Jim Stillman
Randy Inman
M-KazThe eye of the beholder: the Saddleback Discussions
August 18th 2008 00:02
I read with great interest the two posts by Mike Pouraryan on his impression of the Saddleback Forum with Pastor Rick Warren and the comments by Steve Barrett.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Both Mike and Steve are excellent observers and writers, but I have the feeling that I was watching a different discussion. From my perspective, with some exceptions, Senator McCain was not very responsive to Pastor Warren’s questions and lapsed into political “talking points” and campaign rhetoric far too often. As in most debates, Senator McCain, as do nearly all participants have pat memorized statements that are not responsive to specific questions. As a personal note, I found distracting Senator McCain’s use of the phrase, “My friends”, in virtually each response.
As an example of non-responsiveness and “talking points”, Senator McCain rejected any tax increase on anyone and blamed the Congress for bloated budgetary excesses over the past years, omitting to recall that he was a member of that Congress, that the Republicans controlled the Congress and White House, except for the Clinton years when there was no deficit.
When pressed on whether the tax burden on the wealthy (a category that includes Senator Obama, Pastor Warren and Senator McCain but probably not the vast majority of the audience of evangelicals) should be considered, Senator Obama said:
Compare that with the simplistic rerspmse of Senator McCain:
Cute. Congress is at fault, a Congress controlled by the GOP of which Senator McCain was a member.
The issue of employees of faith-based organizations were discusses by both Senators; here is the transcript of the question and answer by Senator Obama:
Contrast the answer from Senator McCain:
I would respectfully urge two points.
First, as to New Orleans and Katrina, the Churches should not have had to make up for the deficiencies of the Bush administration (“You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie. You’re fired.).
Second, in Florida and some other jurisdictions, the criminal court Probation Department, for minor offenses, is often run by the Salvation Army. Does this mean that this quasi-governmental operation could not hire a non-Christian?
Senator Obama may have worked the crowd better than his opponent, but slogans, talking points and anecdotes are not substitutes for thinking in depth.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Both Mike and Steve are excellent observers and writers, but I have the feeling that I was watching a different discussion. From my perspective, with some exceptions, Senator McCain was not very responsive to Pastor Warren’s questions and lapsed into political “talking points” and campaign rhetoric far too often. As in most debates, Senator McCain, as do nearly all participants have pat memorized statements that are not responsive to specific questions. As a personal note, I found distracting Senator McCain’s use of the phrase, “My friends”, in virtually each response.
As an example of non-responsiveness and “talking points”, Senator McCain rejected any tax increase on anyone and blamed the Congress for bloated budgetary excesses over the past years, omitting to recall that he was a member of that Congress, that the Republicans controlled the Congress and White House, except for the Clinton years when there was no deficit.
When pressed on whether the tax burden on the wealthy (a category that includes Senator Obama, Pastor Warren and Senator McCain but probably not the vast majority of the audience of evangelicals) should be considered, Senator Obama said:
Yes, well - depending. I don't know what housing practices are going. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible.
I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. [Emphasis supplied]
I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. [Emphasis supplied]
Compare that with the simplistic rerspmse of Senator McCain:
Let's have - keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America.
(APPLAUSE)
So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?
(LAUGHTER)
But seriously, I don't think you can - I don't think seriously that - the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously -- and I'm sure that comment will be distorted -- but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures.
(APPLAUSE)
My friends, we spent $3 million of your money to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Now I don't know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue...
(LAUGHTER)
... but the point is, it was $3 million of your money. It was your money. And, you know, we laugh about it, but we cry - and we should cry because the Congress is supposed to be careful stewards of your tax dollars.
So what did they just do in the middle of an energy crisis when in California we are paying $4 a gallon for gas? Went on vacation for five weeks. I guarantee you, two things they never miss - a pay raise and a vacation -- and we should stop that and call them back and not raise your taxes. We should not and cannot raise taxes in tough economic times.
So, it doesn't matter really what my definition of "rich" is because I don't want to raise anybody's taxes. I really don't. In fact, I want to give working Americans a better shot at having a better life, and we all know the challenges, my friends, if I could be serious.
(APPLAUSE)
So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?
(LAUGHTER)
But seriously, I don't think you can - I don't think seriously that - the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously -- and I'm sure that comment will be distorted -- but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures.
(APPLAUSE)
My friends, we spent $3 million of your money to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Now I don't know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue...
(LAUGHTER)
... but the point is, it was $3 million of your money. It was your money. And, you know, we laugh about it, but we cry - and we should cry because the Congress is supposed to be careful stewards of your tax dollars.
So what did they just do in the middle of an energy crisis when in California we are paying $4 a gallon for gas? Went on vacation for five weeks. I guarantee you, two things they never miss - a pay raise and a vacation -- and we should stop that and call them back and not raise your taxes. We should not and cannot raise taxes in tough economic times.
So, it doesn't matter really what my definition of "rich" is because I don't want to raise anybody's taxes. I really don't. In fact, I want to give working Americans a better shot at having a better life, and we all know the challenges, my friends, if I could be serious.
Cute. Congress is at fault, a Congress controlled by the GOP of which Senator McCain was a member.
The issue of employees of faith-based organizations were discusses by both Senators; here is the transcript of the question and answer by Senator Obama:
WARREN: OK. The role of faith-based organizes, recent poll says 80 percent of Americans think faith-based organizations do a better job at community services than the government, helping addictions, you know, [ applause ] all the different homelessness, poverty, things like that. The civil rights act of '64 says that faith-based organizations have a right to hire people who believe like they do. Would you insist that faith-based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think you're aware of, Pastor Rick, that I gave a speech earlier this summer promoting faith-based initiatives. I think that we should have an all hands on deck approach when it comes to issues like poverty and substance abuse and as somebody who got my start out of college working with churches, who are trying to deal with the devastation of steel plants closing in the south side of Chicago, I know the power of faith-based institutions to get stuff done. What I have said is that when it comes, first of all, to funding faith-based organizations, they are always free to hire whoever they want, when it comes to their own mission, who the pastor is, various ministries, that they want to set up, but, and this has been a longstanding rule.
WARREN: College Christians?
OBAMA: Yes, absolutely. When it comes to the programs that are federally funded, then we do have to be careful to make sure that we are not creating a situation where people are being discriminated against, using federal money. That's not new. That's a concept that was true under the Clinton administration. That was true under the Bush administration. There are, in 95 percent of the circumstances, it's not an issue because people are careful about how they use the funds. There are some tough issues. Five percent of the situations where people might say I want to hire somebody of my faith for a program that is fully funded by the federal government and we're offering services to the public, and my --
WARREN: In relief, like in Katrina.
OBAMA: Right.
WARREN: If I took people to Katrina, and I wanted to hire some people to do relief, if I took federal money to help in that relief, I wouldn't be able to say, I only want people who believe like we do.
OBAMA: Well, you know, it's one of those situations where the devil's in the details. I think generally speaking, faith-based organizations should not be advantaged or disadvantaged when it comes to getting federal funds, by virtue of the fact that they're faith-based organizations. They just want a level playing field. But what we do want to make sure of is that as a general principle we're not using federal funding to discriminate, but that is only when it comes to the narrow program that is being funded by the federal government. That does not affect any of the other ministries that are being taken, that are taking place.
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think you're aware of, Pastor Rick, that I gave a speech earlier this summer promoting faith-based initiatives. I think that we should have an all hands on deck approach when it comes to issues like poverty and substance abuse and as somebody who got my start out of college working with churches, who are trying to deal with the devastation of steel plants closing in the south side of Chicago, I know the power of faith-based institutions to get stuff done. What I have said is that when it comes, first of all, to funding faith-based organizations, they are always free to hire whoever they want, when it comes to their own mission, who the pastor is, various ministries, that they want to set up, but, and this has been a longstanding rule.
WARREN: College Christians?
OBAMA: Yes, absolutely. When it comes to the programs that are federally funded, then we do have to be careful to make sure that we are not creating a situation where people are being discriminated against, using federal money. That's not new. That's a concept that was true under the Clinton administration. That was true under the Bush administration. There are, in 95 percent of the circumstances, it's not an issue because people are careful about how they use the funds. There are some tough issues. Five percent of the situations where people might say I want to hire somebody of my faith for a program that is fully funded by the federal government and we're offering services to the public, and my --
WARREN: In relief, like in Katrina.
OBAMA: Right.
WARREN: If I took people to Katrina, and I wanted to hire some people to do relief, if I took federal money to help in that relief, I wouldn't be able to say, I only want people who believe like we do.
OBAMA: Well, you know, it's one of those situations where the devil's in the details. I think generally speaking, faith-based organizations should not be advantaged or disadvantaged when it comes to getting federal funds, by virtue of the fact that they're faith-based organizations. They just want a level playing field. But what we do want to make sure of is that as a general principle we're not using federal funding to discriminate, but that is only when it comes to the narrow program that is being funded by the federal government. That does not affect any of the other ministries that are being taken, that are taking place.
Contrast the answer from Senator McCain:
WARREN: ... than the government. You know, addictions, homelessness, poverty, all of these, prisoner rehab, things like that. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows religious organizations, not just churches but faith-based organizations to keep and hire the people that they believe share common beliefs with.
MCCAIN: Yes.
WARREN: Would you insist that faith-based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?
MCCAIN: Absolutely, not. And if you did, it would mean a severe crippling of faith-based organizations and their ability to do things so successfully.
Life is full of anecdotes. And I'm sorry to tell you so many anecdotes. But I went to New Orleans after Katrina. The Resurrection Baptist church was doing tremendous work with thousands of volunteers. I'm sure probably from here at Saddleback, coordinating efforts of thousands of volunteers, including my own church, the North Phoenix Baptist church, who came from all over America. And various authorities, off the record, told me, off the record, that they were doing so much more good than the government organizations, that it was incredible. And New Orleans could not have been on the path -- and they've got a long way to go -- on the path to recovery if it hadn't have been for the faith-based organizations who are still operating in New Orleans, much to their credit, AND thank God.
MCCAIN: Yes.
WARREN: Would you insist that faith-based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?
MCCAIN: Absolutely, not. And if you did, it would mean a severe crippling of faith-based organizations and their ability to do things so successfully.
Life is full of anecdotes. And I'm sorry to tell you so many anecdotes. But I went to New Orleans after Katrina. The Resurrection Baptist church was doing tremendous work with thousands of volunteers. I'm sure probably from here at Saddleback, coordinating efforts of thousands of volunteers, including my own church, the North Phoenix Baptist church, who came from all over America. And various authorities, off the record, told me, off the record, that they were doing so much more good than the government organizations, that it was incredible. And New Orleans could not have been on the path -- and they've got a long way to go -- on the path to recovery if it hadn't have been for the faith-based organizations who are still operating in New Orleans, much to their credit, AND thank God.
I would respectfully urge two points.
First, as to New Orleans and Katrina, the Churches should not have had to make up for the deficiencies of the Bush administration (“You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie. You’re fired.).
Second, in Florida and some other jurisdictions, the criminal court Probation Department, for minor offenses, is often run by the Salvation Army. Does this mean that this quasi-governmental operation could not hire a non-Christian?
Senator Obama may have worked the crowd better than his opponent, but slogans, talking points and anecdotes are not substitutes for thinking in depth.
| 41 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
The Salvation Army is handling lower court cases in Florida? I've been away for some time, but my, that's a big undertaking for a church. Maybe FL wants to impress upon some of its misbehaving citizens what'll happen if they screw up with the SA. They'll be doing real time in real jails or prisons dealing with guys/gals with a tougher level of rank to deal with.
I noticed with interest Obama's clever way of discussing "faith based programs" (FBP). He's speaking out of both sides of his mouth because he knows full well what kind of pressures government can bring upon a church or religious college accepting
any kind of federal or state funding.
He's not kidding about the devil and details. I remember when (then) Biscayne College built a continuing education/overnight lodging all purpose buiilding with help from federal funding. We also rented out half of one of our more spacious dorms. No sooner than the building was finished, the feds requested that a small brown cross embedded into the mosaic finish above the center portal to the main reception room be removed.
We told them to stuff it and as far as I know, the cross is still there. No funds were yanked, either. (Lesson, churches have to stand up and push back on occasion. It works.)
Sometimes it doesn't, and the recent shutdown of the century old Boston Archdiocesan Catholic Charities adoption service is a prime example where government indifference, fueled by a combination of political cowardice and anti-Catholic bigotry on the hands of the militant pro-homosexual rights lobby on Beacon Hill -- all worked together to form a "perfect storm" and no matter how hard Cardinal Sean O'Malley tied -- in one of his first rough moments since taking over from the now-infamous Cardinal "Don't recall anything" Bernard Law -- he was unable to prevent the shutting down of the service. So long as the agency received a penny from the state, it had to abide by new regulations demanding that homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children from any agency. Now, some adoptions for homosexual parents did occur through Catholic Charities in Boston, but they were not by any means "regular" and a big public brouha occured because of it, with parishoners loyal to Church teachings and policies complaining the loudest (for understandable reasons.)
Obviously, O'Malleyhad to draw the line, even if it meant killing a long treasured local agency. Another part of the storm was that it came on the tail end of the pedophile scandal (which hit Boston the hardest) and this surely weakened the new Archbishop's position. Adding to that was the outrageous timidity and political cowardice of both Speaker and (former) President of the State Senate, both of whom are Catholics and had the galling nerve to list membership in the Knights of Columbus on their official websites.
Obama's right: the devil's in the details and sometimes walks the halls of state houses and Congress. He says FBOs "want a level playing field," but he doesn't admit that he knows they'll be the first to say that'd be a pipe dream with an Obama administration in charge.
If faith based organizations want to marry themselves financially with an Obama administration, they'd better damn well get themselves a pre-nup. Otherwise they'll not only lose their virginity, but they'll wake up one morning to discover that their new hubby just morphed into a combination of Peter the Great and Henry VIII.
Church/state working relationships can produce wonderful things, but only if the playing field is indeed "level" as Obama said. But Catholics, in particular, need only point to the Blaine Amendment to prove how uneven the playing field's been in this country for at least a century.
When FDR reminded his good friend Henry Morganthau that the US was "a Protestant country" he wasn't kidding then and would still be on the mark today. But soon it won't even be Protestant or anything. Religious demography is not the problem. It's the hidden agenda of anti-religious bigotry that's below the surface which bears serious watching.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by Smooth Political