test must be given because he could not “vote for a person who was an atheist.” Though he insisted to Time Magazine that there would be no “Christian religion test” at his forum, at the Saddleback church event, he nevertheless set up a religious test to discover exactly what kind of Christian each man was. Basically, it was a test to see whether the presidential candidate was a “true” Christian or a “false” Christian. Simply put, the questions were meant to highlight how Rick Warren saw each candidate and signal that message to the audience and television viewers.
Prior to the forum, on August 15, 2008, Jeffrey Goldberg, a reporter for the Atlantic Monthly, who is a friend of Warren’s interviewed him, (Warren is helping Goldberg design a mega-synagogue—replete with a bowling alley). Goldberg asked, “Of the two camps, Obama’s and McCain’s who was doing worse?” Warren responded in part:
“I’ve known both of these guys for a long time. They are exactly opposite of each other. Their worldviews, different styles of leadership, different views of the direction of America, but I happen to like both of them. What I want to do in the forum is maybe help America see some of the things that I see in each of them.”[8]
Goldberg elicited an unusually strong emotional response from Warren when he alluded to the conduct of the U.S., “Some people argue that we’re not so great ourselves.” Warren shot back:
“The difference is that there are no death squads in America. The worst you can get here is that you can get blogged, you can get Lewinskied, on the Internet. There is a difference between that and living under oppression, living with fear for your life. That’s why whether or not they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is beside the point. Saddam and his sons were raping the country, literally. And we morally had to do something. If you have a Judeo-Christian heritage, you have to believe it when God says that evil cannot be compromised with. It has to be resisted, it has to be overcome.” [9]
I must note here though Mr. Warren says that he is seeking civility between the candidates—he still seeks to justify a war that has documented 86,661 to 94,557 civilian deaths from violence.[10] (Other sources place violent deaths much higher: 601,027 and over one million.[11]) As of July 15th 2008, 4,119 Americans were killed in the war.
At the August 16th forum at the Saddleback Church, Warren asked each candidate: “Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, do we defeat it?”[12]
Obama: “Evil does exist. I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. And I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely. And one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God’s task. But we can be soldiers in that process.”
McCain: “Defeat it. A couple points: One, if I’m president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do it. I will get that guy. No one—no one should be allowed to take thousands of American—innocent American lives. Of course evil must be defeated.”[13]
Here we begin to see that there are divergent views between Christians on the issue of evil. John McCain’s religion is militant. He wants to stamp out evil, which is identical with Rick Warren’s position. But neither he nor Warren cite verses from the Bible to justify their militancy. But Romans 12:21 clearly states:
“Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (KJV)
And Romans 12: 17-18 says, “Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” It would appear that Barack Obama’s answer is far more in keeping with the Romans’ verses I have quoted than the rhetoric of Rick Warren or John McCain suggests, but Mr. Obama’s remarks may be out of sync with the particular religion espoused by and professed by Warren, McCain and Sarah Palin!
All Americans are faced with a Constitutional crisis. If our candidates must pass a religious test to be elected—then we are no longer living in a constitutional democracy. A segment of the electorate has managed to impose their religion’s test upon all candidates—that’s wrong. And it is anti-American.
Two More Trick Questions
First, Rick Warren said, “Let’s deal with abortion.”
“I as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time—every different angle, every different pain, all the decisions and all of that—forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people who—people who believe that life begins at conception would say that’s a holocaust for many people. At what point is a baby entitled to human rights.”[14]
Obama: “Well I think that whether you are looking at it from either a theological prospective or a scientific prospective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay-grade…There is a moral and ethical aspect to this issue. I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade. And I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they—they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family member.”[15]
McCain: “At the moment of conception.” (Applause)
The question not only raises theological issues but it raises Constitutional issues as well: for example, it has been estimated that from thirty to seventy percent of the time, a fertilized egg fails to implant and is flushed from the woman's body during her next menstrual period. That means the body naturally aborts most of its fertilized eggs. So how can those eggs be granted full constitutional human rights? How could the courts possibly ascertain the difference between the body's natural rejection of a fertilized egg and an induced rejection? And what rights does a fertilized egg have anyway? Does the fertilized egg gain U.S. citizenship if it was conceived in the U.S. but is born in another country? Are these not human rights? (See Pamela White's excellent article in the Boulder Weekly.)
However, the idea that a fertilized egg cell is a human being with human rights at conception is a Catholic religious belief, based upon a papal edict and is without biblical authority. Many evangelicals adopted the doctrine in 1983 for political reasons. Prior to that time, evangelical Christians supported abortions under certain conditions and supported Roe v. Wade. Catholicism also uses this papal edict to condemn any kind of contraceptive use because, according to the doctrine, the use of contraceptives would result in an abortion. In fact the Department of Health and Human Services recently released a proposal that uses this Catholic argument against contraceptives and would allow health-care institutions as well as individuals to refuse to provide birth control to all American patients, regardless of their religion, who need it.[16] In other words, an attempt is being made by the Bush administration’s Health and Human Services to outlaw contraceptives in the U.S. and it appears John McCain’s response to Warren indicates that he will follow suit if he is elected president.
Incidentally, Catholic women who accept the doctrine usually have large families as a matter of religious belief. However, all Americans should understand that those who accept this religious doctrine, though sincere, may not impose their religious beliefs upon the entire nation. It is important to point out, however, that there are conflicting religious beliefs based upon biblical authority. And in the U.S., there is a separation between religious beliefs and the duty of the state to serve all the people.
Significantly, the biblical answer to the question at what point is a baby entitled to human rights, is after birth. For in Numbers 3:15 a child was not counted in a census until it reached one month of age or older and in Leviticus 27:6 a child was valued as a child only after it reached the age of one month or older. And according to Exodus 21:22 a person who struck a pregnant woman and caused a miscarriage but did not harm the mother, was not executed which was the normal penalty for taking a life—but merely had to pay a fine as damages. And in Leviticus 15:25 the Scripture equates a miscarriage with a woman’s monthly menstrual bleeding as a matter of law.
I suggest that these verses should be cited by candidates in order to inform all Americans that the religious right’s position can often be contrary to biblical authority—not as a religious fact—but as a defense for the state’s neutrality. The state simply cannot take sides in religious controversies and neither can the states’ officials.
Because biblical passages often sustain two or more religious interpretations—candidates are obligated 1) not to take sides—because of the Constitutional prohibition against a religious test, and 2) to serve all the people regardless of a candidate’s own religious beliefs. For example, even if the Bible asserts that a woman is unclean during her monthly menstruation for seven days and anyone who touches her “shall be unclean until evening,” (Leviticus 15:19), should laws be passed preventing American women from voting or participating in an election until their seven days of separation are ended?
Secondly, Rick Warren asked the candidates to define marriage:
Obama: “I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause) Now for me it is also a sacred union.”
Warren: “Would you support a Constitutional amendment?”
Obama: “No I would not.”
Warren: “Why not?”
Obama: “Because historically we have not defined marriage in our Constitution, it’s been a matter of state law—that has been our tradition. Now let’s break it down. The reason people think there needs to be a Constitutional amendment, it’s because of concern about same sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe… for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say that’s all right—that doesn’t inhibit my core beliefs of what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others even if I have a different perspective or view.”[17]
Warren: “Define marriage.”
McCain: “A union between man and woman, between one man and one woman, that’s my definition of marriage.” (Applause)
Here is my suggestion: The issue of defining the word “marriage” to be between one man and one woman is again based upon religious beliefs and rites—which the churches may honor at every wedding. The state, however, cannot delimit the definition in order to sustain a religious belief. The state must neutrally grant recognition and the benefits of marriage upon all adult couples regardless of race, sex or religion or previous adulterous relationships—even if the churches do not recognize the marriage or civil union, and even if the churches regard divorced and remarried adulterers as “living in sin.”
What I am suggesting here is that Democrats need to reframe the religious based questions thrown at them as examples of unconstitutional religious test questions that represent an anti-American bias inappropriate for any office holder to answer. Once the candidate has established that he recognizes the unconstitutional nature of the question and its anti-American bias—he may conclude with a brief answer that demonstrates not only his faith but also his duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States and end with the statement that as an elected official he may not impose his religious beliefs upon citizens.
This should also be applicable to questions directed at potential judges. For it is entirely appropriate for senators to ask a Catholic lawyer who has been nominated to the Supreme Court, whether his religious beliefs, the Bible, or papal edicts reign at an equal or lower or superior level to the Constitution of the United States or whether he or she would be willing to impose religious beliefs upon all Americans.
For the complete transcript of the Saddleback Forum see the CNN transcription at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/16/se.02.html
NOTES
[1] In fact, Warren may have misspoke about McCain being in an enclosed, soundproof “cone” or quiet room. Warren also revealed to Larry King in a subsequent interview aired on August 18, 2008 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/18/lkl.01.html that the issue of who was going first was decided by a flip of the coin—not in front of the two candidates just before the forum began—but according to Warren, “about a month earlier.” Speculation ran through the web as bloggers uncovered clues that suggest that Rick Warren was not entirely candid about what happened. John McCain was supposed to be in the Saddleback “Green Room” out of touch with the interview, but it was revealed that McCain was actually in a Secret Service motorcade that had access to the forum at Saddleback. Perhaps more importantly, McCain anticipated questions that were not yet asked. See JBalaz’ blog at: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/17/02247/6361
[2] David Van Biema, “The Global Ambition of Rick Warren,” Time Magazine, August 18, 2008, page 38. The magazine was on the newsstands days before the event. If Senator Obama’s staff read the article prior to the forum, they would have been deceived.
[3] 1 John 3:4.
[4] For example the Southern Baptist Convention states in their Baptist Faith & Message:
“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.
“Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36:1-32; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.” http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#i
[5] Article VI of the Constitution reads in pertinent part: “[B]ut no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
[6] David Van Biema, “The Global Ambition of Rick Warren,” Time Magazine, August 18, 2008, page 38.
[7] Larry King Live, “Pastor Interview Under Scrutiny,” August 18, 2008, Transcript http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/18/lkl.01.html
[8] Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Rick Warren Interview: No Compromise With Evil” The Atlantic Monthly, August 15, 2008. Incidentally, Goldberg wrote: “Warren, one of the friendliest fellows I’ve ever met (and someone who is helping me design what we’ve taken to calling a ‘megagogue,’ which is to say, an enormous synagogue, including a bowling alley…” http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/the_rick_warren_interview_no_c.php
[9] Ibid.
[10] Iraq Body Count at 86,661 to 94,557 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
[11] Lancet survey 601,027, and Opinion Research Business survey, 1,033,000 violent deaths as of August 2007. See Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003
[12] Larry King Live, “Pastor Interview Under Scrutiny,” August 18, 2008, Transcript http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/18/lkl.01.html
[13] Ibid.
[14] http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-05.txt
[15] Larry King Live, “Pastor Interview Under Scrutiny,” August 18, 2008, Transcript http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/18/lkl.01.html
[16] Cristina Page, “HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion,” Reproductive Health, July 15, 2008, http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/7707
[17] Transcription by K. Yurica.
Send
a letter
to the editor
about
this article
You're Likable Enough,
Gay People
by Frank Rich
But for the
first time a faint tinge of Bush crept into
my Obama reveries this month. He has hit this same
note again by assigning the invocation at his
inauguration to the Rev. Rick Warren, the Orange
County, Calif., megachurch preacher who has likened
committed gay relationships to incest, polygamy and
“an older guy marrying a child.” Bestowing this honor
on Warren was a conscious — and glib — decision by
Obama to spend political capital. It was made with the
certitude that a leader with
a mandate can do no wrong.
What's the Matter With Rick Warren?
By Sarah Posner
December 17, 2008
Now it has officially gone too far: Democrats, in their zeal
to appear friendly to evangelical voters, have chosen
celebrity preacher and best-selling author Rick Warren
to deliver the invocation at
Barack Obama's inauguration.
Pastor Interview Under Scrutiny
August 18, 2008 - 21:00 ET
Larry King Live
LARRY KING,
HOST: Tonight, Pastor Rick Warren --
his civil forum with Obama and McCain sparks a nasty
backstage controversy. Did the man some call America's
most powerful religious leader know this was false
when he said it?
Strategies, Communication and Propanda Techniques
The Sarah Palin Strategy:
Upon learning the news, Matthew
Staver, Chairman
of Liberty Alliance Action, Chairman of Liberty Counsel
and Dean of Liberty University School of Law said of
the choice, "Absolutely brilliant. . . ."The excitement
was palpable among conservative leaders when they
heard that Gov. Palin was Sen. McCain's choice for
Vice President. There is a high level of optimism among
conservative leaders that the McCain-Palin combination
is a ticket that will
connect with values voters."
See these directories also:
Directory on the Rise of Christian Dominionism Directory on Religious Trends
This article is copyrighted
material, the use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of
any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107
of the US
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
the
material on this site is distributed without profit to those
who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for
research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright © 2008
Yurica Report. All rights reserved.