Entitlements As Persons Of (Claimed) Faith

The nine self-identified "civic and religious leaders" may be forgiven a bit of smug satisfaction when they recently wrote

Mr. President, during your first presidential campaign you were asked your views on same-sex marriage. You responded: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix... I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage."

You justified withholding your support for same-sex marriage, at least in part, by appealing to your Christian faith.

Or as they were too polite to translate, a la Reverend Jeremiah Wright (and many others before him): "The chickens have come home to roost."

President Obama reportedly will issue an Executive Order barring discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity.    In its letter to Obama, the group, including Reverend Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, is requesting a "robust religious exemption" akin to that in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act recently passed in the Senate and stalled (because of a controversial religious exemption) in the House (Washington Blade cartoon by Ranslem, below).

While conceding "banning discrimination is a good thing," the seven men and two women complain "religious organizations will lose federal funding that allows them to serve others in the national interest due to their organizational identity."  Moreover, "we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion on this issue in a way that respects the dignity of all parties..."

One is urged to say: equal protection is good for thee, not for me.  More fairly, either these folks believe themselves that discrimination is acceptable or they are saying that other, less fair-minded people, do.  And that these are the individuals or organizations which fund them. Money talks, b_ _ _ _ _ _ _ walks.

The group maintains "all persons are created in the divine image of the creator, and are worthy of respect and love, without exception."   Still, they believe contractors who claim a Christian faith ought to be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference and gender identity and be the recipient of taxpayer largess in the form of federal grants.  Other contractors must play by a different, somewhat more constraining, set of rules

More artfully than sincerely, the group expresses concern for "the hiring process of these organizations- Christians, Jews, Muslim, and others."  But neither the Old or the New Testament counsels discrimination or provides a rationale for granting an exemption or preference in the law for those who would practice it. Instead, advantage must be proferred unto contractors claiming their own personal interpretation of Christianity or Judaism.

No good deed goes unpunished, it is said. Similarly, offering an olive branch to evangelical leaders is unlikely to deliver the desired results.  Barack Obama had Rick Warren give the invocation at the 2008 presidential inauguration, months after Obama explained he opposed same-sex marriage in part "as a Christian."

But theocrats are little interested in half-measures, compromise, or reaching an accommodation consistent with the wall of separation found in the First Amendment, as we will increasingly see in response to the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision.







Share |

It's The Gun

Writing in Salon, Greta Christina assures us "I respect Warren for his desire to de-stigmatize mental illness. And I respect that he’s willing to let his son’s tragic death be an inspiration to make the world better."

Well, I don't- at least not yet.

Southern California Public Radio station KPCC reported that the prolific preacher returned to the pulpit in late July, sixteen weeks after his son Matthew had succumbed to a self-inflicted gunshot wound in Mission Viejo, California, and stated "You have fears, you have worries, you have doubts, you have compulsions, you have attractions."  He later added "In any other organ of your body there’s no shame or stigma if it breaks down…. But if your brain doesn’t work, why are you ashamed of that? Why should there by any stigma attached to that? It’s just as much a part of your body as your heart and your liver."

Christina points to the definition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses and emphasizes the requirement that "The syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event." She notes

Mental illness is many things. But there’s one thing it most emphatically is not — and that is everyday fears, worries, doubts, and attractions. (Of the items on Warren’s list, “compulsions” is the only one that belongs.) Seeing mental illness as ordinary emotions is a fundamentally flawed view,  one that harms people actually living with such illness.

It’s common for people with mental illness to have our illnesses treated as just life’s ups and downs. People with clinical depression are seen as just mopey or sad; people with clinical anxiety are seen as just worriers; people with obsessive compulsive disorder are seen as just neat freaks. But these attitudes trivialize mental illness. They frame it as something people should be able to handle on our own — and it make any failure to do so seem like a character flaw, a weakness of will.

 She finds Reverend

Warren slipped “doubts” into the list of painful experiences that qualify as mental illness. Given his position as founder of Saddleback Church, given his many statements (including in this sermon) about being guided by faith over rationality, it’s hard to read “doubts” as anything but “religious doubts.” He’s basically saying that atheism, agnosticism and questioning religious faith are mental illnesses. He’s telling his flock that if they have “doubts” about God’s existence, they’re in the same category as his son — who suffered from borderline personality disorder and major depression, and who shot himself at age 27.

During the service, Matthew's mother Kay, according to the report, "explained in vivid detail the emotional roller coaster she’d experienced trying to find the right doctors, medications and other resources to help her son. Kay also highlighted the crushing disappointment she experienced when she realized her son’s mental health problems couldn’t be cured." Mrs. Warren added “I know that there was nothing I could have done. My love was simply not enough to overcome the brick wall of mental illness.”

Kay Warren's love was "not enough to overcome the brick wall of mental illness."  Not that is, in the presence of a firearm, though details of how he had obtained it have not been determined or not been released to the media.  Soon after the apparent suicide, the Orange County Sheriff's Office announced that the serial number had been wiped off the firearm, making it difficult to trace.

A few months earlier, after the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Reverend Warren had pointed to "the mental health angle" and "the civil safety issue, which is gun control and these assault weapons," as well as to the impact of violent video games.  He seemed to take a step backward in his sermon, in which he attempted to trivialize mental illness and to persuade his flock that they, too, are prone to disorder similar to that which afflicted his son.

But if Reverend Warren wishes to get something positive from a tragic and horrible event, he should avoid misleading the Christian believers to whom he witnesses.  He could instead inform his followers that most deaths by firearm in this nation are not homicide, but suicides; that the mentally ill should not have access to firearms; and that no matter the danger posed by a mentally ill individual to himself (herself) or others, it is far greater when he or she has a gun.



Share |

Rick Warren Can't Get It Straight

At first thought: Rick Warren should stay out of politics. At second thought: Rick Warren should stay in politics.

After President Obama's televised statement Monday night detailing his efforts to end the debt ceiling crisis, Reverend Rick Warren of Saddleback Church tweeted

HALF of America pays NO taxes. ZERO. So they're happy for tax rates to be raised on the other half that DOES.

Criticism from individuals who know better immediately followed. Blogger Karoli characterized it as "odious" and quoted Matthew 25:31-46, prompting Warren to delete the post from his twitter feed, then respond "Karoli You are 100% right! It did sound mean."

Salon's Joan Walsh sent this Twitter message

Hi @RickWarren many hard working but low-paid Americans don't pay taxes, thanks to a George H.W. Bush era charitable move to bolster income

I assume @RickWarren won't be giving the invocation in 2013. He lacks a preferential option for the poor. Very sad.

Class warfare against the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Warren responded to such criticism by sending two Twitter messages, the first to the general public, the second privately to Walsh:

Never engage those who insult you online. They're just looking for a fight, not clarity."Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions" Prov18:2

I take zero salary & we feed over 2000 familes a wk. But thank u Joan for the opportunity to pray God blesses your life greatly

When Walsh wrote her post outlining her exchange(s) with Reverend Warren, he responded in the letters section with the following explanation, which Walsh reprinted:

Thank you Joan - from Rick Warren

I never respond to insults but Joan's article is accurate & fair (except for the headline), so here's my view. I try to give anyone who tweets or speaks publicly a 10% "grace factor" because we all inevitably makes dumb statements, given enough words. I use up my 10% allowance by noon daily. I removed the tweet as soon as I saw how dumb & mean it sounded. What I should have said was that I honestly don't believe our nation can tax its way out of bankruptcy. There simply aren’t enough taxpayers. The unemployed CANT pay taxes, and right now 11% of our church is out of work. Saddleback is not a rich white church- we are multicultural & speak 67 languages. My view is that a better solution to increasing revenue is to focus instead on incentivizing JOB CREATION which will spur both consumer spending AND tax revenue. Finally, it is arrogant nonsense to insist (as many hate-filled responses tweeted) that only those who support larger government love the poor. That’s absurd. I'm a small-govt Independent (neither Dem nor Rep), yet I've given my life to helping the poor & sick in 164 countries. I drive a 12 yr old Ford & wear a $15 watch from Wal-Mart so Kay & I can give 91% of our income to help others. If you need a reason to hate me, attack my pro-life position, or my belief that Jesus is the only Way to salvation. But to accuse me of siding with the rich & wealth, being a GOP shill, or not caring about the poor, the sick, & those needing education, is nonsense. My life, ministry, and philanthropy for 30 years is a public record of caring “for the least of these.” THAT is why both Bush & Obama had me pray at Inaugural events.

Perhaps a well-thought out letter should not be criticized when it is preceded by an ignorant original post,a self-righteous post to the public, and a patronizing private tweet to a prominent Salon blogger. Warren would have better served his cause and himself if he had resisted the Twitter impulse and instead found a forum to post a letter explaining his opinion about taxation and patting himself on the back ("I'm a small-govt Independent (neither Dem nor Rep), yet I've given my life to helping the poor & sick in 164 countries. I drive a 12 yr old Ford & wear a $15 watch from Wal-Mart so Kay & I can give 91% of our income to help others.") It would have been a little like Nixon going to China, with Warren emphasizing that he has the personal and moral standing to advocate a conservative economic policy.

But criticize I will, because I want to. The revulsion over some Americans of limited means not paying federal income taxes is impeccably conservative- and has been thoroughly debunked, including here and here. Additionally, after an orgy of self-promotion, Warren pleads that he not be attacked personallyf or for his political stance, but on the issues of personal salvation- and abortion. He then refers to opposition to abortion two sentences- two sentences!- after claiming to be "a small-govt Independent (neither Dem nor Rep)."

Reverend Warren probably is a registered Independent- it could be easily refuted otherwise. But opposition to reproductive freedom does not qualify anyone- even a clergyman- as a supporter of small-government. He might have said, perhaps accurately, that he is a small-government supporter except when it "regards human life," but that is far less pithy than to describe oneself neatly as "a small-govt Independent."

But then, if claiming inaccurately to be a supporter of small government is borderline dishonest, there is nothing borderline about implying, by arguing the U.S. government cannot "tax its way out of bankruptcy," that the federal government is bankrupt.

The federal government is not bankrupt, though it is a GOP talking point to claim bankruptcy or insolvency of whatever the party doesn't like, including Social Security or the federal government itself. But of course, Warren is not a GOP shill.

Really, Rick? Warren, in Walsh's term at the time, "sandbagged" Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential debate at Saddleback Church. He lied about McCain being in a "cone of silence" while his opponent was being interviewed, opened a line of abortion questioning partial to Republican McCain, then later compared "an evangelical Christian voting for a pro-choice politician to a Jew voting for a Holocaust denier."

Independent or not, the guy gives a pretty good imitation of a "GOP shill." That does not mean, however, that Warren should eschew politics, by which he has done well. He undermined Barack Obama during the campaign, then gets invited to speak at the man's inauguration. Given this President's way of doing business, if Reverend Warren continues to criticize liberal economic policies, he may one day become Secretary of Treasury Warren.

Share|

Obsessed With, But Denying, Race

Most normal people, upon hearing of the racially-infused rant (transcript here, from Media Matters) of radio psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger of August 12, would be respond, horrified, to her use of N_ _ _ _ _ eleven times. (I guess we can rule out a slip of the tongue as an explanation.) Or they would be focused on Schlessinger's remark "If you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry out of your race." Her suggestion that a person limit his/her choice of mate to someone of the same race may be old-fasioned and antiquated, and not charmingly so.

Eschewing normality, however, I was taken instead by this portion:

SCHLESSINGER: Yeah. We've got a black man as president, and we have more complaining about racism than ever. I mean, I think that's hilarious.

CALLER: But I think, honestly, because there's more white people afraid of a black man taking over the nation.

SCHLESSINGER: They're afraid.

CALLER: If you want to be honest about it [unintelligible]

SCHLESSINGER: Dear, they voted him in. Only 12 percent of the population's black. Whites voted him in.

No, "dear," whites did not "vote Obama in." Certainly, many whites did vote for Obama. But that is fairly meaningless, given that Caucasians comprised 76.3% of the electorate. Even if the votes of non-whites were counted three times as heavily as those of whites- a strange way to conduct an election in a democratic republic- no one could have won without white people.

So, with a nation in recession and in two wars, public confidence in the direction of the nation at low tide, a very unopular Repub president, and a terrible GOP ticket, white people marched to the polls in November, 2008 and gave Democrat Barack Obama..... 43% of their vote. Obama won the election by approximately seven (7) percentage points- and lost the white electorate by nearly 14 points!

The idea, misguided though it is, that "whites voted him in," is critically important. It may form the basis of Schlessinger's remark "We've got a black man as president, and we have more complaining about racism than ever. I mean, I think that's hilarious."

On one level it's true- there has been more complaining about "racism"- from Rush Limbaugh and others on the far right who try to gin up anger against President Obama by accusing him of being racist. Clearly, though, that's not what Schlessinger is referring to.

Complaints about racism, justified or not, legitimate or not, have been going on for a long time, are still going on, and will continue to go on. The election of Barack Obama was never promised to end racism, racial animosity, or bigotry of any sort.

Does the apparent misconception of many on the right and some in the ideological middle derive from the emphasis on the "historical" nature of Barack Obama's victory? If so, a severe misunderstanding has taken place. The historic nature of Obama's victory was- and was solely- a function of a black person being elected in a nation with a tortured racial background. It is asking too much of one person (even one as extraordinary as Mr. Obama) to erase our nation's history or to wave a magic wand and make everything alright.

This is what some individuals- perhaps including Schlessinger- would have the president do. But it is not in the job description of the President of the United States to grant absolution or to bestow atonement for our national sin. That is, as candidate Obama once responded to a question from Reverend Rick Warren, above his pay grade.

Share|

Deception- Or A Meltdown?

On October 23, 2008, roughly two weeks before California voters would approve the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8, Reverend Rick Warren sent to his church members an e-mail in which he asserted:

For 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion -- not just Christianity -- has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren wrote. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population. This is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have publicly opposed the redefinition of marriage to include so-called 'gay marriage.' Even some gay leaders, like Al Rantel of KABC oppose watering down the definition of marriage.

Of course, my longtime opposition is well known. This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about. There is no doubt where we should stand on this issue....

This will be a close contest, maybe even decided by a few thousand votes. I urge you to VOTE YES on Proposition 8 -- to preserve the biblical definition of marriage. Don't forget to vote!

On April 6, 2009, the pastor of the huge Southern Baptist congregation in Southern California strangely told Larry King (video below):

You know Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told in the first place. I am not an anti-gay or anti-marriage activist. Never have been, never will be. The whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement. Never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going–the week before the vote, somebody in my church said, “Pastor Rick, what do you think about this?” And I sent a note to my own members that said. I actually believe that marriage is really, should be defined. If that definition should be saved between a man and a woman and then all of a suddenly out of it they made me, you know something that I really wasn’t. And there were actually a number of things put out.

I wrote to all my gay friends, the leaders that I knew and actually apologized to them. That never got out. There were some things said, everybody should have 10% grace when they say public statements and when I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest which I absolutely do not believe. And I actually announced that. All of the criticism came from people that didn’t know me. Not a single criticism came from any gay leader that knows me and knows that for years we’ve been working together on Aids issues.

Then on Sunday morning, ABC's George Stephanopoulos explained that moments before Warren was to be interviewed on Saturday for a segment to be televised on the following morning's This Week, his representatives canceled, saying the minister was "sick from exhaustion."

Reverend Warren may in fact have been ill this past weekend, but the thought of having to explain the apparent contradictory statements didn't help. (Pardon me as the left brain overwhelms the right brain.)

Cynics will assume, understandably, that Reverend Warren was lying. But was he? Michael Smerconish, the center-right radio talk show host and MSNBC contributor who shocked his radio audience in October by endorsing Barack Obama (over Afghanistan/Pakistan), believes that Warren may be hanging his hat on the fact that he "never once issued a statement," though sending an e-mail. Similarly, I agree that he "never once even gave an endorsement," choosing instead to make his view known semi-privately, electronically.

And does he claim credibly "I am not an anti-gay or anti-marriage activist?" I don't know what Warren is trying to say here, but any decent high school English teacher would recognize that the minister here is in fact saying:

1) "I am not an anti-gay activist." Whatever Reverend Warren was, he certainly is not an anti-gay activist now. Further, at the time when Warren was opposing gay marriage (and especially as he may see himself now) he may not have considered himself anti-gay, merely opposed to gay marriage- not unlike the "hate the sin, love the sinner" concept.

2) "I am not an anti-marriage activist." No, Warren himself is married and no doubt is foresquare in favor of the institution of marriage.

Warren contended "they made me, you know, something that I really wasn't." That is inarguably true, for "they" (whomever that might be) claimed a lot of things about Warren, doubtless some of them true and some untrue.

Although "All of the criticism came from people that didn’t know me" is a tough sell (all of the criticism?), not so the claim "Not a single criticism came from any gay leader that knows me and knows that for years we’ve been working together on Aids issues.” For this to be a lie requires a) criticism came from a gay leader (a subjective term) who both knew Warren and has been "working together on AIDS issues."

And it doesn't count if they had been working together- they must be currently working together ("we have been working"). Think PBS' Jim Lehrer- with a good question but, critically, no follow-up- and President Bill Clinton, with a misleading but truthful answer (emphasis mine):

LEHRER: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?

CLINTON: There is not a sexual relationship. That is accurate.

Reverend Warren may not have been thinking this through in this manner. He might have not been concerned with whether he was technically lying but instead chose to give a rambling, barely coherent statement. Then again, he is presumably a man of sane and sound mind and, as we learned from the 'cone of silence' incident at the Presidential forum at his church last fall, one of dubious integrity.

Article Of The Week

Among the many positions I though I'd never be in would be one in which I recommend an article by naturalized American and journalist Christopher Hitchens in which he touched on Middle East politics (not much of a supporter of Israel) and Christianity (even less of a supporter).

Still, Hitchens is right on target with "Shame on You, Rick Warren." It includes his criticism of the Baathist regime in Syria, which

is joined at the hip with the Iranian theocracy, that is the patron of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and that is the official and unabashed host of the fugitive Hamas leadership whose military wing directs massacre operations from Damascus itself. (One might also add that the Syrian Baath Party's veteran defense minister,* Mustafa Tlas, published a book under his own name that accused Jews of using the blood of non-Jewish children for the making of those ever-menacing Passover matzos. I suppose it depends how you define extremism.)

It seems that Reverend Warren is an unabashed promoter of the Syrian government, perenially an enthusiastic state supporter of terrorism. After he met with Bashar Assad and described the nation the dictator lords over as "a moderate country, and the official government rule and position is to not allow extremism of any kind," he met with a mufti. Then he reportedly assured the Syrian people that he would convey to Americans the fine relationship he witnessed between Christians and Muslims in Syria, as well as the opposition of 80% of the American people to the war in Iraq (probably not a good thing to tell a regime hostile to the U.S.A., even if true, which it never quite has been).

But Hitchens' theme is expressed in the first sentence of his piece. Why, he asks, has it "been agreed by every single media outlet that only one group has the right to challenge Obama's promotion of "Pastor" Rick Warren, and that group is the constituency of politically organized homosexuals?" (And credit Hitchens for enclosing "Pastor" in quotes- as a title it is applicable only to members of a minister's own church.) It's a good question, one which as a heterosexual displeased with the selection of Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration I should have asked. But didn't. And now it has been.


...................................Happy New Year....................................

Rick Warren, Fabricator

Put aside, for the time being: Rick Warren's reminders that his church has been very active in good works here and abroad; his views on abortion; his views on gay rights.

Consider, for now, only what Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church and the minister given the tremendous honor of giving the invocation at the inauguration of President Obama, has said about gay rights. Here is the applicable passage from his interview with Steve Waldman of beliefnet.com:

The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Oh , I do.


And here is Reverend Warren, in comments beginning at 2:53 of this video from Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, claiming

I have been accused of equating gay pernerships with incest and pedophilia. Now, of course, as members of Saddleback Church, you know, I believe no such thing. I never have. Uh, you never heard me once in thirty years talk that way about that.

Reverend Warren, asked whether incest, pedophilia, and bigamy are "equivalent to gays getting married," replies "I do." Then in a message which Maddow says came from a message he recorded and placed on his website (clearly intended primarily for his own congregants), the evangelical pastor says of "equating gay pertnerships with incest and pedophilia," "I believe no such thing. I never have."

If this latter statement is correct, Reverend Warren was lying in his interview. And if it's not correct, he's lying now. As a Christian minister, he understands better than most that none of us is perfect. But he appears to have forgotten the passage, extended from the Ninth Commandment, from Leviticus in the Old Testament: "You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another."








Merry Christmas....................................................... Happy Chanukah

Reverend Warren And The Invocation

Controversy has been swirling since the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies announced on December 17 it has selected to give the invocation at the presidential inauguration on January 20 the Reverend Rick Warren, a Southern Baptist minister responsible for the exceedingly popular Purpose Driven Life series.

It was a decision Obama defended (and initiated), stating

A couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak. And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about -- that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.

You might remember Rev. Warren for his opposition to abortion rights or more likely his fervent support of Proposition 8 in California, which restricted the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman after the state Supreme Court had recognized a right to gay marriage.

Principled advocates of both the left and the right have attacked the choice. CBN Senior National Correspondent David Brody (co-host of a weekly program on CNN), who likes the selection, wrote nevertheless, "the Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this." But most of the mainstream media has fixated on opposition to the selection from the right, such as this post from firedoglake's Jane Hamsher. And Glenn Greenwald of salon.com cogently argues that Obama's approach is

exactly the same thing Democrats have been doing for the last two decades: namely, accommodating and compromising with the Right in the name of bipartisan harmony and a desire to avoid partisan and cultural conflicts? This harmonious approach may be many things, but the one thing it seems not to be is "new."

Greenwald equates the strategy with President Clinton's "triangulation" scheme and notes

What did all of those post-partisan, cultural outreach efforts generate? Hatred so undiluted that it led to endless investigations, accusations whose ugliness was boundless, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and ultimate impeachment over a sex scandal. Bill Clinton was anything but a cultural or partisan warrior. He was the opposite. And that was what he had to show for it.

And it wasn't only with Clinton. Greenwald says of Democrats "from 9/11 onward, they were probably the single most cooperative, compliant, and accomodating 'opposition party' ever to exist" and

Did any of that dilute the Right's anger and resentments towards Democrats? Democrats spent 2002 giving George Bush everything he wanted -- including authorization to attack Iraq -- and the Right then promptly attacked them as Saddam-allied, Osama-loving subversives. In 2004, Democrats got frightened away from nominating an actual combative liberal, because they feared he'd be too divisive and culturally alienating, and replaced him with a mild-mannered, inoffensive war hero, who then had derisive purple band-aids waved at him by the GOP convention throngs, who spent months mocking him as a weak, effete, elitist loser.


And there was this: Blue-Dog Democrat Charles Walter Stenholm from Texas' 17th Congressional District: advocate of gun rights, opponent of abortion rights, pro-corporate opponent of environmental protection. When the staunchly Republican state legislature in Texas, guided by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ("The Exterminator"), gerrymandered the state to eliminate the remaining House Democrats, Charlie Stenholm was left in a more conservative, Republican district. And when Stenholm stood for reelection in 2004, did President George W. Bush, facing increasing opposition from the public and Congressional Democrats for his war in Iraq, recognize his need for congressional supporters of the war like Stenholm? As syndicated columnist David Broder wrote at the time, Bush "went out of his way to plug (Repub nomineee Randy) Neugebauer when he campaigned nearby and Vice President Cheney came in twice to help sink Stenholm" (who lost his seat).

Republicans recognize that pandering to the opposition is a far less effective strategy than opposing on principle. And Rick Warren has proven to be an opponent of Obama on more than gay rights and abortion rights, as demonstrated by the Civil Forum held in August with Obama and John McCain at Reverend Warren's Saddleback Church, where

Instead of sticking to questions on areas where Warren truly has broken from some religious conservatives, like climate change, the importance of alleviating poverty and preventing HIV transmission, Warren drew Obama and John McCain into a discussion of old-school social conservative hot-button issues: the definition of marriage and whether life begins at conception. Days later, he turned around and blasted Obama's answers on abortion rights, comparing being pro-choice to denying the Holocaust.

At the beginning of the forum (in which Obama was questioned first and McCain performed brilliantly), Warren famously assured the audience "We flipped a coin, and we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence." Yet, when informed by CNN's Rick Sanchez that McCain was not in this cone but in a Secret Service motorcade during a portion (approximately the first half hour) of the Obama interview, Warren flippantly replied "Well, that's true. He was in a cone of a secret service motorcade."

There is a distinction between working with political adversaries to achieve desired ends and rewarding them when they've only tried to undermine your efforts. While the former is often wise strategy, the latter is likely to breed contempt for an opponent viewed as vacillating.

Why Not McCain?- 2

When John McCain was asked by Rick Warren at the recent forum at Saddleback Church to name the "three wisest people" he "would rely on heavily in an administration," he named General David Petraeus, whom the Senator appears to idolize; Representative John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement, who found the plug puzzling; and Meg Whitman, the former
CEO of eBay and one of his economic advisers. McCain gushed

Meg Whitman, Meg Whitman, the CEO of eBay. Meg Whitman, 12 years ago, there were five employees. Today, they're 1.5 million people that make a living off eBay in America, in the world. It's one of these great American success stories. And in these economic challenges times, we need to call on the wisdom and knowledge, the background of people like Meg Whitman, who have been able to make such a great success such as eBay part as the American folklore.

This is not the first time McCain has canonized eBay, which has transformed an "incredibly inefficient market for junk and turned it into a very efficient market for junk," according to Lehman Brothers' Ethan Harris, quoted in perrspectives.com. But as Betsey Stevenson of the Wharton School of Economics at the University of Pennsylvania has explained, "in terms of jobs, there's no net increase in GDP that comes from trading stuff that's already made. New people selling stuff out of their closet on EBay isn't growing the economy."

That explanation, however, did not suit Mr. McCain, who is a very slow study when it does not benefit his political prospects. We now can better understand the comment McCain made while he was campaigning in January in Livonia, Michigan for that state's primary, when he claimed it

wasn't government's job to protect buggy factories and haberdashers when cars replaced carriages and men stopped wearing hats..... (and we should avoid raising) false hopes that somehow we can bring back lost jobs.

Primary voters in Michigan rejected McCain, recognizing him as callous, indifferent to middle-class jobs with benefits. Stevenson notes

In terms of jobs, there's no net increase in GDP that comes from trading stuff that's already made. To trade things that are produced in other countries just to swap them.....(conveys a message) that America can't produce anything and that's a very dismal view of the U.S. economy.

But John McCain, oblivious to the importance of Americans producing things, for ourselves and for others, is a true believer in the restorative effects of free trade: n of buying as much as possible from other countries, with the Midwest- and ultimately much of the rest of the country- drowing in the abyss of a dangerous trade deficit. The workers themselves, however, have an option- they can always buy and sell on eBay and forget about their pensions, health care, and the economic security of their families.

Abortion And Saddleback Church- part 2

The issue which most energizes white evangelical voters is abortion, and so it is that Reverend Rick Warren, fresh off his forum at his Saddleback Church, was asked four (4) questions about abortion in the interview he granted with beliefnet.com on July 17, 2008. The very first question posed was

Before last night, McCain had been widely criticized by Christian activists for keeping mum about his faith and about values issues like abortion and marriage Last night seemed to change that. How much headway did McCain make among skeptical evangelicals?

And he responded in part

If they (i.e., evangelicals) think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote for a Holocaust denier...

Posting on the same site on which the Warren interview appears, Orthodox rabbi Brad Hirschfield notes

to suggest that the debate about when life begins is the same as a debate about whether or not 12 million human beings were murdered by the Nazis is just nuts. Not because one would be nuts to assume that life begins at conception though. It would be nuts because the question of when life begins is a real debate not only among people in America generally, but among Christians who share a commitment to scripture. Does Reverend Warren believe that there is room to debate the factuality of those 12 million dead?

Warren tries to pull a fast one. In asserting abortion is a "holocaust" and then claiming he would not vote for a "Holocaust denier," he a)equates genocide directed against European Jews and the legal option of abortion in a democratic society; and b)implies that those opposed to the present "holocaust" are morally equivalent to the anti-semites who form the core of those denying the WWII-era Holocaust.

One should not use language carelessly. There are a few- very few- words which have a special meaning within the context of American society. These include slavery, which characterized a particular period in U.S. history, ramifications which still plague our society. And it includes holocaust, an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to exterminate the people of a religion which predated, and gave rise to, the dominant religion (Christianity) of this country. Reverend Warren practices a kind of linguistic carelessness that is politically motivated, and vile.

Abortion At Saddlebrook Church, part 1

Following the forum he hosted at his Saddleback Church on August 16, 2008.Reverend Rick Warren recently gave an interesting, and revealing, interview to beliefnet.com on August 17, 2008. He was asked:

When you asked Obama about when life begins, he punted, saying 'it's above my pay grade.' Should someone running for the highest office in the land have a clear answer to that, or is that kind of ambivalence acceptable?

And responded in part:

He should either say, 'No scientifically, I do not believe it's a human being until X' or whatever it is or to say, 'Yes, I believe it is a human being at X point,' whether it's conception or anything else. But to just say 'I don't know' on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.

Note that Obama did not maintain that determining whether abortion should be legal is "above my pay grade" but rather determining "when life begins." Nonetheless, Reverend Warren charged Obama with disingenuously claiming"'I don't know" on the most divisive issue in America." That issue would be the legal status of abortion rights, not when life begins.

There is a rough consensus among the American people as to when life begins. Belying most national polls, which generally find a pro-choice plurality (however small), most people believe life begins at conception. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll (the only I could find) taken July15-16, 2003 surveyed registered voters:

“Do you believe that human life begins at conception, or once the baby may be able to survive outside the mother's womb with medical assistance, or when the baby is actually born?”

At conception -55%
Survive outside womb-23%
At birth-13%
Not sure-%

None of these criteria is likely valid from a scientific standpoint. Gregg Easterbrook persuasively wrote in the New Republic article, "Abortion and Brain Waves, on January 31, 2000 "the hopeless confusing viability standard should be dropped in favor of a bright line drawn at the start of the third trimester, when complex fetal brain activity begins." The view that human life as we know it begins "at conception" is the furthest option from this understanding, and yet it is the most common in the country. This could be why Warren asked about the beginning of life- or rather, the even more emotionally charged, and slanted, " Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"

The McCain Edge At Saddleback

So now we know why John McCain was decisive, forceful, and quick on his feet when he appeared with Reverend Rick Warren at the latter's Saddleback Church in Orange County, California on August 16, 2008. At the beginning of the forum, Reverend Warren assured us:

So you can compare apples to apples. Now, Senator Obama is going to go first. We flipped a coin, and we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence.

And once McCain did appear:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you. Good to be here.
WARREN: My first question, was the cone of silence comfortable you were in just now?
MCCAIN: I was trying to hear through the wall.

Very cute. And very dishonest. Pretending to be enraged at NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell's report that the Obama campaign was saying that McCain had broken the rules, McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis argued the candidate "was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed.” Inadvertently, Davis had acknowledged that the Repub candidate had not been in a cone of silence, but rather first in a motorcade (where the broadcast could have been communicated to him in any number of ways) and then in a room "with no broadcast feed," where nonetheless content of the broadcast could have been communicated to him in any number of ways.

Appearing on Larry King Live on Monday night, 8/18/08, Reverend Warren was asked "could McCain have heard it (the Obama interview) in the car coming over?" and incredibly replied "not a chance- the Secret Service would have reported it."

Which claim of Warren was less sincere a) that McCain was in "a cone of silence" he either knew he wasn't in or at least could not be certain that he was; or b) claiming that the Secret Service, mistaking its role for that of a babysitter, would have "ratted out" the guy who could be the next President of the United States and leader of the Free World? That's a tough call.

Abortion At The Forum

Given the particular interest of most white evangelical Christians, it would be inexcusable to let pass comment on the presidential forum staged by Saddleback Church's Rick Warren on August 16 without commenting on the treatment of abortion rights. Warren asked Obama two questions (McCain, only the first) on the topic:

Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?

Put aside Warren's remark that there have been "40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade." Assuming that is accurate, it implies that there would have been no abortions had not the Supreme Court in 1973 decided in favor of a woman's right to choose, and that prior to the decision no abortions had taken place. More critically, Rev. Warren asked the emotionally-charged question "at what point does a baby get human rights?" and conveniently- despite invoking the court ruling- neglected to ask either candidate about whether Roe v. Wade was properly decided or should be overturned.

Reverend Warren managed to put Democrat Obama on the spot: how does someone pro-choice answer such a question without sounding somewhat harsh while noting that until the age of majority no young person enjoys full human rights? Even at age 17, in many states an individual cannot drive; drink alcohol; vote; sign most legal contracts; or have an operation without parental consent.

John McCain similarly could have been put on the spot- by being asked about Roe v. Wade, a subject from which conservative Repubs understandably flee. While it's hard to discern a pro-choice or pro-life majority in this country, there clearly is support for Roe v. Wade itself. When the subject is mentioned, Republicans frequently deflect attention from the inquiry; Democrats usually welcome it, especially because it serves as a catalyst for arguing the importance of electing a Democrat so the Court does not overturn its famous ruling.

Initially, I found this lack of balance disappointing. However, now that we learn that John McCain may (contrary to the assurance of Reverend Warren) learned of the questions during Obama's appearance and prior to his own, it is clearly not disappointing, but, instead, predictable.

Saint McCain

The Sunday, 8/17/08 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources started with a fairly lengthy segment speculating on the sex life of a former Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate from North Carolina. This makes even more ironic, and loathsome, comments made on the next segment- about the presidential forum hosted by Reverend Rick Warren the previous evening at his megachurch in California- about a current Presidential candidate from Arizona. Here is the relevant part of the transcript:

PASTOR RICK WARREN, SR. PASTOR, SADDLEBACK CHURCH: What would be, looking over your life -- everybody's got weaknesses, nobody is perfect -- would be the greatest moral failure in your life? SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I trace this to is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied, that I couldn't focus on other people. SEN. JOHN McCain (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My greatest moral failing -- and I have been a very imperfect person -- is the failure of my first marriage....

MASON: I don't know. I mean, I think McCain really did something extraordinary the way he answered that question, Howie. He addressed an issue that the campaign has been having a hard time figuring out how to deal with. They've wanted to confront it, it's out there on the Internet, it's something that Democrats are trying to use against McCain. So he put it out there, he acknowledged it. And he sort of inoculated himself against it. I think that's really going to help him. ...

KURTZ: Right. McCain has acknowledged that he was not faithful in his first marriage, but not necessarily before a national television audience.

Howie Kurtz is right! John McCain has acknowledged that he was not faithful in his first marriage, though not before a national television audience. And he still hasn't. The video played by CNN has the Senator saying "My greatest failing- and I have been a very imperfect person- is the failure of my first marriage."

"The failure of my first marriage." The cause of course, McCain did not acknowledge on this telecast, which would suggest that Julie Mason was merely awe-struck when she referred to "something extraordinary the way he answered that question," which the campaign is bravely "trying to confront" which the evil (unnamed) Democrats are "trying to use against McCain."

********************************************************

I think McCain's behavior during his first marriage is reason 101 of 100 reasons to vote against him. But in a program in which a former presidential candidate (who has admitted his affair) is excoriated, it seems odd to congratulate a current presidential candidate- who has never admitted living nine months with first wife Carol Shepp while dating Cindy Hensley- for acknowledging a failed marriage which is on the record and undeniable.

Bluff and Bluster

John McCain certainly was decisive at the forum hosted by Reverend Rick Warren of Saddleback Church on Saturday evening, August 16. He repeated his talking points with evident conviction, though as befits McCain, he may completely contradict those points, or claim he never made them, within days.

As he has throughout his campaign to gain the Repub nomination for President, McCain tried (and probably succeeded) to convince his audience that he is determined to capture Osama bin Laden. He issues the same vow repeatedly. He was asked:

How about the issue of evil? I asked this of your rival in the previous thing. Does evil exist and if so, should we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it or defeat it?

He responded:

Defeat it. 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 that.


A little reality check. Here is a portion of a 7/6/08 posting of talk-show host and columnist Michael Smerconish, for whom the issue of terrorists operating out of Pakistan is a paramount issue:

To be sure, the United States should consult Pakistan about such actionable intelligence, Obama told me, but “we shouldn’t need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans. That’s part of the reason that I’ve been a critic from the start of the war in Iraq. . . . I felt we had a war that we had not finished".....We spoke again April 21. I asked Obama if he was prepared to stop writing the monthly check to Pakistan - payments now exceeding $10 billion. His reply: “Absolutely. [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf was receiving billions of dollars and not doing much with it.

On June 16, I asked John McCain about Obama’s willingness to take action where Pakistan would not.... (and he answered in part) “. . . We have to have the cooperation of Pakistan in order to have these operations succeed,” McCain said. “. . . [I]f you alienate Pakistan, and it turns into an anti-American government, then you will have much greater difficulties.”


This is nothing new. On August 1, 2007- as he did later in debate- the Illinois senator explained "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and (Pakistan) president Musharraf won't act, we will." McCain criticized Obama's argument. But this is telling: When Smerconish told McCain that because of this one issue he might vote for the Democratic presidential candidate "for the first time in my life," the Arizona senator replied "Well, then I tell you, my seeking the support of the American people, frankly, is over a lot more issues than that but I understand how important it is to you.”

That's right. This is the guy who admits that economics is not his strong suit but whom the media claim is some sort of foreign policy sage. And he is suggesting the American voter should consider overlooking his position on terrorism emanating from the Persian Gulf. Which raises two questions about John McCain: 1) If he is willing to follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell," why not to Pakistan? and 2) If not national defense, what possible reason is there to vote for him?