One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
I approached Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum with much anticipation, but without a clear idea of how he would handle the sensitive issues at the intersection of religion and politics. I believe Pastor Warren set an example of civility that I hope others will follow, but at the same time some of his questions crossed a line that makes this election seem as if we are electing a pastor-in-chief rather than a commander-in-chief.
Pastor Warren's opening statement, if not his questions, reflected precisely the thought of the founders of our nation and explicitly conveyed the spirit of their intent in the religious liberty clauses of the Constitution. Preventing institutional entanglements between religion and politics or the institutional subservience of one to the other is a necessity that differs dramatically from personal perspectives on politics and politicians influenced by an individual's faith or lack of faith. From my point of view, the forum could not have started with a more important statement.
However, as the forum continued, primal distinctions between faith and politics became blurred and, in some instances, were erased. A question about a candidate's commitment to Jesus seems of little relevance to a religiously pluralistic nation made strong by a secular government that appreciates religion but gives no preference to religion over non-religion. For the most part, I found Pastor Warren's questions creative and helpful and his attitude a refreshing encouragement of all that is civil. However, his inquiry about personal faith and his citations from the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures well could have left the wrong impression. Many people in this nation do not turn to those scriptures for wisdom or to faith for guidance. Questions essential in a church are not particularly helpful in a conversation a church sponsors to help educate diverse voters in the nation.
In response to Pastor Warren's questions on religion, both John McCain and Barack Obama seemed compelled to offer confessions of faith as a credential for their attractiveness as a candidate for the White House. But, that should not be the case. There is no religious test for public office according to our Constitution and we have no business trying to establish what the Constitution forbids.
As I said in email I sent to the members of the Interfaith Alliance: "After watching the Saddleback Forum on Saturday evening, I did not see a clear winner but I did see a clear loser - it was people like us. While I appreciate Pastor Rick Warren's civility, I believe questions like: 'What does it mean to trust in Christ?' have no place in a political forum."
The format on Saturday night was good as were many of the questions, especially those related to the Supreme Court, for example, but the strong religious foundation of the forum and the heavy religious slant obvious in its inquiries sent the wrong message about the rule of faith in the crucial decisions that must be made about our national leaders. But, then, the forum was held in a church, a fact, which, in itself, raises some questions and presents some difficulties when you really think about it.
By
Welton Gaddy
|
August 21, 2008; 8:52 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Warren Got Church-State Balance Right |
Next: Time to Move From Faith to Interfaith
Posted by: Marie Devine | August 24, 2008 8:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"We are not electing a pastor in chief."
We are all called to be priests and kings and in that way we are all leaders of people in purity and righteousness. We are priests and kings if we send a corrective message to our leaders saying that God's solution says such and such. In that way we are their protection and they are ours.
If a leader fears to use scripture as solution to problems, we can not have the wisdom, guidance, and protection of God. We are left on our own, as you see.
Our Constitution protects us in that Congress cannot require us to follow one religion or denomination. We have free choice. It does NOT mean that we cannot use the word of God in any government setting or government sponsored setting. Only God has solutions to world problems we created by ignoring His wisdom.
Marie Devine
http://www.divine-way.com
marie-devine@divine-way.com
Posted by: Marie Devine | August 24, 2008 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
""One Nation, Under God", swearing on a Bible, but when did this Bible-belt style of public affirmation of Christian personal faith become a necessity for public officials?"
Probably around when, in the Fifties, political Christians added 'Under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance to call people who don't believe in that God 'Unamerican?'
Way to divide 'One nation indivisible,' wasn't it?
Posted by: Paganplace | August 24, 2008 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
WHERE ARE AMERICA'S RELIGIOUS LEADERS ?
*** SADLY THIS REPRESSIVE JUDICIAL INJUSTICE HAS BECOME AN AMERICAN ART FORM !!!
** WHEN GOD'S FACE BECAME VERY RED **
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHT LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (EVEN MANY ON DEATH ROW ) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????
**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.
****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.
This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.
This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!
Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!
For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.
It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.
This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!
***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!
A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE::
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM. ** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !
lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com 424-247-2013
Posted by: DOUGLAS FIELD | August 24, 2008 12:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Rev Gaddy,
When did this happen? When did hyper-religiosity worm its way into the the public square and the political process?
I am well aware that tokens of public religion were always part of American public life: "In God We Trust", "One Nation, Under God", swearing on a Bible, but when did this Bible-belt style of public affirmation of Christian personal faith become a necessity for public officials?
Posted by: Ellie | August 23, 2008 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Then this later in the Book...
EZE 8:7 And he brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, behold a hole in the wall.
EZE 8:8 Then said he unto me, son of man, dig now in the wall: and when I had digged in the wall, behold a door.
EZE 8:9 And he said unto me, go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here.
In Latin faith is fides. There are two forms of the noun. Bona fides and Mal Fides. Good faith and bad faith. Faith as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen is ambiguous.
Faith is evidence first. Then the ambiguity of its moral value needs to be resolved.
GEN 1:4 And god saw the light, that it was good: and god divided the light from the darkness.
Does God say the darkness is bad? Not here. He says the light itself is good, but what it sees is another matter. What is seen in the light is seen as faith, good or bad.
Logical positivism can insist that faith must be good only. If this is true then why is evil still glorified? The ambiguity of the moral value of evidence can be disambiguated if the results are consistent with the findings. Just as in logic, the conclusion must agree with the premise to validate the argument, yet the twist is in the ambiguity of the moral values. Will the Son of Man find faith on the Earth? If He wins the Last-Man-On-Earth Contest?
Posted by: hillhopper | August 23, 2008 7:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Scripture is meet for repentance of all practical issues in life from one extreme to the other. Comprehensive, concise, literally accurate for the direct implication of the issues. For example, why was the following written?
EZE 4:16 Moreover he said unto me, son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment:
If I guessed it meant that the population had approached the limit of sustainability and required a finer measure of distribution of standard measure to fulfill the demands of social responsibility, I might have earned points for a grade in world class economic literature. However, while the issues of life may allow for leisure and play when the harvest is plentiful. when the harvest is meager and the laborers are few, the consequences soon justify the means. Do we not find this truth to be self evident enough yet to change the law before it's too late? Captain Bligh made it back to England after the mutiny and was absolved of any wrongdoing. He left his ship using a lifeboat and a few loyal followers before the crew burned the vessel and remained to the end of their days on a remote island in the Pacific. Close to 30 generations of survivors have thrived since. How did the mutineers' descendants fare compared to the descendants of Captain Bligh? Was the mutiny justified by law or truth?
Posted by: hillhopper | August 23, 2008 6:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JJ,
Ok we got it!!! You are miffed that Berlinerblau won't let you post!! Please stop the spamming!!!
Posted by: Gaby | August 22, 2008 11:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Interfaith Alliance"
What we need is not an interfaith alliance but a superfaith religion. We need to recognize that no faith provides all the answers to questions people have to world-wide problems today. The way the word "faith" is used here seems to be a code word for "church" which we understand is distinct from government in a democracy. However, the government, whether it be of a country or of a combination of countries, needs to make explicit the single religion which guides its operations. This cannot be a particular church in the case of a democratically run group. It has to be a super-religion that integrates the views of all the participants. Unless this integrated view is made explicit, there will be continuing conflicts over which church is in charge. In the case of the US, the Constitution is the best current description of our national religion, yet, as we see, participants still argue about which church is in charge. Understanding that the Constitution specifies an over-riding religion that everyone recognizes would do a lot to limit this irrelevant argument.
Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | August 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There is a big difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality doesn’t have any dogma, fiction, or perversion. Spirituality is simply based on everything being connected and part of one body, with One Being behind it all. This is what Jesus A Christ was trying to communicate. It is that simple.
Politics being how various needs and wants are expressed and met or obtained how combined efforts are implemented and what joint ventures are formed and funded. Politics should include the view that we are all one; part of the same body. Religion should not be involved in Politics because it has become perverse in the eyes of the Lord it has become the house of hypocrisy not the House of God.
What is disturbing is how fast both candidates were swept into the Illusion, each not daring to question the popular fiction.
CHURCH: a body or organization of religious believers
FAITH: a system of religious beliefs
There is no difference yet neither candidate questioned it and was able to see through the Illusion created by Rick Warren. In other words he was propagating a fiction.
RELIGION IS AN EGO CREATION NOT ONE OF SPIRIT - scripture says and we are warned that the Churches (institutionalized religion) are the Antichrist; which must be true if we have Faith in Scripture?
McCain with his understandable doubts about the existence of a God resulting from his experience in prison camp, and Obama doesn’t really buy the Jesus died for our sins crap.
Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian. Furthermore the Christians should be thanking the Jews for crucifying Jesus since their act actually redeemed Christians, Jesus could have just committed suicide to die for your sins right?
What this character Jesus did was refuse to buy into the worlds fictions and he set the ultimate example of being steadfast in the truth.
Religion is one big fiction, and it was people protecting The Religion that crucified Jesus because he questioned the fiction and saw through it.
So if anyone really wants to honor Jesus, start ripping the fictions apart with your rational logical discerning minds and live steadfast in the truth, don’t sell out to the ego empire.
Remember a divided people are a weak people. This is what allows 10,000 to take advantage and make subservient the other 300 million people in the United States.
Religion is being used to divide you amongst your selves, in the US and other countries. It is one of the most effective weapons of the source disconnected ego to protect it's fictional world. Religion is a behavioral control mechanism a producer of shame, guilt and irrational conformity.
Most people have no idea what love is, because love that comes with a condition is not love. There is only one source of love, and one can choose to be a channel for it or not.
Why die and go to Heaven when you can bring it to you?
If I recall correctly Jesus once said something like “I am in your world but not of your world”. He was speaking of the world of fiction that most are living in which still persists today but looks like it is in it's end days and the Ego empire is going to fall.
Divine Source connected - Ego Divine
Divine Source disconnected - Ego Bastard
Yes, faith meaning trust is a verb not a noun. The word has been perverted by the Ego and made into a false idol.
Posted by: Richard Thomas | August 21, 2008 1:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter










There is One Supreme God. All major religions agree. He sent prophets to all nations with the same message, repent. Remember we all came from one set of parents with one teaching passed down. As we failed to follow it, it became many divisions. Now we cannot see unity because we do not follow the word of God, but the divisions of religion. That is why it is good that Congress cannot dictate what religion to follow.
God has cross-referenced the prophets to bring unity, but right now the church and the inter-faith pastors are blocking the way. Some feel like no expression of religion in public makes peace, but they fail to realize there is a God who commands us to keep His ways in our conversations at all time. Blessing will follow, otherwise we see the cursings that are in the world today. (Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28)
We are seeing God's faithfulness of terrors to people that ignor His wisdom. It is one of the proofs that He is God.
We must examine what we believe.
Marie Devine
http://www.divine-way.com
marie-devine@divine-way.com