|
Katherine Yurica
VIDEO
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:
“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.
Continued>>> http://www.yuricareport.com/Campaign2008/HowDemocratsShouldAnswerRickWarren.html
|