Don't get me wrong, I like Rick Warren. Among the evangelists he is clearly the classiest act. Nevertheless, the forum at Saddleback, while more interesting than a lot of the debates, made me uneasy.

There are a lot of reasons for my unease, other than my own agnosticism. While I believe morality is the essence of good government, the notion of putting religious "faith" on display in a campaign is an invitation to demagoguery.

Here are my concerns.

1. Quizzing a candidate on "faith" (as opposed to morality) invites a skillful candidate to exaggerate his or her own religious beliefs and adherence. If one doesn't, one loses the support of the questioner. But the test is a false test because the least sincere will do the most exaggerating. I think back to John Edwards' stellar performances in previous "faith" forums. He could pass for a preacher, but was actually a narcisistic liar, who, for all we know, may have lied about his faith too.
2. The faith groups tend to use litmus tests which may not actually be related to "faith." For example, atheists may oppose abortion because they think it is wrong or immoral. And I know a lot of people of "faith" who believe that, on balance, choice is the most moral way to go. But in a faith forum, candidates are invited, almost required, to pander. I had a sense that Obama was dying a thousand deaths when he said that a "marriage is between a man and a woman." That is his official position, and the church crowd erupted in applause, but why is it necessary, and it is, for a candidate to say something mildly bigoted to avoid certain defeat.
3. There is no demand by these groups for consistency or any lifelong commitment to good deeds. John McCain, at Saddleback, returned to one event his life over and over -- the bravery he showed in Vietnam. He glossed over, as quickly as he could, his utterly immoral behavior toward his first wife and wasn't ever asked to comment on his lifelong devotion to war and his consistent opposition anti-poverty initiatives. Nor was he questioned about his ethical misdeeds going back to the 1980's.
4. Obama pandered on several issues and was carefully forthcoming on his youthful indiscretions. But at no time did Reverend Rick give Obama the chance to describe his real moral compass as illustrated in selfless activism in Chicago and support for programs to help the poor.

Polls show that between 10 and 20 percent of Americans are devout non-believers. And there is zero correlation between faith in a supreme being, and morality.

My own notion of morality is centered on my deepest beliefs in fairness, opportunity, caring for the least among us, being responsible for our neighbors' problems, being faithful in marriage, taking care of our children, preserving our environment, and peace.

All of these virtues are mentioned and endorsed in the Bible and other religious texts. But they need not be based on "faith." For me, they are based on a civilized sense of goodness and decency.

When it comes to candidates, I don't want to hear self-righteous pronouncements of "faith." I want to hear how they are going to use their sought after positions to do good deeds.

John,

While I don't disagree with your points, Barack Obama had two good reasons to appear in a forum sponsored by Pastor Rick Warren. It helped to counter the whispering campaign that Obama is not a Christian. In an ideal world candidates would be judged by their actions and not by what they profess, as you say, but Obama is justified in making some accommodation with realpolitik.

The other reason for appearing in that forum is that no Democratic candidate should cede the conservative evangelical Christian vote to the Republicans. These voters have three good reasons to be deeply dissatisfied with the GOP. First and foremost is the Iraq War. From a Christian perspective, unjustified wars are evil. Period.

The second sin of the Republican administration is its blatant disregard for human dignity. Jesus Christ was tortured to death by Roman imperialists. In the name of the American imperium, our soldiers at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have been ordered to torture prisoners, some of whom have been tortured to death. BTW, the relative silence of the Christian churches in this country on this issue is shameful.

The third reason that conservative evangelical Christians should reject the Republicans is that their support of the GOP puts them in the company of another block of GOP supporters, the powerful and corrupt who mock Christian values. This doesn't mean that the hands of the Democrats are clean, but at least they make an attempt at restraining the worst excesses of the powerful and corrupt.

Speaking as a Christian, the choice in politics seems to come down to a choice between moving towards love and charity or moving towards fear and greed. In that light, conservative evangelical Christians should seriously reassess their traditional political alignment.

pwoxby;

I totally agree that Obama needed to do this. But speaking as an agnostic, there is no Christian monopoly on love and charity. That is the distinction between "faith" and morality I believe must be understood. Religion may be the source of morality for some, but many others do not need to believe in a well defined religious doctrine in order to accept the same notions and imperatives of decency.

John

"But speaking as an agnostic, there is no Christian monopoly on love and charity."

And if Barack Obama is invited to a forum of agnostics, I'm sure that he will keep that in mind. ;)

Hey Pwoxby;

You wrote:

And if Barack Obama is invited to a forum of agnostics, I'm sure that he will keep that in mind. ;)

That sounds like a crack. I hope it wasn't since I respect you.

As I said I don't fault Obama for doing the forum. The sad thing is that it is mandatory for him to do so to win and forums such as these encourage litmus tests unrelated to morality. Why aren't there forums based on morality and charity that are not tied to religious doctrine? Nevertheless, I would have advised him, of, course, to do the forum.

But here's the rub -- non-believers are the most ridiculed citizens though often some of the most virtuous. And historically, some of the worst hate crimes have been commited in the name of religion. The Klan itself was faith based initiative, to name one of thousands. The anti-gay movement is supposedly Christian, although it is based on bigotry and ignorance. Biblical literalists have been known to oppose civil rights, anti-poverty programs, and even peaceful settlements of disputes. Religion is not a substitute for decency, although it may have a positive effect for millions of people.

No non-believer could honestly run for high office in America because of the bigotry of some faithful. In this day of so-called tolerance for for Mormonism, Catholicism, and the Jewish faith, there is zero tolerance for people who believe in principles shared by these religions but that are not based on a belief in a spiritual command.

There should be respect for all approaches to moral philosophy and not merely for those who accept doctrinal or spiritual imperatives. There is nothing so self-righteous as a person, whether religious or not, who claims that morality can only flow from one's own beliefs. In my case, I don't spend a moment of time questioning a religious person's correctness in accepting things on faith. It is simply not my own approach.

Nor is there any difference whatseover between a Christian ridiculing a Muslim or a Jew, which few Christians would, and taking the same approach toward a non-believer. It is highly offensive.

John

pwoxby:

"But speaking as an agnostic, there is no Christian monopoly on love and charity."

And if Barack Obama is invited to a forum of agnostics, I'm sure that he will keep that in mind. ;)

This is one of my problems with a Christian themed debate:

First, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. And second, what about other faiths? Islam, Judaism, non-religious people?

Regradless, I understand that in this society at this time, politicians have to pander to the religious right

@ tubbs:

"First, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country."

This is a common misconception. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

The words are clear and unambiguous. The framers did not specify that church and state be separate because that concept is way too vague to be of much practical significance.

"And second, what about other faiths? Islam, Judaism, non-religious people?"

What about them? Politics is a marketplace of ideas. Our constitutional right to free speech and religion means that there is no religious barrier to this marketplace. Indeed, there are 13 Jewish U.S. Senators who can testify to the openness of our political marketplace. <link>

Some people are of the view that religious believers should check their beliefs at the door of a political forum. That is preposterous. Some of this seems to come from the bigoted view that believers are necessarily intolerant. Well, every single member of the Democratic senatorial caucus reports a religious affiliation.

"Regradless, I understand that in this society at this time, politicians have to pander to the religious right"

Not at all. Barack Obama doesn't have to pander to the religious right and I don't think that he did at Rick Warren's forum. But both the religious right and the religious left have more in common with each other than they do with the powerful and corrupt interests that really run this country.

A radical political realignment is necessary to marginalize
the powerful and corrupt interests that are dragging our nation down. An alliance between the religious right and left would catalyze this realignment and Obama's appearance at Rick Warren's forum suggests that he understands this.

@ john:

It may interest you to know that my favorite poem has always been "Abu Ben Adhem" by Leigh Hunt <link>

Up until 15 years ago I was an agnostic, as yourself. Raised a Catholic, I took solace for my apostasy in Hunt's poem. Then I had what is best described, long story short, as a "road to Damascus" experience.

Unfortunately, that experience has only made God's ways even more mysterious to me. The gap between Christianity in theory and Christianity in practice is wide enough to fit the Grand Canyon in. The engineer in me screams in frustration at gaps that wide between theory and practice.

So when you observed that Christians do not have a monopoly on love and charity it rubbed a raw nerve. Yes, John, I know that. The good news is that I gritted my teeth and actually pulled my punch. Out of Christian love and charity, of course. [Bitter self-irony. I know I'm no saint.]

The British actor Alec Guinness once spent some time in a monastery. When asked what was most trying about the monastic life, he replied "other monks". No doubt those other monks would say the same. That is the irony of Christianity. The evidence that it makes people any better is thin.

What does make people better is conformity to social norms. It is this point that has transfixed the Christian right. The power of the state is a great tool for enforcing social conformity. But that has little to do with Christianity as I understand it.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. No hard feelings here, and I apologize for the offense given.

YOu continue to show the rest of us what a real top post is made of and how to explain one's position with class, dignity and devastating logic. You are the man...

john adkisson:

Polls show that between 10 and 20 percent of Americans are devout non-believers. And there is zero correlation between faith in a supreme being, and morality.

That's a nice sentiment, but ultimately you're imposing what is moralin your eyes onto everyone else - which is essentially what you're accusing Warren of doing.

The "Greatest" commandments of the New Testament go as such (paraphrased):

1. Love God
2. Love everyone else.

By my reading of the Bible, I happen to arrive at essentially the same conclusions you do. But, for Evangelicals or other Augustinian types, you cannot be (fully) moral if you don't love God, so to demand that they should accept non-Christians under their moral code is as though they are demanding you to accept their opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion as in line with your own.

Colage;

Point well made. What I meant was that the notion of morallity or justice does not necessarily flow from a fountain of faith. It may be inspired in part by writings in the Bilble or other the great reliegious tests, but may also be inspired by great literature or human experience. Sometimes I think that the rawest forms of morality are easily tappable in us all, which gives my a slightly spiritual sense.

But I don't believe that my notions of virtue or morality are the same that others should hold. I would appreciate a forum in which a person of the talents and sensitivity of a Rick Warren would ask the candidate about their moral character and times when that has been tested. But more, I would like to hear what good and sensible deeds, what renewed decency and justice, the candidate envisions is possible if he is elected.

I believe Agnostics could find common ground on all but the certainty of an after life. What is right on earth is consistent with there being true and powerful creator, but may also grow from a flower of secular thought and a good heart.

John

pwoxby;

No offense taken from a friend. I clicked the link and the poem is very lovely. It's a keeper.

I too was raised Catholic and left it before I had given up on the belief that Jesus was, in fact, the redeemer. That particular confrontation within myself occurred through reading and comparing writers some of whom had for centuries written about their faith journies, while others had written of their doubt journeys.

I concluded, that to follow a faith journey I must disconnect the logical function from my brain for a nanosecond, and allow a deeper spiritual truth to quickly enter. After that, it would become all clear.

But challenges in my own personality have always prevented me from making this leap of faith, as it is described:

1. I know very little about anything because I am a mere human. Were I a cat I would presumably know even less, and a dandelion, less still. I wonder how the dandelion perceives the metaphysical realities that would explain life. Is it even capable of sensing there is question? My best guess is no--they do't have a clue.
2. Humans are to to knowledge of their origins and destiny, as dandelions are to knowing when they will blow away. It is humility that causes me to admit that I do not understand the great questions any more than the dandelion knows why its own life is sadly short.
3. Given my accepted ignorance about nearly every single important fact about time, space, randomness, and luck, I cling to my only intellectual gift: the simplest level of logic. Even basic observations in life "I see a tree" are inherently imperfect beliefs because illusions are just as possible as a functoning eye.
4. However, if I am going to think of myself as a lay scientist, who comes to conclusions based solely on observation and repetition, I allow myself this compromise and admit that I do, in fact, see that tree. I can check my preceptions against others' and conclude that if I keep walking toward that thing I'm gong to run into a tree.
5. Personal life requires some leaps of faith. When it comes to marriage, the faith in your spouse is a bit of crap shoot since your partner could dump you as soon as you became disabled and too old (McCain's first wife). But without love, the days are merely annoying ticks and tocks. So you trust.
6. Knowledge about the earth itself requires some leaps of faith. HISTORY. Who can we be sure that the history we read in books is accurate. Nevertheless, through multiple sourcing, and trust in highly reputable historians, I have given myself permission to compromise on the things I can check out through reliable sources or observe myself.
7. No one other than an trained airplane passenger can possibly understand how the plane flies. But I fly once a week.

So, I am not hopeless as a romantic and I have the courage to face death without knowing a single thing about what awaits me, if anything at all. The world is under my meager influence for one brief time -- let it be a vessel filled with hope, love, charity, justice, equality, fairness, and peace.

Among Republican senators, an invitation to the party's convention next month in Minneapolis might just be the easiest ticket to score in town.

Amid news several Senate Republicans have already backed out of attending the quadannual event, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman made clear Monday he wouldn't attend either — if the convention was anywhere else but his backyard.

Watch: Convention conundrum

"The colleagues who don't come are staying at home only because they have tough races," the embattled senator told Minnesota Public Radio. "If the convention wasn't in St. Paul, I wouldn't be at the convention,"

Coleman, like many of his colleagues who have opted not to make the trip to Minnesota, faces a tough re-election battle this fall and may be wary of tying himself to the unpopular GOP brand.

Coleman's rivals are slamming the comments.

"Senator Coleman must think Minnesotans haven't noticed that he has made his political career off the Republican label and willingly hitched his star to George W. Bush," Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
Chair Brian Melendez said in a statement.

Coleman's comments come only days after Pat Roberts, the two-term senator from Kansas and former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, announced he's skipping the convention to instead focus on his tougher-than-expected reelection bid.

Earlier: Another Republican senator skipping convention

A handful of of other vulnerable Senate Republicans have flatly said they will not attend, including Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Ted Stevens of Alaska, and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina.

Two other vulnerable Republicans — New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu and Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker — have yet to announce their convention plans.

1. Now we trn to the next step. And it is a magnificently long and steep step. Aleap from which my brain would leave behinds its very faculties to judge whether something is true. And it is about the most unknowable thing we know to challenge: is there a supreme being?; if so, what form does it take?; how and when did this being come into being?; how were humans evolved and are in some sense chosen, by that I mean watched over, saved, and redeemed?
2. That's the part of faith millions of American have trouble with -- not with moral goodness part. Agnostics need to be brought into the center of society so that their ideas and rationales can weighed against the ideas and rationales of the faithful.
3. But first we have to be allowed an equal footing in th epolitical dialogue.

John,

Before I studied engineering, I was on track to be a scientist. Two years of a university chemistry program threatened to kill whatever intellectual curiosity I had, so I took an easy degree to earn a living. But I have devoted a good chunk of my life to addressing Pilate's famous epistemological question: What is truth?

The logicians Russell and Whitehead tackled this question head on with their monumental work Principia Mathematica (1913). Out of respect for this endeavor, I named my son Russell. Godel showed in 1931 that, in a sense, the Principia was a monumental failure. Truth is beyond the grasp of the human mind. But I didn't name my son Kurt. Striving for a truth that we know is beyond our grasp is a supremely noble activity.

It is with this in mind that I say that I am deeply respectful of the honesty and the intellectual humility of the agnostic position. The ways of God, whom I have good reason to believe in, are more than just mysterious to me. They are a source of some frustration, though not on par with Job by any means. I am not particularly fond of poetry, but I keep another poem, which you are no doubt familiar with, right on my desk. <link>

pwoxby:

@ tubbs:

"First, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country."

This is a common misconception. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

The words are clear and unambiguous. The framers did not specify that church and state be separate because that concept is way too vague to be of much practical significance.

Good post pwoxby and true to a degree, however, Thomas Jefferson clarified his interpretation of the First Amendment in an 1802 Letter to Danbury Baptists, in which he said:

<link>

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

That said, the First amendment in its plain language is the law of the land, not a letter to Danbury Baptists.

I appreciate this thread. It's a nice retreat from the cesspool that the Fray has turned into.

Best, tubbs

Pwoxby;

I know we respect each other's point of view. That's a good start.

But back to my lament. America does not respect my point of view -- only yours. While we might elect a Protestant, a Catholic, a Mormon, a Jew, a woman, or a non-caucasian -- we are decades away from electing a gay or a non-believer who shares each and every moral perspective with the best of these.

That's the point progressive Christians need to understand. Until we are intellectually secure enough to fully look at the person and not judge by religion, gender, orientation, or race -- which we obviously are not -- we are not a free society with equal opportunity. We remain, in part, a society dominated by prejudice.