News Headlines

Highlights From Our Interview With Pastor Rick Warren

John McCain (R-AZ), pastor Rick Warren and Barack Obama (D-IL)

John McCain (R-AZ), pastor Rick Warren and Barack Obama (D-IL) greet each other at the start of the Civil Forum on the Presidency at the Saddleback Church. David McNew, Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption David McNew, Getty Images

Earlier this afternoon, Farai Chideya spoke with Pastor Rick Warren, leader of Saddleback Church and international best-selling author.

Warren moderated Saturday's Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency — a two-hour event, in which Warren engaged presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama on an array of faith and value issues.

What follows are highlights of Farai's interview with Warren, which will air in full on tomorrow's broadcast.

On the greatest success of the forum:
"I loved the fact that Americans saw not just the political differences between these two guys but also the personality differences. ... Barack was exactly who he is, and John McCain was exactly who he is. They were exactly who I know them to be. They are both friends of mine; I've known them for some time. With their answers, Barack is the thoughtful, consensus builder. He likes to nuance things. He likes to talk things through. You know, he's a constitutional attorney. John McCain is a straightforward, happy commander who says, 'Yes, yes. No. Let's get it over. Let's do it.' By asking the same questions to each candidate, it allowed America to compare apples to apples, and I liked that."

On differences between McCain and Obama:
"Both of these men love America. Both of them are patriots. I think both of them are good leaders. They just have drastically different visions for the direction of America."

On the rumor about McCain having advance notice of the questions:

"I'm afraid that that rumor might hurt the Obama campaign. I've talked to a number of people about this; they say, 'An anonymous source told me that John McCain was watching a monitor in his green room.' It's flat out impossible. In the first place, there were Secret Service staff and Saddleback [Church] staff with McCain the entire time he was there. There was no way he could have listened to anything without being seen. If he had heard anything, believe me I would have heard about it."

On a perception of the candidates finessing the audience:
"I think they were both genuinely answering the way I expected them to answer. Barack tended to look more toward me and talk to me ... John tended to look more at the audience. But part of that was because — right [about] five minutes before we got onto the stage — I looked at Barack and I said, 'Let's just make this a conversation between friends.' And I didn't get the opportunity to say that to Sen. McCain to remind him."

On having an influence in the Oval Office, looking ahead:
"This is not my day job. My day job is I'm a pastor of a large church in California, and I'm extremely involved in humanitarian efforts around the world. ... All my time is taken up by that. ... I have no aspirations to be a political consultant in any sense of the word."

On the conflict in Georgia being raised during the forum:
"I got a communication today from the President of Georgia's office, who said that the president of Georgia had watched the Saddleback Civil Forum in his nation and had been near tears, thanking that his country got mentioned. He was saying, 'The bear is back,' and asking for me to send out a note to all the churches in our network, saying, 'Would you pray for Georgia?' And I think this issue right here is going to be an interesting test of how either of my friends — Barack or John — would deal with that particular situation."

On hosting similar political forums in the future:
"What I hope will be copied is the format. I don't have to be doing it. But I do think that the debate format of the 30-second rebuttal and the five second rebuttal to the rebuttal ... is an artificial "gotcha" kind of format that doesn't play to either man's strengths, doesn't allow their personality or character or commitment to actually shine, and I'm hoping if anything happens, it will add a little civility to the dialogue."

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

McCain having no advanced warning? I find that hard to believe in light of some of the things said in the media about that very possibility. Where there is smoke; there is fire. Which one is it, Rev?

Sent by Thomas B. | 9:12 PM | 8-18-2008

Rick Warren has subsequently admitted that McCain was late showing up and was in his motorcade when the debates started. Very fishy. Frankly, McCain sounded fishy when I heard him on the radio - answering questions presciently before they were asked.

Sent by Dan P. | 1:16 PM | 8-19-2008

We must ask ourselves; why is abortion only discussed in the context of religious beliefs? Is it an overt attempt to discredit any argument against abortion in that we must acknowledge that personally held philosophical or religious beliefs, because of the establishment claus, have no relevance when determining Constitutionally based law?

For once, it would be refreshing for the candidates to debate the merits of a purely objective argument for or against abortion. A debate where scientific fact carries the day. Where we can finally acknowledge, with clear certainty, that since 2003 and the successful mapping of the human genome, a distinctly identifiable human person, begins it's life at conception.

Sent by Jon | 1:28 PM | 8-19-2008

Disappointed in the fact that Obama participated in this event. ESPECIALLY as a first event in which he engages McCain.

I believe in not only freedom of, but from religion. It has no place in politics.

I just wish folks learn the difference between faith & fact, worship on Sundays in the privacy of their congregation. Let their relationship be between themselves & their God. With regards to politics; embrace modernity, this isn't the 7th century.

Sent by Jon J | 2:30 PM | 8-19-2008

Why is Rick Warren even involved on the national stage in this election? What are his qualifications?

Sent by Leslie | 7:28 PM | 8-19-2008

This event is not a very good example of the separation of church and state. Therefore, it dissapoints me greatly. Like Jon J said, this is not the 7th century, read a book people.

Sent by Cleveland | 7:56 PM | 8-19-2008

Apparentely some folks still do not understand the whole idea behind the seperation of church and state. The idea is that the state will stay out of the churches business and vice-versa. The idea is not that a person's faith will be (or must be) seperated in any way from thier decision making processes. In fact, it is one's beliefs (yes, about our relationship with God and what that means to us) that drives everything we(yes you are included) do, and every decision we make. There is no crime in recognizing that fact, publicly or personally (you don't have to like it, but it does drive who you are and how you process life and everyday decisions). The fact is, most of the "issues" we struggle with today are very deeply rooted in our faith and beliefs (abortion, gay marriage, gun control, welfare, energy, how we act as a nation, schools, on and on). As a responsible voter and someone who has understanding, you better know where your candidate is on these issues, with regards to his religious beliefs.

I thought the forum was great. I thought it was a welcome break from the format that most of the debates take that end up allowing endless come back and piles of more philosphical talk. Questions were asked, and in general, both did a fair job of answering those questions. It's pretty clear after this forum where the candidates stand.

Sent by Chad | 9:39 PM | 8-19-2008

Evangelicals, both black and white comprise a vast voting group that can effect the outcome of elections---it's why we had 8 years of "W." Even if he weren't a Christian, Obama would be a fool to ignore them. Being the bestselling author of 40 million(?)copies of Purpose Driven Life and the pastor of one the nation's largest evangelical churches made Pastor Warren a good choice---I think his questions were much better than the news men on ABC during the debate with Clinton and lot better than other interviewers.

I have been reading a lot blogs on this issue and nobody seems to have noticed that John McCain did not answer some of the questions---when asked about teacher merit pay he talked about charter schools and when asked to define rich, he laughed it off and mentioned $5 million.

Sent by Glenda | 11:19 PM | 8-19-2008

Jon
We must ask why we're still having this silly argument on abortion.

The ONLY question is:
When does the state have any authority to involve itself in a woman's womb and the answer to that is clearly not before viability.

Most scientific reproductive biology says there's no likelihood of viability before the 5th month..so until the 5th month the pregnancy is the TOTAL province of the mother. PERIOD!

Sent by Jon J | 11:39 PM | 8-19-2008

Apparently some folks still do not understand the whole idea behind the separation of church and state.

YES, MOSTLY PEOPLE OF FAITH.

TAKE FAITH OUT OF THE EQUATION AND WE WOULDN'T STRUGGLE WITH THOSE 'ISSUES'.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT THINKING IS THAT IT ASSUMES THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE OF FAITH.

AND WHY CAN'T THOSE OF FAITH, WHO CAN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FAITH & FACT HAVE A PRIVATE & PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR GOD.

BUT HERE'S THE TRUE KICKER WITH REGARDS TO RELIGION. TAKE THE MOST RELIGIOUS PERSON AND EVEN THOUGH THEY SAY THEY BELIEVE IN THIS PRIMITIVE FANTASY ABOUT A WONDERFUL AFTER LIFE WORLD MUCH BETTER THAN THIS WORLD... PUT THEM IN FRONT OF DEATH AND THEY'RE PANICKING, FRIGHTENED.. BEGGING FOR THEIR LIFE WITH THEIR LAST BREATH... BECAUSE AT THAT CRUCIAL MOMENT WHEN REALITY HITS..AT THE TRUEST TEST....THEY FINALLY KNOW IN THEIR HEARTS THAT THIS IS ALL THERE IS.

THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE ABOUT A VIRGIN-BORN SAVIOR IN CULTURES THAT PRE-DATE CHRISTIANITY. IT IS AND HAS BEEN FOR IONS...ALL ABOUT THE IDEA THAT FOLKS JUST CAN'T WRAP THEIR HEADS AROUND THE IDEA OF DEATH...AND THE DESIRE TO LIVE FOREVER. AND THE NEED TO BELIEVE THERE IS SOMEONE SOMEWHERE CONTROLLING IT ALL OR THAT THEY HAVE SOME CONTROL...THAT IT ISN'T REALLY ALL BASED ON THE CHAOS THEORY...RANDOM.

IT'S ALL A KNOCK OFF ON ASTROLOGY...THE BIRTH OF THE SON ON THE 25TH, WAS ACTUALLY THE REAL SUN...ALL OF IT CAN BE TRACED TO WHAT IT TOOK FOR SURVIVAL....HARVEST, FOOD & WARMTH, ETC.

RELIGION, THE BIGGEST ENSLAVER THROUGHOUT HISTORY. AS FREDRICK DOUGLAS SAID, THE MOST FAITHFUL PLANTATIONS, WERE THE CRUELEST.

Sent by Jon J | 12:03 AM | 8-20-2008

Pastor Warren:
A. This is your church
B. You are in control of everything that happens in this church
C. All employees in this church report to you
D. Anything that happens in this church which you have explained to the public is your responsibility
E. Is your church so lackadaisal that you do not need to be informed of the facts which you speak to the public?

F. Bottom line you lied to the public weather intended or not at Senator Obama's expense.
G. Now you tell Farai Chidaya that you would know if John McCain saw or heard the questions.....duh...you didn't even know where he was when you spoke to a national audience and assured us that 'John McCain was in a cone of silence'!

S. Ann

Sent by S. Ann Oliver | 1:18 AM | 8-20-2008

Hey Mr. Warren: I did not hear any questions that had anything to do with helping the poor or indigents in our society just the same old divisive right wing niche issues

Sent by S Ann O | 1:36 AM | 8-20-2008

In response to Jon J: First, why in the world are you venting all of your resentments toward religion on a comment page for a presidential debate? I think you assume what is going on in the minds of Christians (or of any faith for that matter) without any knowledge of what it means to live your life for something greater than us. That's sad. I consider myself a strong believer, and agree with you. Lots of us are hypocritical. Everyone is. It's human nature. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists.... We are all human and have the natural tendency to act like one. We were all made to love. If we don't, that's an offense of ours. Not our religion's. You talk about "Begging for their lives with their last breath"... and how that means we don't believe. Are you serious?? Who wants to die? I know that I'll go somewhere better in the end but the thought of leaving my life, everything I've known since birth frightens me too. The fear doesn't make me stop believing. It's a reaction. It's like leaving for college. That initial move, leaving home for the first time is rough and scary. We all cried. EVEN THOUGH we knew that we were going somewhere better. John, I'm sorry that you're so angry, and I hope that someone comes into your life that helps you to respect and become more open-minded to people of different beliefs. Pissed off is no way to live.
Now look... I've gone and written a long response that has nothing to do with the article too. Sorry.

Sent by Emily Kyle | 10:41 AM | 8-20-2008

Jon J,

Cowboy, you only partially took your own advice. You got beyond the 7th century but, got stuck in 1973! Dude... that's 35 years ago! "Viability" is YOUR personal, provisional definition of how YOU believe we should define and acknowledge the beginning of human life. When you attempt to impose your belief upon others, you are no different than the evangelicals!

You couldn't possibly be more misinformed. The fundamental question remains; does a distinctly identifiable human life exist at conception? And, can this be shown objectively, with verifiable, scientific certainty, WITHOUT regard to personal philosophical or religious beliefs? This was the very question that Justice Blackmun struggled with in his decision of the Court in Roe v. Wade. As this evidence was left to conjecture in 1973 (again Dude... 35 years ago!) he was left with no alternative (in his mind) but to leave this determination up to the mother, at least up to a point where individuals such as yourself were able to say, "hey, hold on a second, this little critter's got arms and legs and everything!"

Viability is not a determinant for defining a living person. The only three fundamental contingencies that must be met are; can a biological entity be identified as human, does this biological entity have a distinct identity, and is this entity alive within a biological definition. Any other quantifiers or qualifiers are again, simply provisional or merely supplemental to a definitive definition of what constitutes a living human person.

All of the aforementioned contingencies can, IN 2008, be answered with a resounding, unqualified, YES!

John J, you've gotten as far as 1973, step up to the plate, educate yourself, and consider what I've said. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to impose your own personal definition on humanity.

Women have a distinctly unique biological relationship to the gestation and birth of our children. Men need to understand this. However, as women and men, equally together, constitute humanity, women need to understand that this unique relationship does not enable them to end the lives of their unborn children.

Your underlying misconception, relative to your comment about a women's womb, is that we as individuals have an "ultimate" right to do with our own bodies whatever we see fit, without regard for others. Remember to tell this to the cop that pulls you over the next time you decide to drive drunk.

Sent by Jon | 3:50 PM | 8-20-2008

EMILY
First, why in the world are you venting all of your resentments toward religion on a comment page for a presidential debate?

THIS WASN'T A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE IT WAS A MEETING AT A CHURCH, PUT ON BY A PASTOR AND YOU'RE ASKING ME ABOUT RELIGION...IT'S ALL ABOUT RELIGION. RE-READ THE 2ND PARAGRAPH IN THE ARTICLE..YOU'LL SEE: 'an array of faith and value issues' THEN RETHINK YOUR QUESTION. WARREN COULD HAVE BEEN LIKE JOEL OLSTEEN AND REJECTED REQUEST FOR POLITICAL ACTIVISM. I DON'T THINK RELIGION BELONGS ANYWHERE NEAR A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN SO I COMMENT ON RELIGION ALONE (NOT IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT) BECAUSE IT'S INSERTED IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE.

I think you assume what is going on in the minds of Christians (or of any faith for that matter) without any knowledge of what it means to live your life for something greater than us. That's sad.

I DON'T HAVE TO ASSUME ANYTHING, IT'S ALL OVER THE PUBLIC SQUARE IN MATTERS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION, PEOPLE INSERT WHATS IN THEIR MINDS ALL THE TIME WITH THESE PROSELYTIZING RIFFS. SO IF THEY ARE GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE, IT'S FAIR GAME. SO DON'T CRY FOUL.

MANY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS ASSUMING THAT SOMETHINGS MISSING OR THINGS ABOUT SOMEONES CHARACTER...PASS JUDGMENT (WHICH THE BIBLE SPEAKS AGAINST) AS YOU HAVE JUST DONE..WITH THE COMMENT 'WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO LIVE YOUR LIFE FOR SOMETHING GREATER THAN US.' YOU HAVE KNOW CLUE ABOUT MY KNOWLEDGE...AND THE 'SOMETHING GREATER THAN US' COULD BE THE EARTH, ENVIRONMENT, ETC., IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE GOD OR RELIGION.

I DON'T HAVE TO GUESS WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MINDS...RELIGION & THOSE OF FAITH ARE THE ONES OUT IN PUBLIC CAMPAIGNING FOR THEIR FAITH OR PROSELYTIZING ON MISSIONS. YOU NEVER SEE ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC ON ANY CORNER PREACHING OR HANDING OUT PAMPHLETS, KNOCKING ON DOORS TRYING TO CONVERT THOSE OF FAITH INTO NONE BELIEVERS.

Who wants to die?

IT'S NOT ABOUT WANTING TO IT'S ABOUT BEING TERRIFIED. JUST DOESN'T FIT THE 'BETTER PLACE' REASONING. THAT'S WHAT FAITH IS ALL ABOUT, FEARING NO.....

I know that I'll go somewhere better in the end but the thought of leaving my life, everything I've known since birth frightens me too. The fear doesn't make me stop believing. It's a reaction. It's like leaving for college. That initial move, leaving home for the first time is rough and scary. We all cried. EVEN THOUGH we knew that we were going somewhere better.

WAS THAT A CONVERSATION TO ME OR ARE YOU TALKING TO YOURSELF FOR YOURSELF?? ALL THAT IS FINE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY PERSONAL, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME, MY BELIEFS OR ANYONE ELSE'S BELIEFS.

AND ACTUALLY I WAS EXCITED AND DID NOT CRY LEAVING HOME FOR COLLEGE, TOO EXCITED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF THE NEXT PHASE OF LIFE AS WAS THE CASE OF MOST OF THE PEOPLE I MET IN COLLEGE. SO BAD ANALOGY.

John, I'm sorry that you're so angry, and I hope that someone comes into your life that helps you to respect and become more open-minded to people of different beliefs. Pissed off is no way to live.

:), THANKS FOR THE LAUGH. NO NEED TO FEEL SORRY. BESIDES I HAVE A FEW PEOPLE IN MY LIFE THANK YOU :)

I'VE BEEN TO A FEW PLACES THROUGHOUT THIS WORLD, EXPERIENCED DIFFERENT CULTURES AND NOT BEING DEPENDENT ON DOGMA, I'M PRETTY OPEN-MINDED. I JUST FEEL LIKE MANY OF FAITH ARE OBSTACLES TO PROGRESS, BOG DOWN & DISTORT PUBLIC DISCOURSE BY IMPOSING THEIR FAITH ON ISSUES THAT OUR NATION SHOULD BE WAY WAY BEYOND, LIKE ABORTION, GAY MARRIAGE. I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THE DIALOGUE, FIGHT FOR THE SPACE FOR A DIFFERING OPINION AND NOT BE SILENT AS MANY PROCEED WITH THEIR FAITH AS THOUGH IT'S FACT. AND THE ASSUMPTION IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE THAT THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY TALKING TO A TRUE BELIEVER. PEOPLE IN PUBLIC COME UP TO ME CONVERSING AS THOUGH THEY AUTOMATICALLY KNOW MY BELIEFS. AND BECAUSE I KNOW THEY CAN'T HANDLE IT, I USUALLY NOD OR JUST REMAIN SILENT WHEN THEY START WITH THEIR..'YOU KNOW GOD SAID..' OR 'GOD DOESN'T LIKE...' , THEN CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

I DON'T WALK UP TO ANYONE, ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION ASSUMING THEY'RE AGNOSTIC, ATHEIST. I'M MORE RESPECTFUL THAN THAT AND MORE THAN HAPPY PROCEEDING WITHOUT KNOWING SOMEONES FAITH. BUT FOR SOME REASON IT'S USUALLY IMPORTANT TO THEM THAT I KNOW THEIR FAITH..MAYBE THEY'RE TRYING TO CONVINCE THEMSELVES?

Now look... I've gone and written a long response that has nothing to do with the article too. Sorry.

RELIGION WAS AT THE HEART OF PASTOR WARREN'S FAITH & VALUES ISSUES MEETING HELD IN A CHURCH. AND I'M SORRY YOUR FAITH ISN'T STRONGER I WISH YOU LUCK WITH THAT.

MY BEST FRIEND IN LIFE FOR OVER 20YRS, GUARDIAN OF MY DAUGHTER IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO ME IS A PERSON OF STRONG FAITH AND HE HAS NEVER PROSELYTIZED, TRIED TO CONVERT, JUDGED OR SAW ME AS DEFICIENT. NEVER USED HIS FAITH TO SET UP THE CONCEPT OF THE OTHER TO HOLD A I'M BETTER THEY'RE SAD ATTITUDE. OUR FRIENDSHIP HAS PROCEEDED AS IT SHOULD.

BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT...'I COME BY FAITH & FAITH ALONE'.

Sent by Jon J | 3:58 PM | 8-20-2008

Jon

Viability--- can the entity..I like that word because you didn't say human being survive outside of the womb.

Your Orwellian attempts are laughable! But that's what those of your ilk do best. I'm not attempting to impose my beliefs on anyone. No one is forced to have an abortion unless THEY CHOOSE to...choice isn't imposing beliefs. Limiting choice IS. Besides It's not my definition of humanity it is scientific reproductive biology.

your quote:
aforementioned contingencies can, IN 2008, be answered with a resounding, unqualified, YES!

SIMPLY NOT TRUE..not in science.

Your underlying misconception, relative to your comment about a women's womb, is that we as individuals have an "ultimate" right to do with our own bodies whatever we see fit, without regard for others. Remember to tell this to the cop that pulls you over the next time you decide to drive drunk.

HUH? awful poor analogy. Is it illegal for a woman to smoke, drink or participate in risky behavior while pregnant? No. That's a better analogy. So you want to make abortion illegal but the woman can ingest toxins up the ying yang the entire time....that's ok or will that be the next move...searching trash cans for receipts...the state storming in at dinner time. Silly.

Besides, I'm done with this amusing silly argument...keep at it though because it's neither here nor there abortion is legal & will remain. Because women WILL NOT give up say over their bodies. And besides you aren't serious and neither is Warren and those of his ilk.

So why don't you & pastor warren and all the other political bible thumpers, instead of asking McCain & Obama when life begins and hiding faith/religion in 'world view', clever but transparent to any rational thinking person. Try living a purpose driven life. Want to start somewhere? Instead of asking scientific questions you know are still in question, direct your 'world views' to ask why we're willing to serve up & sacrifice little boys......have another meeting at his church and hold his fellow clergy accountable for obstruction of justice, aiding & abetting, and harboring of criminals. While you're at it tally up the MILLIONS spent on legal fees & settlements because of abuse.

The add that to all the royalties Warren, TD Jakes, and all the others get from book deals & sales, tv contracts, all the tax breaks & real estate holdings from those mega churches...then see how many starving kids that would feed...empty all those foster care centers with kids waiting for homes. Instead of 40 million times..$25+ for hardback and $15 for paperback release (do the math) for those me me me simplton book which are about as complexed as fortune cookie sayings strung together and help finance technology for a distribution/deliver refrigeration system to deliver medicine to African villages, etc..etc..etc.

Until then your moralizing from the high ground is silly, hypocritical and disingenuous.

Sent by Jon J | 7:49 PM | 8-20-2008

Jon J,

Cowboy, I'm trying my best to present to you a definitive definition for what constitutes a human person. I can't really use the term "person" in the definition itself now can I? We are all biological entities AND SPECIFICALLY... human. Furthermore, we cannot use the term "being" in such a definition as this implies a metaphysical aspect to humanity that, although most of us would agree exists, is not measurable in a strictly objective way and is therefore inappropriate for a definition of "person" that could apply to all equitably. As you'll see, there is no mention of a "being" in the 14th Amendment, only "person."

Your rhetoric is embarrassingly outmoded in this day and age. You, as many, continue to relying upon a "slogan" that has no underlying substance and simply has no relevance today. No one, not you nor I nor anyone, has the "right to choose" to end the life of another person. The Constitution has deemed that this right exists for the State for punishment of crimes but, only after due process has been observed. Something that I disagree with PERSONALLY but have come to terms with as a Constitutional reality.

For your own edification, because I certainly don't expect you to take my word for it, you MUST seek out verification of whether an individual person can be identified as 1.) human; 2.) having a distinct identity; 3.) is alive within a biological definition... from the moment of conception. It is not my intent to demean you or publicly embarrass you but, you simply don't know what you're talking about. This topic is far too important for you to be allowed to disavow what is factually true.

The pragmatism of your argument is a thinly veiled attempt to deflect us off point. There where millions in the mid 1800's who presented the same types of arguments to suggest that it simply wasn't "practical" to abolish slavery. Yet, at the end of the day, the overriding fact that the african creatures that we had enslaved to break their backs in our fields, were in fact... human people, just like you and I and thus entitled to the same rights, freedoms and protections that the rest of us enjoyed.

And then you, again like many, many others, fall back on the most obvious of deflections. If you aren't able to justify your arguments from a purely objective or scientific point of view, you attempt to characterize my arguments as somehow being founded upon religious belief. Dude... this is really, really, really weak!

Regretfully the rest of your message is just anger, hatred, ranting and to use your word, moralizing. Me thinks it's YOU my friend, that has come off as hypocritical and disingenuous.

Sent by Jon | 9:21 AM | 8-21-2008

Warren is just another mega-church con artist preacher. I am sure the receipts from the Sunday collection basket is his first priority, not religion or politics.

Sent by Don Miller | 10:51 AM | 8-21-2008

Jon

ZZzzzz.......

Not seeking out any verification, don't need to..I simply mind my own business in these matters. It's a woman' choice and it's the law so there you have it. You're losing 'dude'

I have fun with, make fun of and rile up your type because these absurd issues are nothing more than political footballs for posturing. So to me it's all farce! HOW many elections have we argued back n forth about abortion and how many more will we? Now we have another distraction personal issues gay marriage that we'll posture with for the next 16yrs to 20yrs.

What gays do, whether or not they get married has NO EFFECT on my day to day life. Same with abortion, it's between a woman, her family and her beliefs and conscience. HAS NO EFFECT ON MY DAY TO DAY LIFE.

But these issues are there for EASY indignation. The real work & issues are just too complicated and these things replace them.

Damn near EVERYTHING in our nation is broken. Healthcare: many families who have health insurance are 1 sickness away from being wiped out. Our justice system broken.

A major city was washed away, bodies floating down the streets and we could not respond, knew it was coming & could not respond. All up & down the political hierarchy nothing could or has been done for that city. This is a microcosm of where our status quo nation stands. WE CAN'T GET ANYTHING DONE. Soon as something happens it gets politicized, the spinming, abdicating of responsibility, passing of the buck, posturing sets in and STALEMATE.

An education system completely outdated that geared to a 1950's economy. Kids in 2008..2008, who can't read....STOP and think about that...can't read. Hell the slaves learned to read! So not only do we have to new form our system but totally flip a paradigm/culture of anti-intellectualism that has set in. But soon as you mention innovation, status quoers scurry out to block new form...then excuse/defend dysfunctional behavior.

During this election FOOLISH talk about 'blue collar', please...working class/blue collar as a % of the workforce peaked at about 40% 50 YEARS ago and has been dwindling ever since. Now we act surprised many knew it was happening but didn't respond or lead.

We know our infrastructure is crumbling a bridge fell last year in Pennsylvania, the canary in the coal mine and nothing, no movement by our nation...it's not even a topic in this election. The PERFECT place to focus on while our economy transitions: older working class workers who can't go back to school can ride out the next 20yrs rebuilding our infrastructure, new science, green technology can be infused in our infrastructure for smart building, bridges, etc. spinning off other industries while our education system is being reformed. The construction would not only put people to work but spur office small businesses in communities, retail, child-care, etc.

BUT WE CAN'T GET ANYTHING DONE!. Because issues that should be of a PERSONAL nature; faith, abortion, gay marriage are framed as major issues. Then reduced to only 2 sides, set up not to accomplish anything but to argue back n forth...election cycle after election cycle...just for posturing. Or put on the ballot then getting tied up & down the legal system.

Gays, abortion ALL distractions, because some people can't wrap their heads around the idea that: it's none of your business! PROFESSIONAL MEDDLERS..A NATION OF GLAYDIS CRAVITS...SCURRYING AROUND PEEKING IN PEOPLES WINDOWS!

Disrespectfully, I mention the abuse of boys by an institution, a SERIOUS and REAL issue of arrogance & power abuse and you deflect by (Orwellian) dismissing as anger, hatred. What Jon, is the abuse of boys ok with you? As is the mocking of judicial system by those who arrogantly think they're above the law? Are obstruction of justice, aiding & abetting, harboring of criminals small matters, just rantings, dismisses as anger? Me thinks it hits too close to home to you? Certainly more serious than abortion. But not as easy!

Warren and those of his ilk are simple hustlers. Preying on & benefiting from peoples emotions. EX: Sales from the Warren's book skyrocketed based on a lie by an emotionally disturbed young woman in Atlanta.

MILLIONS...MILLIONS wasted on these simple books and dropped in collection baskets each Sunday..lavish mega structures, when there's real work to do. Sell ALL of the real estate holdings & mega-churches and donate that money to habitats for humanity or some doing real tangible work. Man, what habitat could have done with 40 million times $25 or however much that book cost!

Jon,, when you're not peeking in windows, I picture you running towards a planned parenthood or court, passing people in the streets, sick, hurting reaching up to you for help as you scurry pass them with your little scientific pamphlets saying..I'll show them we must protect the unborn...:)

duuude!

Sent by Jon J | 1:17 PM | 8-21-2008

Every one else... I rest my case!

Sent by Jon | 1:53 PM | 8-21-2008

Might as well, you have no case.

Abortion is legal today, tomorrow, next week and next month in the privacy of lives/homes where it's relevant. And they're not criminalized or disparaged as they consider a tough decision.

Now on to the real issues.

Sent by Jon J | 1:46 PM | 8-22-2008

About