Quote of the Day: Amy-Jill Levine on Public Prayer

I have been reading Amy-Jill Levine's, The Misunderstood Jew, and toward the end where she gives some ideas of Jewish-Christian dialogue, she talks about public prayer. I thought it would be appropriate given the recent discussions of prayer, especially Rick Warren's prayer, at Obama's inauguration:

A similar situation prevails with public prayer. Some Christian ministers resort to a watered-down, generic invocation that satisfies few. Some insist on praying in the "name of Jesus," which prevents Jews and other non-Christians from saying "Amen." Atheists are ignored in any case. More cynical biblical readers, finding dissatisfactory public prayer from high-school students gathered around flagpoles to senators representing the American people in Washington, might cite the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus states: "Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners [and around flagpoles, and at legislative assembles, and on television broadcasts...], so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they ahve received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matt. 6:5-6). But since public religiosity is not going to go away, then the person offering the prayer needs to find a way of invoking the deity in a way that both affirms distinct confessions and recognizes the existence of alternative truth claims. Ending a prayer "in the name of Jesus" keeps the prayer parochial. Ending it "as I pray in the name of Jesus" is a bit of an improvement. "As I pray in the name of Jesus, and we all pray to the God who has many names and many children" is even better. The fundamentalist Christian should ahve little objection, since the God of the Bible does have many names: El Shaddai, El Elyon, YHWH, Elohim. In turn, Jews may choose to pray in Hebrew, but then they should provide a translation so the people in attendance know to what, exatly they are saying "Amen." Atheists, of course, are still left out, but at least the theists in the group are all included. (Amy-Jill Levin, Misunderstood Jew, 222-3)

Still...the "cynical" view has a point...

Rick Warren's Prayer of Invocation

Since I blogged about the controversy that had surrounded the choice of Rick Warren giving the inaugural invocation, I guess I should comment on the actual prayer. First, the controversy surrounded having someone who gave some rather ridiculous comparisons to gay marriage (like comparing it to pedophilia). Then the issue was whether or not he would mention Jesus or not. Would he represent his particular brand of religiosity, or in an event for all Americans represent all Americans. On that issue, I came down on the side that the most "American" thing to do is just be yourself and not try to water things down to vague generalities. If it were a Hindu giving the invocation, I would expect an invocation of Vishnu, Siva, or whatever god or goddess to which that particular person was devoted. If an imam, I would expect something on Allah. And so on... One objection was what would happen if Warren completed the prayer by "in Jesus' name we pray," in which the problem is not on Jesus--everyone should have a right to their own religion--but on the "we," which brought others who are not Christians under a Christian umbrella, in effect denying them of their own religions.

So what did he do? How does his prayer stack up? John Hobbins has posted the entire transcript, by the way, here.

He began the prayer with allusions to multiple religious traditions. He referred to "Almighty God," "God," and "Father." These are quite vague and include anyone who believes in some sort of supreme being--excluding atheists of course. He also referred to the opening lines of the Shema ("Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one"). You can also render that line, as "Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD alone" or as "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one." I prefer the middle one. The Shema is the standard Jewish prayer, supposed to be said daily. Then he spoke of the "Compassionate and Merciful One." These words shout the Quran at you! God is always the Compassionate One or the Merciful One in the Quran. It runs all throughout. So, he's got Muslims covered. How Jews and Muslims feel about their "inclusion" or perhaps "appropriation" in this way might be something to discuss.

There were multiple other literary and cultural allusions as well. Mentioning MLK at the same time as the "great cloud of witnesses" brought together the Civil Rights Movement and the language of Hebrews 12:1. How could you not talk about Civil Rights and MLK today or at least allude to it?

He made an interesting note on diversity and religious diversity within the larger whole of our society: that we are not united by race, religion, or blood, but by a dedication to freedom and justice. In my commentary (although perhaps not what Warren meant), we all have our particularities which we do not want to nor should efface, but are united in a common goal of agreed upon ideals, such as freedom and justice. In this context, though, he also referred to the Great Judgment (see Revelation).

But the burning question is did he mention Jesus? OH YES HE DID. And in many ways:

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Issa, Jésus, Jesus, who taught us to pray, “Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

So, he refers to Jesus in four languages: Hebrew/Aramaic, Arabic, Spanish, and English. The second, Issa, is how "Jesus" is written the Quran. He did not say, "In Jesus' name we pray," as some feared, but kept to his own particular tradition, his right to his own religion, and even made clear that it was his particular view, as the one who changed his life. It was something HE asked in the name of Jesus. He avoided effacing difference while staying true to himself in that way, but may have let it slip in with the Lord's Prayer, since it is how Jesus taught "us" how to pray. But the Lord's Prayer itself is not said in "Jesus' name" but to "our Father." It is a good Jewish prayer said by a Jewish guy. At the same time, a foundational prayer for Christianity.

Who was "included" in this invocation? Ultimately, the allusions stayed within Jewish, Christian, and Islamic references. No polytheists here (unless Christianity counts). And no atheists--but it is a prayer!

Polytheists and atheists were brought into the event by Obama's own speech, when he said, "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers."

In the end, it seemed to be a highly forgettable prayer. It was not any more or less Christian or particularistic than the prayer of benediction, although that one might be memorable for its rhyming colors. It was not that exciting or interesting. And, I think, would have been entirely forgotten within a few hours by most of us if we hadn't made a big deal about it. Now it will be remembered for, eh, another few hours.

More Controversy Surrounding Rick Warren's Inauguration Prayer

First the issue was the fact that Warren, a staunch opponent to gay rights, was even chosen at all. See here. Now, at issue, is whether he will refer to this first-century Jewish dude from Nazareth, whom some people worship as the Son of God and the second person of the Trinity.

From the Associated Press:

Warren's inauguration prayer could draw more ire
By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll, Ap Religion Writer
Tue Dec 30, 9:35 pm ET

President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation drew one kind of protest. Whether the evangelical pastor offers the prayer in the name of Jesus may draw another. At George W. Bush's 2001 swearing-in, the Revs. Franklin Graham and Kirbyjon Caldwell were criticized for invoking Christ. The distinctly Christian reference at a national civic event offended some, and even prompted a lawsuit.

Warren did not answer directly when asked whether he would dedicate his prayer to Jesus. In a statement Tuesday to The Associated Press, Warren would say only that, "I'm a Christian pastor so I will pray the only kind of prayer I know how to pray."

"Prayers are not to be sermons, speeches, position statements nor political posturing. They are humble, personal appeals to God," Warren wrote. His spokesman would not elaborate.

Evangelicals generally expect their clergymen to use Jesus' name whenever and wherever they lead prayer. Many conservative Christians say cultural sensitivity goes way too far if it requires religious leaders to hide their beliefs.

"If Rick Warren does not pray in Jesus' name, some folks are going to be very disappointed," Caldwell said in a recent phone interview. "Since he's evangelical, his own tribe, if you will, will have some angst if he does not do that."

Advocates for gay rights protested Obama's decision to give Warren a prominent role at the swearing-in. The California megachurch founder supported Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in his home state. Obama defended his choice, saying he wanted the event to reflect diverse views and insisting he remains a "fierce advocate" of equal rights for gays.

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, a United Methodist who is considered the dean of the civil rights movement, said he hasn't yet written the benediction for the Jan. 20 ceremony. But he said "whatever religion the person represents, I think he has a right to be true to his religion."

Caldwell, also a Methodist, said no one from the Bush team told him what to say in his 2001 and 2005 benedictions.

The Houston pastor said he had "no intention whatsoever of offending" people when he quoted from Philippians and delivered the 2001 prayer "in the name that's above all other names, Jesus the Christ." In 2005, he still prayed in Jesus' name, but added the line, "respecting persons of all faiths." In the 2008 election, Caldwell supported Obama.

Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, who was a presence at presidential inaugurations for several decades, said it's wrong to expect members of any faith to change how they pray in public.

"For a Christian, especially for an evangelical pastor, the Bible teaches us that we are to pray in the name of Jesus Christ. How can a minister pray any other way?" Franklin Graham said. "If you don't want someone to pray in Jesus' name, don't invite an evangelical minister."

Graham, who in 2001 stepped in for his ailing father, ended the invocation with, "We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit."

The lawsuit, which claimed that inaugural prayer was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, failed in federal court. It had been filed by atheist Michael Newdow, who separately sued to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Billy Graham, now 90, didn't say Jesus' name during presidential inaugurations, but made obvious references to Christ.

At Richard Nixon's 1969 swearing-in, Graham prayed "in the Name of the Prince of Peace who shed His blood on the Cross that men might have eternal life." In 1997, for Bill Clinton's inaugural, Graham prayed "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Leaders of other traditions with experience in interfaith work said they respected Christians who felt strongly that they should pray in Christ's name.

But they argued that a request for some modification is reasonable for a presidential inauguration, considering it's an event representing all Americans.

Imam Yahya Hendi, a Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University who travels to Muslim countries on behalf of the State Department, said that at interfaith events, he refers to Allah, or God, as "almighty creator of us all."

Rabbi Burt Visotzky, a professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the flagship institution of Conservative Judaism, said he invokes "God" for interfaith prayer.

"I know that for Christians, Jesus is part of their Trinity," said Visotzky, who has taught at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and at Protestant seminaries in the U.S. "For me as a Jew, hearing the name of a first-century rabbi isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not my God."

I think Burt Vizotsky has a mature attitude here: why should he be offended by other people practicing their religion? It is just not his God. In an interfaith setting, one should not efface one's identity to some lowest common denominator, but let every identity stand out and dialogue with one another. Each retains one's own religious identity, yet, at the same time, is sensitive to others' beliefs, practices, and traditions. So, what is the right thing to do? Is it better in this national setting to be vague and therefore represent "all Americans," as if that were even possible. Or is it more "American" to just be yourself, retain your individuality in the face of opposition? I personally do not care if Warren invokes Jesus, if an imam invokes Allah and in a national prayer speaks of the "seal of the prophets." I don't care if a Catholic refers to Pope Benedict XVI or if a Tibetan refers to "His Holiness the Dalai Lama." I don't care if a Jew refers to "Ha-Shem." While we're at it, why not have someone invoke Vishnu. I don't care if an atheist invokes...nothing! Let them all just be themselves, and not try to make others into their own image. This is not just an issue of "liberal hypersensitivity" and over-political correctness, as it seems to be billed. I am very liberal, but I am neither particularly sensitive nor politically correct (I have this strange belief that everyone should be offended from time to time in their most cherished value--whether religious, political, etc.--utopia for me is everyone offending everyone else; equality is everyone making fun of everyone else equally). No, because if we had a Hindu give the opening invocation, the fear would be on the other side, that Siva or Vishnu or Krishna may be invoked! No, this is an infection that seems to affect all sides. It would be best, perhaps, if we had as many different groups as possible invoke their deity or deities or non-deity to reflect the broad marketplace of religious options in the U.S. The problem is that we do not have enough time for them all to invoke these things at the inauguration. Yet the other problem is that if we pressure Warren to reflect all Americans by being vague, he'll end up reflecting no one. I can ultimately see both sides of the issue, but I think Polonius in Hamlet was right, "To thine own self be true." Just as I would hate for a Hindu to give in to pressure not to invoke his deity or deities, the same holds true for Warren.

Also, perhaps a bit of clarification on the last point in the article about a "first-century rabbi": Burt Visotzky wrote an article on the development on the term "Rabbi" and came to an interesting conclusion--that the earliest document to refer to someone as a "rabbi" in terms of "teacher" (rather than its etymological sense of "great one") is the New Testament in reference to Jesus. Interesting thing for the rabbinic movement (out of which all modern forms of Judaism really derive) that the earliest document to use this terminology is the Christian scriptures in regard to Jesus. By the way, I took a class with Visotzky on Midrash.

Homosexuality and Rainforests...WHAT?

Ok...so I thought that Rick Warren's analogy between gay marriage and brother-sister marriage was bizarre. I also thought his analogy between homosexuality and pedophilia ridiculous--unless he is stuck in Periclean Athens. But the award for the strangest homosexuality analogy goes to Pope Benedict XVI:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound."

The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."

He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected."

(Reporting by Phil Stewart)

Yes, he did. B16 just compared homosexuality to the destruction of the rainforests. I wonder if he was watching the Discovery Channel while writing his sermon, because, otherwise, this seems like the most bizarre analogy I have ever heard, and I cannot explain it. While Warren's comparisons were just outright distasteful, this one is just mindboggling. "Listen to the language of creation"? That's interesting, since biologists now tell us that there are many many animal species, particularly mammals, that engage in homosexual behavior on a regular basis. Would not this show homosexual relations to be natural, and, indeed, part of the language of creation? Or do all of these other animal species' behavior also indicate "a destruction of God's work"? Or is he just worried about the language of PROcreation?

UPDATE: There are some reactions to the Pope's speech recorded by the Times (London). Here is an interesting snippet from an ex-friar:

Mark Dowd, campaign strategist at Operation Noah, the Christian environmental group, who is a gay man and a former Dominican friar, said that the Pope’s remarks were "understandable but misguided and unfortunate".

He said that he understood the Pope’s vision of creation in which rainforests were protected and men and women "complement one another, reproduce and live happily ever after".

But he said: "The problem is that if you study ecology seriously as any intelligent man would do, and the Pope is a fantastically intelligent man, you realise that ecology is complex, it has all sort of weird interdependencies and it is the same with human sexuality.

"It is not a one-size-fits-all model, there are lots of differences, so therefore I think it is really sad that these comments betray a lack of openess to the complexity of creation."

Obama and Warren Controversy

Some people were worried when Obama and McCain appeared at Saddleback Church for their first public meeting on the same stage months ago during the Presidential campaign...it seemed then mostly due to separation of church and state issues. Now people are upset that Warren is offering a prayer at Obama's inauguration...not because of separation of church and state issues (there is ALWAYS a prayer at these events), but because of Warren's positions on abortion and same-sex marriage. While I personally differ with Warren on these issues also, there are a few things to make clear. Warren is NOT like Dobson or other evangelical leaders. He does not incite divisiveness in the way they do, although he's made some rather crude analogies vis-a-vis gay marriage lately. He does try to create coalitions with people who differ with him on many issues: thus he has been effective working on issues of poverty and HIV/AIDS with people who oppose him on other social issues. Although he does not support gay marriage, he did not energize his media machinery to pour support into Proposition 8 either (and he lives in California)--on the other hand, his prominent position in making certain statements surely has an effect. He also, unlike other people like Dobson (the old guard religious right in general), does support hospital visitation rights, etc., for same-sex couples...although this comes across as a second-rate consolation prize for marriage, separate and unequal.

Oh, by the way, recall Obama's position on gay marriage during the election? Anyone? It actually isn't far off from this (at least on the surface). It was one of the things that he and McCain agreed on.

Nonetheless, here is a full article from the NYTimes about it:

December 20, 2008
Obama’s Choice of Pastor Creates Furor
By JEFF ZELENY and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
CHICAGO — With his choice of the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, President-elect Barack Obama has found himself enmeshed in a new controversy involving a pastor, facing criticism this time from liberal and gay rights groups outraged at the idea of including the evangelical pastor at a Democratic celebration.

Mr. Obama’s forceful defense of Mr. Warren, the author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” has signaled an intent to continue his campaign’s effort to woo even theologically conservative Christians. As his advisers field scores of calls from Democrats angry because Mr. Warren is an outspoken opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama has insisted that a range of viewpoints be expressed at the inauguration festivities next month in Washington.

“That’s part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated,” Mr. Obama said, speaking to reporters here this week. He added, “That’s hopefully going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration.”

The growing alliance of Mr. Obama and Mr. Warren — each of the two publicly refers to the other as “friend” — suggests that Mr. Obama hopes to capitalize on the signs of potential generational and political divisions within the evangelical Christian flock. For his part, Mr. Warren is increasingly being spoken of as a kind of minister to the nation, a status previously occupied by the Rev. Billy Graham.

V. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, whose consecration caused a painful divide in his church because he is openly gay, said that when he heard about the selection of Mr. Warren, “it was like a slap in the face.”

Bishop Robinson had been an early public endorser of Mr. Obama’s candidacy, and said he had helped serve as a liaison between the campaign and the gay community. He said he had called officials who work for Mr. Obama to share his dismay, and been told that Mr. Obama was trying to reach out to conservatives and give everybody a seat at the table.

“I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” Bishop Robinson said, “but we’re not talking about a discussion, we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”

It is not Mr. Obama’s first brush with trouble at the intersection of religion and politics. In his presidential campaign, he struggled with how to handle his longtime Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose sermons on race and patriotism stirred outrage. After initially defending him, Mr. Obama ultimately broke ties with Mr. Wright and the church.

Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for the Obama inauguration, said Friday that including Mr. Warren was not a decision based on politics. Ms. Douglass said Mr. Obama and his team had not second-guessed the decision to invite him, despite the controversy.

“This is a guy with whom he has found common ground on issues such as fighting for social justice on behalf of the poor, people who have H.I.V./AIDS,” Ms. Douglass said. “There are many areas where they do agree and have had a very productive discussion.”

Among Christian conservatives, reaction to Mr. Warren’s acceptance of the invitation to deliver a marquee prayer at Mr. Obama’s inauguration was subdued or supportive, perhaps in part because few Christian leaders are inclined to publicly criticize someone with enormous popularity among American Protestants of all stripes.

Some politically minded Christian conservatives took a cynical view of Mr. Obama’s motivations.

“In my view, the new president is trying to exploit Warren,” Gary L. Bauer, the Christian conservative organizer and former Republican presidential candidate, wrote on Friday in an e-mail newsletter. He urged supporters not to take Mr. Warren’s role as an endorsement, calling attention to Mr. Obama’s distance from the pastor on social issues.

John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron who studies religion and politics, saw the invitation to Mr. Warren as a sign that Mr. Obama planned to keep courting religious conservatives as he tried to build a coalition behind his agenda to govern.

“This shows Obama’s pragmatism,” Mr. Green said, noting that Mr. Obama was in a sense paying Mr. Warren back for his signs of support during the campaign, including an invitation to Mr. Warren’s Saddleback Church that reverberated through the evangelical world.

The Rev. Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College, said that he and Mr. Warren were friends, but they disagree on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And yet, he said, “I think it is a terrible mistake for anyone to view Rick Warren as being in the same category as James Dobson or Chuck Colson,” who are among the most prominent leaders of the religious right.

“He’s a new breed,” said Father Balmer, a longtime scholar of American evangelicals, who recently became rector of an Episcopal church.

He said that unlike many other evangelical pastors, Mr. Warren had not devoted as much time or effort in support of Proposition 8, a measure on the California ballot in November that amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

In a recent interview with the Web site Beliefnet, Mr. Warren said that allowing same-sex couples to marry was no different from allowing a brother and sister to marry.

But he also said that same-sex marriage was less of a threat to the American family than divorce. Mr. Warren said that he supported partnership rights for gay people, including insurance coverage and hospital visitation rights, a position that is not widely accepted among evangelical conservatives.

Richard Socarides, who was a special assistant to President Bill Clinton in charge of gay and lesbian policies, said the disappointment among gay-rights supporters over Proposition 8 made Mr. Obama’s decision to invite Mr. Warren more difficult to understand. He called it a “serious miscalculation that will anger a lot of people and will be hard to undo.”

“It’s not like he’s introducing Obama at some campaign rally in the South,” Mr. Socarides said. “He’s been given this very prominent, central role in the ceremony which is supposed to usher in a new civil rights era.”

Jeff Zeleny reported from Chicago, and David D. Kirkpatrick from Washington. Laurie Goodstein contributed reporting from New York.

It is interesting that he rates divorce as worse than gay marriage, which, actually, makes sense for a biblically minded person, since the Bible says very little about homosexual relationships and says a lot more about divorce. See my posting here on that. The whole thing about a brother and sister getting married being equal to gay marriage is just weird. But, here is the interesting thing about it (from a historical point of view). ONE: marriage between brother and sister IS attested throughout history--particularly among ancient royal families (most especially Egyptians). Although I doubt Warren was intended to activate those remembrances and was going for a more visceral reaction of disgust among conservatives--hardly a basis for legal issues. TWO: the passage in Leviticus that opposes MALE homosexual relations is embedded in a chapter that opposes incest. Perhaps he is picking up on the context of the one of two places the bible opposes homosexual relations (again, between men), although I am not sure if he is intentionally picking up on this relationship or not. While this analogy has a context in ancient Israel, if this context of his analogy is right, it is also part of selective reading, once again, since I'm sure he doesn't follow all the other rules of Leviticus either! So, he is going for visceral reactions and/or picking up on a book of the Bible that no Christian actually follows (except picking out this particular chapter). Neither of which sould constitute the legal parameters of marriage.

So, is having Warren offer a prayer at the inauguration a ringing endorsement of all of Warren's points of view? Not really--although Obama also technically opposed gay marriage during the election. Is it mere political maneuvering as the religious right maintains? I also doubt it. I actually thought Obama's defense made a certain amount of sense: we can disagree without being disagreeable. It makes a certain amount of sense in another way: while ideologically different, they both appear to me to be pragmatists. People who are willing to work with other people on a particular issue that they may agree on to actually get something done while bracketing those issues that they disagree, perhaps vehemently disagree, on. Isn't it this kind of coalition building that Obama campaigned on? Remember his lines that we may not agree on abortion, but we can all agree on reducing unwanted pregnancies, etc. To me, this is just an example of following through on his campaign positions. On the other hand, for people who have been struggling for equal rights and recognition all their lives, for people who have seen so many setbacks, there is a time to be angry.

For full disclosure, I was a TA for Randy Balmer (quoted in the article above) in his class, Evangelicalism, a class that exposed some of the frightening aspects of different varieties of evangelicals (and there are some very very widely variant groups under this fairly broad label) as well as, from my political position, some hopeful parts (especially evangelicals mobilizing for environmental issues, poverty, etc.). Indeed, as the article alluded to above, there are increasingly larger fissures among evangelicals not only theologically but politically. Some are becoming more and more entrenched on the far right. Others are becoming quite liberal and progressive. Yet most people are conservative on some issues and liberal on others--it is often, in my experience, issue specific.

Obama, McCain, and Rick Warren

Today, Aug. 16, 2008, will be the first meeting of McCain and Obama on the same stage at Rick Warren's megachurch, Saddleback. They have not been on the same stage together since before the primary season began.

Last I knew, the issues slated to be discussed were Rick Warren's pet issues of poverty, AIDS, and the environment. That the first major political discussion is being held at a church rather than in the (secular) public arena is a concern for many, who see the "wall of separation" between church and state beginning to crumble (if it ever really held very firm to begin with). Both candidates are clearly seeking the much coveted evangelical vote.

See background from NYT here. And I posted on this a while back here.

UPDATE: See some early results of the event here.

Obama and McCain to Meet with Rick Warren

Rick Warren, the pastor of the gigantic Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA., has individually invited both John McCain and Barack Obama to meet at a forum at his megachurch before the Democratic and Republican conventions. Since the campaigns began, McCain and Obama have never been on the same stage together, but now they have a chance to court evangelical voters. Rick Warren is best known for his book, The Purpose Driven Life, which was a NYTimes best seller and a book of wide appeal well beyond the evangelical sub-culture. In this forum they will be discussing Rick Warren's primary foci: AIDS, poverty, and the environment. I've noted a heightened interest in these social areas among Evangelicals before, areas which in the past have been primarily associated on the Democratic platform. So, Rick Warren has done what no one else has: brought the two candidates together to discuss side-by-side their views on these crucial global issues.

This, by the way, comes on the heels of James Dobson, from "Focus on the Family," of doing a 180 and suggesting that he will probably do something he thought he would never do: support McCain, the latter of whom has had a huge struggle with Evangelical voters. I do applaud Rick Warren for keeping things balanced (unlike Dobson), giving Evangelical voters (and everyone else--I hope this is televised in some way) an equal view of each candidate on issues that seem to be falling through the cracks at the moment.

See the New York Times article here.