Posted 1 year, 3 months ago in 
Loading ...
I am writing to state that I strongly disagree with Kathleen Parker’s column in the Aug. 21st edition of The Daily Sentinel. Since when is it morally, and constitutionally wrong for an evangelical pastor to be involved in learning what the various candidates believe? I learned a good deal more about each of the candidates through Rick Warren’s event than I had ever learned by watching the network TV programs.
I think Rick Warren did an outstanding and fair job of asking the questions of each candidate, and to claim it is unconstitutional and wrong of him to ask questions such as he did, is, in my opinion,
completely wrong. I believe the answers to the questions he asked were not only fair, but much needed. I usually agree with most of what Kathleen Parker writes, but not this time.
JAMES C. SPARKS
Grand Junction
25 Responses to “There is a lot to be learned from Warren’s event”
Posted August 22nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whatever happened to religion being a personal matter? How about there should be no religious test for office? That doesn’t just mean something imposed by government but it should be for individuals as well. If a candidate chooses to divulge his religious beliefs, so be it. But in this case, if either Obama or McCain had chosen to not participate with Warren, what kind of inquisiton would he be put through by the religious zealots? Warren asked some good questions that ought to have been asked without the religious ones thrown in.
Posted August 23rd, 2008 at 8:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Whatever happened to religion being a personal matter?” Now days if you decide to be a public figure you give up your privacy. In many ways I think that it is unfortunate, but that is the way it is.
“How about there should be no religious test for office? That doesn’t just mean something imposed by government but it should be for individuals as well.” You mean kind of a Big Brother group think maybe? How about if Big Brother sends us ballots that are filled out and we just have to sign and return them? How intrusive do you think he should be? If people want to use that information in their decision process that is their choice, and to imply that there is something wrong or immoral about it is somewhat disturbing.
Posted August 23rd, 2008 at 8:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Whatever happened to religion being a personal matter? How about there should be no religious test for office? That doesn’t just mean something imposed by government but it should be for individuals as well.” So now you think that the government should tell us how to think and make decisions? Kind of a Big Brother theory. How about if Big Brother sends us ballots already filled out and we just sign and mail them in? How intrusive do you want the government.
People use religion, race, gender, age, appearance, health, criminal history, etc. for deciding on candidates. To imply that it is the wrong or right way to do it is somewhat disturbing.
Posted August 23rd, 2008 at 9:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Whatever happened to religion being a personal matter? How about there should be no religious test for office?”
The questions that were asked did not include the religious affiliation of either candidate. Neither was asked whether they believed in God. They could both be atheists and the questions would have been perfectly reasonable.
Posted August 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: People use religion, race, gender, age, appearance, health, criminal history, etc. for deciding on candidates. To imply that it is the wrong or right way to do it is somewhat disturbing.
What is disturbing to me is that you apparently see nothing wrong with people using such things as race or gender for deciding on candidates. Of course some people do it. People also steal and lie.
Posted August 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan posted: “People use religion, race, gender, age, appearance, health, criminal history, etc. for deciding on candidates. To imply that it is the wrong or right way to do it is somewhat disturbing.”
The fact that people do it does not make it in any way either right or acceptable. All it means is that they know no better.
As far as making decisions is concerned, far too many individuals do not realize that most of the decisions they make are not reasonable or rational. They are (except withing a very narrow sphere) based upon emotion. They then look around for reasons to rationalize the decision already made. All the individual has to do is examine how he/she makes most of his/her decisions. We would all like to believe otherwise, but such is just not the case.
Posted August 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Sparks fails to recognize a core issue with his statement: “I think Rick Warren did an outstanding and fair job of asking the questions of each candidate, and to claim it is unconstitutional and wrong of him to ask questions such as he did, is, in my opinion,
completely wrong.”
If Mr. Warren was asking the questions as a citizen, he has as much right as any other citizen to ask any question as does any other citizen. However, if he was asking as pastor of a Christian denomination, he was wrong. For there, he was not acting as a citizen, but in another role entirely.
While many cannot, or simply will not, accept or make such a distinction, that is a failure on the part of the individual for not being able to recognize the difference first, in their own minds.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 7:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s in our nature, I think, to choose someone for office that’s reflective of our core beliefs. However, I like this quote attributed to Martin Luther: “I would rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.” I think a lot of Southern Baptists rue the day they voted for Jimmy Carter back in ‘76. I suppose it’s nice to know about a candidates religion, but that alone is not a good indicator of his or her competence to hold office.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
xsbc - About six months after the Supreme Court installed George W. Bush in the White House, a traveling evangelist named Randy Caldwell came to GJ to give a series of sermons at First Assembly of God church.
During one of his “It’s God’s Way of the Highway” sermons, Caldwell screamed something that speaks to what you are saying. He said:
“Our new president may not be the most intelligent man, but he’s a Christian man, and deserves our support.”
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It seems to me that religion, at this point, is McCains’ big problem. His two favorites for veep are both pro-choice and the religious right will abandon him if he chooses either. Romney, the Mormon, will sour the opinion of the Christian fundamentalists, because to many of them, Mormons are heretics.That leaves him with Huckabee (a bible thumper that doesn’t impress the moderates), Juliani (another pro-choice guy), or some little known person. Should be very interesting to see how he chooses.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52 “What is disturbing to me is that you apparently see nothing wrong with people using such things as race or gender for deciding on candidates. Of course some people do it. People also steal and lie.”
Many blacks, who in the past felt disenfranchised, will be motivated to vote for the first time because of having a black candidate. Your hero, Henrietta Hay, was outspoken in her support of Hillary Clinton and made no secret that it was because of her being a woman candidate.
If you want to equate Henrietta Hay and newly energized black voters with thieves and liars, you are right when you say you are a disturbed individual.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 12:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: “Many blacks, who in the past felt disenfranchised, will be motivated to vote for the first time because of having a black candidate. Your hero, Henrietta Hay, was outspoken in her support of Hillary Clinton and made no secret that it was because of her being a woman candidate.
Your assumptions here are just that: assumptions. Do you really believe that Henrietta Hay would vote for Laura Bush for example just because she is a woman? Obviously quite a few other factors come into consideration for most voters. The only truly one issue types appear to me to be those from the religious right.
Sullivan:”… Your hero, Henrietta Hay” Another totally fabricated assumption. Where did you get that idea?
Sullivan: “If you want to equate Henrietta Hay and newly energized black voters with thieves and liars, you are right when you say you are a disturbed individual.” Always fall back on ad hominem attacks when you have no thoughtful responses (seems to be your motto).
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 12:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52 “Sullivan:”… Your hero, Henrietta Hay” Another totally fabricated assumption. Where did you get that idea?”
C52 “Henrietta Hayes who is truly a breath of fresh air in an otherwise gray and dismal landscape” from the A place to vent if you’re as frustrated as I page
H Hay, 6-19-08 “It was 11:15 on June 7, 2008. I had just listened to Hillary’s speech. I felt 50 years old, standing on the steps of the Capitol in Denver listening to Dottie Lamm and Pat Schroeder and others, defending the ERA and saying that — “someday.” This wasn’t the day for Hillary, but she took a giant step for women. In her words, she put 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, and some day a woman will crash through.”
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan, an appreciation of what someone says makes her or him your hero?
Of course Henrietta who is a staunch Democrat and champion of womens rights would support Hillary because she is qualified to be president. Knowing Henrietta, I know that she’ll be just as supportive of Obama. I’m not sure what your point(s) is in #13. Please clarify.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, good questions. For context, C52 had made the statement, “What is disturbing to me is that you apparently see nothing wrong with people using such things as race or gender for deciding on candidates. Of course some people do it. People also steal and lie.” where he is trying to paint me as a racist and/or against equal opportunity for women.
Referring to the hero comment C52 used the term “totally fabricated assumption” which would imply that there is no basis for the statement. While “hero” may be an overstatement C52 has made several references that he is a fan of Henrietta.
Given a choice between Obama and H.Clinton, all other things being equal, Henrietta and some other feminists would vote for Clinton based on gender.
I was trying to point out to C52 that his last statement in post #5 would include some (not all) of previously disenfranchised blacks and feminists. C52, of course, ignores this.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 3:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: C52 “Sullivan:”… Your hero, Henrietta Hay” Another totally fabricated assumption. Where did you get that idea?”
C52 “Henrietta Hayes who is truly a breath of fresh air in an otherwise gray and dismal landscape”
This says more about my impression of the lack of breadth of the columnists that the Sentinel chooses to run than anything else. I enjoy Ms Hay’s columns. Hero? I repeat: fabricated assumption.
Sullivan: “…where he is trying to paint me as a racist and/or against equal opportunity for women.”
What? This is preposterous. I said I found your sentence disturbing. All the rest you dreamed up. Are you browsing or grazing here?
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 6:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I will leave it up to the jury to decide.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 6:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan,
Who are the jurors?
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 7:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba, I think Mr. Caldwell’s sentiments, sadly, reflect the thinking of a lot of evangelicals. I personally think it’s a bad idea to support bad policy from a leader just because he’s a professing Christian.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC - I totally agree with you. One of the reasons evangelicals are so dangerous is that they will vote for those they believe are evangelicals just because they are evangelicals, and for no other reason. They are truly sheep in the voting booth.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 8:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC- Evangelism is not, of course, limited to Christians. In the United States, we have seen evangelism from Krishna followers, Sun Young Moons’ people, Dianetics devotees, and on and on. It can be a dangerous exercise, depending on the relative passion of the perpetrator. I do not believe a persons faith or atheism should be a test for any endeavor.Evangelism deals in “us and them” it separates those who are approved and those who are not. Then, all too often, it proceeds to judge them. Many Christian evangelicals are guilty of this. This is contrary to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
Evangelism is not inherently bad. I know many devotees of various faiths who accept the principal that evangelism by example, not by salesmanship or advertising or institutional extortion, is acceptable. To a person of faith, sharing good news is part of the joy of the faith. Christians call it witnessing. It is good form to be selective about that practice, however.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 10:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, Anyone who wants to be. You could be the chair.
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 10:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No thanks, Sullivan.
I would never volunteer for jury duty.
Posted August 25th, 2008 at 7:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey blubberboy, would you be s kind as to provide a few legal documents to support this claim?
” GJBubba
Posted August 24th, 2008 at 10:04 am PM This User Report this comment
xsbc - About six months after the Supreme Court installed George W. Bush in the White House….”
I think this refers to the problem with the Florida ’supreme court’ that discarded long standing LEGISLATED LAW to inflict their own ‘legislated from the bench’ law that was found by the U.S. Supreme Court to be in error.
In essence, the US court told the Florida court that they should have changed the law BEFORE the election instead of during or after.
Posted August 25th, 2008 at 9:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks, dc; I agree with you whole-heartedly. I don’t think a person’s faith should really determine their fitness to lead our nation. In fact, there are times when it can be a hinderance. I would worry if, for instance, Zionistic end-times doctrine drives the candidate’s foreign policy. Bad theology makes for bad government.
Evangelism in any faith stands of falls according to its methodology. Does the evangelist gain converts by coercion or by persuasion? Further, is the persuasion of a brow-beating, Bible-thumping sort or is it by committing oneself to loving relationships and sacrificial living? I think we need a return to the latter.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.