Saddleback forum, part 2
Aug. 19th, 2008 08:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusSaddleback Mountain, part 2: Crossprints in the Sand
Question 5: First, you've made no doubt about the fact that you are a Christian. You publicly say you're a follower of Christ. What does that mean to you and how does faith work out in your life on a daily basis?
Both candidates start off with the standard "Christ died for my sins" bit. OBAMA goes from there to saying how he draws strength from that knowledge, but considers it important to remember that it isn't just words, it's also deeds: "It means acting ... justly, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with our god." (Micah 6:8)
MCCAIN, on the other hand, then pulls up one of his favorite anecdotes, a heartwarming story of a guard in the Soviet Gulag who was kind to him at one point, and then later drew a cross in the sand "And for a minute, it was just two Christian's worshipping." Except of course, he replaces the Soviet Gulag with a North Vietnam prison camp, and he replaces the original author of this story, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, with himself.
To be fair to McCain, though, I don't know if Solzhenitsyn was the first to tell this story, either. Solzhenitsyn may have been the first into print with it, but it's one of those stories that evangelicals tell each other along with the primitive tribe that was going to kill the missionaries but saw an army of angels and decided to convert instead, or the woman who prayed to Jesus to defend her and thus the muggers ran away, and the hitchhiker who gives a cryptic warning before vanishing from the back seat, and dozens of other similarly inspiring (and utterly unverifiable) stories passed down through the ages.
Question 6: Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights?
An interesting way of phrasing the question to be sure. I think we know what Warren's opinion is. As a fundamentalist Christian, he disregards everything the Bible says about it and believes that life starts at conception. "Conception", of course, isn't really a concept in the Bible, which is an easily forgiven flaw as it was written a few thousand years ago and the inner workings of biology weren't really well understood at the time.
Anyway, OBAMA skirts the theological and scientific answers as "above my pay grade". Which is a good answer - he is neither a theologian nor a scientist. He correctly points out, though, that what's really wanted here is the political answer not the theologic or scientific one.
On the political side, he comes down firmly as pro-choice, and attempts to explain to this congregation of fundamentalist christians why they should be, too. He points out that, even if you accept as "a core issue of faith" that life begins at conception, it still makes more sense to try to limit the number of abortions, and that some ways of doing this are through sex education, adequate resources, available health care, and support services.
MCCAIN goes for the applause line with an immediate "At the Moment of Conception!" Not unexpected, after all, he's supposed to be the successor to W amongst evangelical christians. What was a little surprising, though, was his implication that this would be an important point when considering his Supreme Court justices "When we speak of the issue of the rights to the unborn, we need to talk about judges." Warren cut him off before he could get too far into that.
Question 7: Define marriage.
Both candidates say they believe it's between a man and a woman.
The difference comes in when they explain what that means. For OBAMA it means that his marriage is defined thusly (well, a man and a woman and a god). He categorically rejects a Constitutional amendment saying that, however, and that it should be left up to the states to decide. He even goes so far as to imply that those who oppose same-sex marriage for other people (not themselves) aren't very good Christians: "I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view."
MCCAIN, likewise, believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He also opposes a constitutional amendment and favors leaving the decision up to the states. Unless the states decide wrong, in which case he favors a constitutional amendment.
Qustion 8: What about stem cells? We've had this scientific break-through of treating these pluripotent stem cells in adult cells. Do we still need federal funding for research? Would you still support that for embryo stem cells?
OBAMA favors them, of course, pointing out the scientific merit, and specifically mentions flaws in relying only on adult stem cells. He also tries to point out that those in favor aren't in favor because they want to destroy embryos, but that they recognize the merits of the research.
MCCAIN, surprisingly, also favors stem cell research, though he is "optimistic that skin cell research, which is coming more and more into focus and practicability, will make this debate an academic one."
Question 9: Does evil exist and, if so, should ignore it, negotiate it with it, contain it or defeat it?
From the phrasing "Evil" is just a code word for "terrorism". OBAMA doesn't allow that, though, and brings it home: "We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it." He further warns that mere good intentions aren't good enough. Like his stance on abortion, his stance on terrorism is that saying you want to fight it is not the same as actually fighting it. Abortions have gone up everywhere Bush's anti-abortion "abstinence only" education is the rule, and the war on terror has been steadily increasing world-wide terrorism. "One thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good."
MCCAIN, of course, leaps right to terrorism, taking up Bush's forgotten vow to storm the gates of hell and smoke bin Laden out of any dark corner he tries to hide in. I don't think echoing Bush was the wisest choice, but other than his POW experience and his terrorism fear-mongering the guy really doesn't have much to work with. Oh, yeah, he also confuses Al Quaida and Iraq again, claiming Al Qaida is active there and we'll win it soon and our troops will come home in victory. He claims he knows how to find bin Laden. But, really, that's the kind of information he should be sharing with the current president rather than holding it back. What if he doesn't get elected, will he ever tell us?
Question 10: Which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?
I was kind of surprised that both candidates immediately named names. OBAMA names Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia. Warren asks him about Roberts, and he agrees, stating "I think that he has been a little bit too willing and eager to give an administration, whether it's mine or George Bush's, more power than I think the Constitution originally intended."
MCCAIN responds immediately: "With all due respect, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter, and Justice Stephens. " Why? Too much "legislating from the bench." This is christianist code for "Roe vs. Wade".
He then says that his favorites are Alito and Roberts.
For the record:
Justices Obama wouldn't have appointed:
Thomas was appointed by Bush the first after only one year as a Judge, amidst many allegations of sexual harassment. He fervently supports state's rights except when the states laws are liberal, in which case he's a federalist.
Scalia was appointed by Reagan, and believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, except when such an interpretation would deny the executive branch of new powers, such as the line-item veto. Unlike Thomas, however, he does acknowledge the concept of precedent.
Roberts was appointed by the current Bush, directly to Chief Justice, after two years as a judge. Although he was unable to recall any details of his previous opinions during his confirmation hearings, he has proven to be a big supporter of big business.
Justices McCain wouldn't have appointed:
Ginsburg, appointed by Clinton, worked for ACLU in the 1970's and served 13 years as a judge before her Supreme Court nomination. She is considered the most liberal judge, and is currently dating Justice Scalia.
Breyer, appointed by Clinton, was a judge for about 20 years before joining the Supreme Court. He's supported a woman's right to choose and is considered the second most liberal judge. He also holds the heretical notion that the Constitution implies a right to privacy.
Souter, appointed by Bush Sr,, was confirmed with a vote of 90 for to 9 against. Despite his friendships with a number of Republican senators at the time of his confirmation, he has defended the Constitution and civil rights rigidly. He is thus seen as the third most liberal judge.
Stevens, appointed by Ford, is generally conservative but tends to side with the liberals on gay rights and abortion issues. He's usually for free speech, but sometimes against it.
McCain's favorites:
Alito, appointed by Bush Jr. Despite Bush's love for him, he has several times supported free speech and separation of church and state. He also supports debtor's prison.
Roberts was mentioned above.
That's all for tonight. Next time: War, huh? What is it good for? Tax cuts for the rich, tax donations to the richer, and the heroization of the victim.
Question 5: First, you've made no doubt about the fact that you are a Christian. You publicly say you're a follower of Christ. What does that mean to you and how does faith work out in your life on a daily basis?
Both candidates start off with the standard "Christ died for my sins" bit. OBAMA goes from there to saying how he draws strength from that knowledge, but considers it important to remember that it isn't just words, it's also deeds: "It means acting ... justly, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with our god." (Micah 6:8)
MCCAIN, on the other hand, then pulls up one of his favorite anecdotes, a heartwarming story of a guard in the Soviet Gulag who was kind to him at one point, and then later drew a cross in the sand "And for a minute, it was just two Christian's worshipping." Except of course, he replaces the Soviet Gulag with a North Vietnam prison camp, and he replaces the original author of this story, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, with himself.
To be fair to McCain, though, I don't know if Solzhenitsyn was the first to tell this story, either. Solzhenitsyn may have been the first into print with it, but it's one of those stories that evangelicals tell each other along with the primitive tribe that was going to kill the missionaries but saw an army of angels and decided to convert instead, or the woman who prayed to Jesus to defend her and thus the muggers ran away, and the hitchhiker who gives a cryptic warning before vanishing from the back seat, and dozens of other similarly inspiring (and utterly unverifiable) stories passed down through the ages.
Question 6: Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights?
An interesting way of phrasing the question to be sure. I think we know what Warren's opinion is. As a fundamentalist Christian, he disregards everything the Bible says about it and believes that life starts at conception. "Conception", of course, isn't really a concept in the Bible, which is an easily forgiven flaw as it was written a few thousand years ago and the inner workings of biology weren't really well understood at the time.
Anyway, OBAMA skirts the theological and scientific answers as "above my pay grade". Which is a good answer - he is neither a theologian nor a scientist. He correctly points out, though, that what's really wanted here is the political answer not the theologic or scientific one.
On the political side, he comes down firmly as pro-choice, and attempts to explain to this congregation of fundamentalist christians why they should be, too. He points out that, even if you accept as "a core issue of faith" that life begins at conception, it still makes more sense to try to limit the number of abortions, and that some ways of doing this are through sex education, adequate resources, available health care, and support services.
MCCAIN goes for the applause line with an immediate "At the Moment of Conception!" Not unexpected, after all, he's supposed to be the successor to W amongst evangelical christians. What was a little surprising, though, was his implication that this would be an important point when considering his Supreme Court justices "When we speak of the issue of the rights to the unborn, we need to talk about judges." Warren cut him off before he could get too far into that.
Question 7: Define marriage.
Both candidates say they believe it's between a man and a woman.
The difference comes in when they explain what that means. For OBAMA it means that his marriage is defined thusly (well, a man and a woman and a god). He categorically rejects a Constitutional amendment saying that, however, and that it should be left up to the states to decide. He even goes so far as to imply that those who oppose same-sex marriage for other people (not themselves) aren't very good Christians: "I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view."
MCCAIN, likewise, believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He also opposes a constitutional amendment and favors leaving the decision up to the states. Unless the states decide wrong, in which case he favors a constitutional amendment.
Qustion 8: What about stem cells? We've had this scientific break-through of treating these pluripotent stem cells in adult cells. Do we still need federal funding for research? Would you still support that for embryo stem cells?
OBAMA favors them, of course, pointing out the scientific merit, and specifically mentions flaws in relying only on adult stem cells. He also tries to point out that those in favor aren't in favor because they want to destroy embryos, but that they recognize the merits of the research.
MCCAIN, surprisingly, also favors stem cell research, though he is "optimistic that skin cell research, which is coming more and more into focus and practicability, will make this debate an academic one."
Question 9: Does evil exist and, if so, should ignore it, negotiate it with it, contain it or defeat it?
From the phrasing "Evil" is just a code word for "terrorism". OBAMA doesn't allow that, though, and brings it home: "We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it." He further warns that mere good intentions aren't good enough. Like his stance on abortion, his stance on terrorism is that saying you want to fight it is not the same as actually fighting it. Abortions have gone up everywhere Bush's anti-abortion "abstinence only" education is the rule, and the war on terror has been steadily increasing world-wide terrorism. "One thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good."
MCCAIN, of course, leaps right to terrorism, taking up Bush's forgotten vow to storm the gates of hell and smoke bin Laden out of any dark corner he tries to hide in. I don't think echoing Bush was the wisest choice, but other than his POW experience and his terrorism fear-mongering the guy really doesn't have much to work with. Oh, yeah, he also confuses Al Quaida and Iraq again, claiming Al Qaida is active there and we'll win it soon and our troops will come home in victory. He claims he knows how to find bin Laden. But, really, that's the kind of information he should be sharing with the current president rather than holding it back. What if he doesn't get elected, will he ever tell us?
Question 10: Which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?
I was kind of surprised that both candidates immediately named names. OBAMA names Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia. Warren asks him about Roberts, and he agrees, stating "I think that he has been a little bit too willing and eager to give an administration, whether it's mine or George Bush's, more power than I think the Constitution originally intended."
MCCAIN responds immediately: "With all due respect, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter, and Justice Stephens. " Why? Too much "legislating from the bench." This is christianist code for "Roe vs. Wade".
He then says that his favorites are Alito and Roberts.
For the record:
Justices Obama wouldn't have appointed:
Thomas was appointed by Bush the first after only one year as a Judge, amidst many allegations of sexual harassment. He fervently supports state's rights except when the states laws are liberal, in which case he's a federalist.
Scalia was appointed by Reagan, and believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, except when such an interpretation would deny the executive branch of new powers, such as the line-item veto. Unlike Thomas, however, he does acknowledge the concept of precedent.
Roberts was appointed by the current Bush, directly to Chief Justice, after two years as a judge. Although he was unable to recall any details of his previous opinions during his confirmation hearings, he has proven to be a big supporter of big business.
Justices McCain wouldn't have appointed:
Ginsburg, appointed by Clinton, worked for ACLU in the 1970's and served 13 years as a judge before her Supreme Court nomination. She is considered the most liberal judge, and is currently dating Justice Scalia.
Breyer, appointed by Clinton, was a judge for about 20 years before joining the Supreme Court. He's supported a woman's right to choose and is considered the second most liberal judge. He also holds the heretical notion that the Constitution implies a right to privacy.
Souter, appointed by Bush Sr,, was confirmed with a vote of 90 for to 9 against. Despite his friendships with a number of Republican senators at the time of his confirmation, he has defended the Constitution and civil rights rigidly. He is thus seen as the third most liberal judge.
Stevens, appointed by Ford, is generally conservative but tends to side with the liberals on gay rights and abortion issues. He's usually for free speech, but sometimes against it.
McCain's favorites:
Alito, appointed by Bush Jr. Despite Bush's love for him, he has several times supported free speech and separation of church and state. He also supports debtor's prison.
Roberts was mentioned above.
That's all for tonight. Next time: War, huh? What is it good for? Tax cuts for the rich, tax donations to the richer, and the heroization of the victim.
