Speed Blogging

Setting the Timer for 15 minutes....

#1

Barack: I just want to put in a plug for my old friend Joe Biden...

Joe: Keep it clean...

#2

I have my issues with Kathleen Parker, who I read only occasionally, but who seems to capture a certain prissiness in her columns that I find really, really irritating.  I read the opening lines of her column on the Saddleback Forum, hosted by Rick Warren, and was again, just annoyed.  This is what she wrote:

At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister -- no matter how beloved -- is supremely wrong.

It is also un-American.

She goes on to blather about the separation of church and state, yada yada yada, applying a religious test, yada yada yada.  And she is far, far off the mark, in my opinion, in much the same way that George Bush and his $%*&^#@ "faith-based initiatives" were.  Churches, all churches, would do well to steer clear of politics and government.  In the Christian tradition, going back to Jesus (as opposed to the Roman tradition, where The Church ruled in this temporal realm), there is a delineation between the things that are Caesar's and the things that are God's.  True, since the advent of representational government, we as individuals must examine our consciences about how our religious values are best expressed in the political realm.  But this isn't about a "religious test."  Frankly, the law says there can be no religious test to be eligible to run for office, but that doesn't mean we as individuals can't apply one for ourselves.  Didn't a poll just come out saying that most Americans would have a problem voting for an atheist?    So when Rick Warren puts up the two candidates head-to-head and asks questions that are important to "values voters," I think he's doing a public service, but not serving his flock well.    I feel sorry for his church, in a sense and sorry for his brand of Christianity.  That's why I'm not a fundamentalist (we can toss the "evangelical" moniker: many non-fundamentalist Christians consider themselves evangelical).

Ugh, Kathleen.  If you were really a heretic, you'd be more interesting.

Put your pencils down, hand in your papers...

Update on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 05:00PM by bbmoe

Oh, and while I'm clarifying the "evangelical" v. "fundamentalist" distinctions: one commentator I heard said that Barack's recusal on the issue of when life begins was "technically correct, because the Bible doesn't tell us when life begins."

Oh puh-leeeeez.

Comments

[Weezer]

Kathleen Parker’s column irritated like a rash. Probing core values is not “religious interrogation”, nor is it (as many on the left argue) detracting from discussion of ‘the real issues.’ Core values are a real issue, since they guide decisions. Without them, it’s all about ego and self-interest (which translates to actions based upon pure political expediency). Invoke memories of Clinton, shudder; repeat as needed.

[bbmoe]

Well said.

[Michael]

Maybe it would have been nice if Rick Warren had steered entirely clear of the whole mess, but, if he just had to stick in his oar, interviewing the two candidates, separately, asking questions and not letting them squirm out of answering, is about as close as we can come, these days, to the church being an open forum, even an honest broker, in which honest debate, distinct from the posturing sort, can be conducted.

Kathleen Parker does not usually bother me,. That is something she seems to do more to women than to men, and, no I am not just a sucker for blonds. It's simply that I think she'd be just as welcome to stop by and drink coffee and solve the world's problems any morning but Thursday as would be our own inestimable Quid. (The more important blond, my wife, concurs, more in the invitation to Ms. Nimis than to Ms. Parker, but, both would be welcome for their wit and wisdom ) I just won't invite you both at once.