Comments on: The Weekend That Evangelicals Got The Spotlight They Crave So

By: Doug King

Doug King — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:05:22 +0000

Abraham Lincoln was said to have been approached by a group of ministers who asked him to remove Grant as a General because of his drinking. Lincoln replied, “I can’t spare the man — he fights.” Another version of the story has Lincoln reply, “I wish I knew what whiskey he drinks: I would send a cask to some other generals.”

Those well-meaning ministers had no clue about what it takes to win a war.

Fable or fact, the story illustrates an important point: What qualifies someone for a tough job is experience, talent, and grit to do difficult things, NOT personal compatibilities. When I climb on an airplane or go in for surgery, I don’t fret over the race or gender or religion of the pilot or surgeon. I don’t worry if my lawyer or financial adviser is a vegetarian or owns a dog or donates to a certain charity. What matters is experience and ability to do the job well.

All this fuss over theology is irrelevant. And it’s making a lot of otherwise good people look silly and prejudiced. They seemingly struggle to trust someone not exactly to their liking, and yet they expect the rest of us Americans (who differ from them) to trust only one of their kind.

By: jmh

jmh — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:49:15 +0000

I remain disheartened by the extent that religous qualifications for elected office have become the norm in this election cycle. Relgious affiliation ( or even lack thereof) has never been an indicator of character. Even though some of the questions at the Saddleback forum may have been insightful, it still seemed to me to be an exercise in religous pandering, and gives far too much power and visiblity to voters( and leaders) of a particular religous stripe.
I do not understand for the life of me, why Evangelical Christians are deserving of special favors. Just imagine how an invitation for these same candidates to participate in a forum held at the LDS tabernacle in Salt Lake, moderated by a leader of that church, would be received.
I did find it interesting that Rick Warren, prefacing one of his questions said – paraphrasing here- that leaders are not stubborn, and sometimes they change their position based on new information, this is not flip-flopping, but is growth based on new insight….
A bit of common sense that should be apparent
However, perhaps this can be used to once and for all put an end to the ridiculous flip-flopping charge that is always aimed at Rommney ( as if he was the only candidate to have changed positions!!)
Of course,that would mean that the religous bigots out there will have to find another meme to make sure that Mormons need not apply.

By: Lori

Lori — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:14:49 +0000

Warren surprised me with that answer. It was very polarizing pitting Evangelicals against Mormons, calling Mormons trinity deniars and believing in unorthodox scripture. He even pitted most major Christian religions against Mormons. It was not very good answer from someone who should value religious freedom.

Furthermore, that his answer was theological as you stated tells you he is one of those anti-Mormon Evangelicals. What he should have said is that “we have work to do among our own to eliminate the bias against those who do not believe in our faith.”

But he holds this bias himself and sees nothing wrong with it. He was on Sean Hannity’s radio show today decrying Black Liberation Theology in terms harsher than those he used against Mormonism. I doubt he can overlook a person’s faith and cast a religion neutral vote.

My opinion of Warren has been greatly diminished over the past couple of days.

By: K.G.

K.G. — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:19:18 +0000

I have a question if anybody know the answer: What would have happened if a Mormon had been one of the two candidates? Would he/she have been invited to participate at Saddleback? I’ve heard Mormons are allowed to sign up for their pastor-training classes. However, would they have been allowed to speak in Saturday’s format or as a guest speaker as I believe both Hillary and Obama have done in the past?

Would Saddleback members have picketed with placards, etc if a Mormon were allowed to speak on the campus?

By: fitzwdarcey

fitzwdarcey — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:36:52 +0000

So, should I take from this that an individual must have a demonstrated belief in the trinity to be elected to executive office? I think Thomas Jefferson, who thought the Nicean Creed was nonsense and who did not believe in the trinity or the entire old and new testament would find that interesting as would others.
I have tried with some effort to understand why some evangelicals would be “nervous” about how a faith they don’t understand and think so poorly of might affect a person’s actions. However, when it comes down to it, not one has been able to show me a reasonable reason for that position. Not once!! Clearing the evangelical test is no indication of being a good conservative or a good president (Jimmy Carter). Not clearing it has yet to indicate a failure to do well serving one’s nation. It really is starting to look like a lot of make up to hide stubborn ugly bias and bigotry.
As they sing in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, “we don’t like what we don’t understand; in fact it scares us.” I think there will be just enough doubt raised that McCain won’t pick Romney for fear of hurting the ticket and evangelicals will, once again, feel that they are the kingmakers; possibly at the expense of more capable government.