The event reflects the importance of religion in American life and, increasingly, in politics. It also marks the coming of age of a broader brand of evangelicalism that is more socially minded and more diverse than the orthodox religious movement of the Christian right.
The two candidates have been lobbing long-distance attacks at each other for weeks now, but any encounter in person here that is less than cordial would come as a surprise. This is not a debate with partisans cheering from the sidelines; it is a sanctuary. Game face is not only not required, it is discouraged.
Mr. Warren, who personally arranged the meeting through cellphone calls to the candidates, both of whom he knows, said in a statement that his conversations would focus on how they make decisions and what kind of leaders they would be.
“Leadership involves far more than promoting programs and making speeches, and since no one can predict what crises will happen over the next four years, it is vital to know the decision capacity and process of each man,” he said. He also said he wanted to avoid “partisan ”˜gotcha’ questions that typically produce heat instead of light.”
Both Senators expressed contrition for their sins and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord. That is sufficient for me to know that they are Christians – no better or worse compared to each other or to me. I preferred Barack Obama for the humility of his answer on when human rights begin – that the answer was “above his pay grade.” Bravo for avoiding McCain’s hubris in presuming to know the mind of God on the same subject.
I highly doubt that anything could be said in such a debate which overcomes the known record of either individual.
I’m not listening to talk – I research prior actions. I think it the highest of foolishness to vote for a president based on what he says.
Don
Agree with Don.
I’m voting by actions from the past — didn’t watch the forum, don’t care a bit about what what was said.
Neither candidate has a good record in accord with the values, principles, and foundational worldview that I hold, so the hunt is on for whom I will vote.
One note:
[blockquote] Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,†Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.†[/blockquote]
I think the reasonable question of a voter is that when a polititian takes on a high office in government and swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States, upon whom does this protection fall?
That answer seems to be above either of their “pay grades”.
God help us.
Don
I agree with DonGander. Sen. Obama feigned humility then presented his own beliefs. Pro-choice has the effect of saying that, no the fetus will not have the rights of a human person. What’s scary is that John McCain says that life begins at conception but we will be experimenting on these nascent human beings anyway in stem cell research.
GetReligion is doing a good job reviewing coverage of this event, including (in several posts), the media theme that young evangelical have “moved beyond” the hot-button issues of abortion and same-sex marriage and are “up for grabs” in the election.
The for “a higher pay grade” was cute but creates an ethical problem. If Senator Obama doesn’t know when life begins and human rights are endowed, by his own admission, he may be abetting murder in the destruction of fetuses. Would it not be better on this day to choose life? There are also “gray areas” about when life ends, are we then allowed to destroy these “once human beings” at the end of their life (as we can those at the begining of theirs) because it is up to a higher pay grade to determine if they are human and have rights?
#6 – the problem is – empirically – people think differently. Smart people disagree when life begins. Obama knows this, and respects both the liberal and conservative perspective.
Dave,
You can bet that Obama will indeed be allowing destruction of life on both ends of the cycle. I do feel very badly about McCain’s stance on embryonic stem cell research, but just to get it in perspective, (clarification is always necessary with this topic in media discussions), embryonic stem cell research is of course, already legal. The change this will make is that legislation will likely go through that will allow for federal funding. That is the travesty that G. W. (most nobly) has kept at bay.
John, yes smart people disagree so I will choose life this day since neither Senator Obama or I know when life begins. Will you choose life? CofS I agree. Blood cells and embreyonic fluid cells have had much great sucess than stem cells.
Adult stem cells have had some success also, without the ethical concerns.
We have avoided the question of when life begins for 35 years now, so it’s no surprise Senator Obama does a sidestep. In fact, he opposed a law in Illinois that would have protected the lives of babies born alive from an attempted abortion, which completely negates any moral authority he has to do the sidestep. He has already subordinated the issue of human life to the exigencies of difficult life decisions. It’s precious by half to claim now a sort of ontological agnosticism when he has acted so clearly and directly as a legislator and, now, a candidate for leadership.
#10 CNN did an interview with Obama immediately following his time with Warren. In it, he was given the opportunity to clarify that particular issue to which you refer. It is a complete distortion of what actually occurred and Obama rightly decried those who wilfully distort (in a word, “lie” about) his record and others who unwittingly perpetrate that distortion by doing nothing more than taking the word of those who have a vested interest in defeating him. We’ve had enough of that kind of politics in this country’s recent history, wouldn’t you agree?
Makersmarc, I entirely agree. For eight years, conservatives felt free to say any foul think they could think of against President Clinton, and for the past eight years, liberals have done the same to President Bush. I’m tired of it and ready for some facts.
Perhaps you can provide a link to Senator Obama’s comments. Do they contradict this?
The bill is the “Induced Infant Liability Act”. Senator Obama says he voted against it becuase it would undermine Roe v Wade. Other people say it is the same as or very similar to the current federal law. OSenator Obama voted against it three times. I guess little babies struggling for life aren’t on his list of the least of these.
nfant liability act
These comments by Sen. Obama were posted on another blog. If they are interesting, except that the Illinois bill was, purportedly, amended to read exactly like the federal law. If that is not true, then a comparison of the texts would be appropriate.
[blockquote] “Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say —that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.†[/blockquote]
OK, took me a while, but I found the video link. I said it was CNN, but it is actually an interview with David Brody of CBN (although I’m pretty sure I SAW it on CNN.) What you quote from “another blog”, #14, is taken directly from that interview, although not in its full context. (Even so, I think the last sentence of #13 is an example of the kind of distortion that Obama is talking about. I refer you again to the comment at #7 about Obama *respecting* the views of both positions.) The link below provides the video clip as well as a transcription.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429313.aspx
#15
Obama is a liar.
The text of the IL bill is [url=http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session;=]here[/url]. It is [b]virtually identical[/b] to the Federal bill which is available [url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2175]here[/url].
Doing the comparisons yourselves will take less than 5 minutes — both bills are quite short. Be sure to click on the “amendment” link on the Illinois page — the bill was amended to make it more like the federal bill before it died.
I am very hesitant to call someone (especially someone I’ve never met) a “liar” but it seems to fit in this case.
#16 The exact same can be said of McCain, so where does that leave us? Politics as usual and everyone loses.
Except McCain didn’t lie about abbetting the death of children!
Well, I listened to the interview. If the bills are, as St. Cuervo states, virtually then Sen. Obama is lying; he was acting not in the interest of new-born children, but in the interests of the abortion lobby, which does, after all, give him highest marks.
#17 seems to admit that and justify it by “so’s John McCain”. I’m sure that’s not what you meant to write, Makersmarc.
#17
What do you propose then? Your “tu quoque” response does little to advance the dialogue.
In post #11 you said that the Right to Life critique was a “complete distortion of what actually occurred” and a “lie.” You also complained about those “who unwittingly perpetrate that distortion by doing nothing more than taking the word of those who have a vested interest in defeating him.”
I did what you asked. Rather than taking someone else’s word on the issue, I looked up both bills, read them, and then posted the links for all to see. Obama is very clearly lying. That is not a charge I make lightly. Take 10 minutes and review my links. I doubt there are 10 words that are different between the (amended) Illinois bill and the federal bill.
I don’t doubt that McCain has also lied about some issues. For the record I haven’t decided who to vote for yet: I have severe reservations about both and I may end up staying home. But Obama is positioning himself to religious voters as the candidate
who can take us “beyond abortion.” His record on the Born Alive Act belies that. I hesitate to call him “pro-abortion” but he is clearly a very strong “pro-choice” vote.
Well, that was kind of my point, #20 (and #19) – little is advanced by playing the soap opera “he-said-he-said, he’s-a-liar-well-he’s-a-bigger-liar game.” I was just pointing it out. I can’t move us beyond it because I’m not one of the candidates, unless getting us to use something other than an assumption of deceit or a conflated extrapolation like the last sentence of #13 is accomplished.
#21 Makersmarc
Neither of us are candidates, of course, but we can still do our , as fellow citizens, to move beyond the games.
In your post #11, you accused anti-abortion folks of “complete distortion” and “lying.” You also said Obama “rightly decried” the attacks against his record. And you then suggest that these kind of attacks (from the right) are something we need to move beyond.
I posted a very simple reply that shows that the pro-life folks were probably correct in their critiques of Obama and that Obama was actually obfusticating (if not out-right lying).
Will you, in the interest of ending the political games and moving us beyond empty “he-said-he-said, he’s-a-liar-well-he’s-a-bigger-liar game,” retract the comments you made in post #11? In this case, you have it in your power to “end the games.”
Alternatively, you can show me how my comparison of the IL and federal bills is wrong and I will retract my accusation in post #16 that Obama is a liar. If you can convince me that my comparison is wrong I will use my power to “end the game.”
But, as it is, the ball is in your court.
I did say that, “It is a complete distortion of what actually occurred…” What I will admit is that I should have said more clearly that *Obama* was calling it a complete distortion because I hadn’t actually looked at the bill itself, but I thought that’s what providing the link and transcript indicated. Further, I didn’t call anyone a liar at that point, but again was commenting on the contents of the video/transcript in which, as I said, “Obama [i.e. not me] rightly decried those who wilfully distort (in a word, “lie†about) his record…” I’ll admit again that my own thoughts about this were far broader than just the video because McCain’s campaign has just gone nuts on distorting Obama’s record, though, because the context of the comment was relating to the video, I can see where that was not clear. Regardless, I hadn’t called anyone a liar until the point was made that BOTH candidates engage in it. So, no, there is nothing for me to retract.
Besides, obfuscating and lying are two different things and in #16 you flat out called Obama a liar. I appreciate your engagement, but at the moment, it’s time to get my kids in bed, so going over the variations of bill in question word-for-word isn’t something I’m going to do right now; besides, I doubt seriously I could convince you of anything, and I’m not really trying to, other than to say if a candidate’s truth-telling is what is at issue here, then it is worth a hard look at BOTH candidates.
[blockquote] “Obama [i.e. not me] rightly decried those who wilfully distort (in a word, “lie†about) his record…†[/blockquote]
But two things to note here: 1) you conclude that Obama was in the “right” and 2) you assert that “others” “willfully distort”/”in a word, lie” about his record.
So in your post #11, you [b]did[/b] claim that these “others” “lie(d).” You even use the word “lie.” But in #23 we get: “I hadn’t called anyone a liar until the point was made that BOTH candidates engage in it.” That is oure revisionism because I didn’t post calling Obama a liar until #16 but you smeared “others” in post #11.
Now who are the “others” you were refering to? It is hard to say exactly, but studying your post you seem to be refering to pro-lifers. As a pro-lifer, I objected to you calling my people “liars” who “willfully distort” Obama’s record. As you requested, I did my own research (#16) to prove that Obama was in the wrong in this case. You responded with a ‘tu quoque’ argument (google “tu quoque” or “logical fallacies” to see what the error is with this kind of response). I pressed you for a retraction, but now you say there is nothing to retract.
Go back to your post #11: you very clearly say that “others” “in a word ‘lie'” about Obama’s record on the Born Alive act. That statement is false. You can retract it. If you really want to ‘move beyond politics as usual’ you will retract it. Otherwise you and I are just exchanging talking points….
St. Cuervo, thank you for what you did on this thread — fine fine work.
[blockquote] St. Cuervo, thank you for what you did on this thread—fine fine work. [/blockquote]
… except for the typos…
“His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman”
I knoew this thread is old but I think it is improtant that the record shows Senator Obama’s campaign now admits that the language in the two bills is the same. the article is in the New York Sun (The New York Sun)
Here is the link to the article. http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/
#27/28
I agree that it is important to note that Senator Obama’s campaign now admits he mis-spoke. In charity, Obama may not have been lying — legislation is complicated and he may not have remembered the events clearly…
… but I don’t know.
I’m sorry that Makersmarc hasn’t returned to the thread to post anymore of his or her thoughts. Though I do see a deep irony in the second half of this thread that began with the complaint in #11 that we were “doing nothing more than taking the word of those who have a vested interest” in one side or the other. The person who posted those words seems to have no interest in considering the evidence at all and that makes me sad because I do have an interest in moving beyond “politics as usual” but not at the cost of my values (or reason).
I think what Makersmarc didn’t get is that, for some of us: 1) a lie about abortion policy is pretty serious and 2) to say that we should keep our current regime of abortion-on-demand but make some extra money available for birth control and adoption sounds less like “moying beyond the problem” and more like “wholesale capitulation.”
“Safe, legal, and rare” types of arguments, and “moving beyond the problem” strategies fall apart when you ask the obvious (to me) question: What other form of murder would you keep legal while trying your strategies to make the murder “safe” (think about that) and rare.