Questions for Americans, Part VI

(Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

21. How do we speak out and how do you plan to do something about [human trafficking and slavery, including sex traffic and slavery]?

See above. Human traffickers and their clients need to be vigorously pursued and prosecuted, and if the countries of primary jurisdiction won't prosecute, they need to be tried in any country they have ever done business in until the international community can make it too risky to engage in this trafficking. It will take international cooperation, primarily through the United Nations.

22. Why do you want to be president?

[Insert stump speech here.]

23. What do you say to people who oppose me asking you these questions [in a church]?

The way Warren asked Senator Obama this question, he made it sound as if it were about him ("What do you say to people who oppose me asking you these questions?" implied emphasis on the me.) He clarified when he asked Senator McCain by asking the entire question you see above. The first version didn't make much sense to me. Anybody should be able to ask presidential candidates reasonable questions. But since he clarified and gave me the opening, I'll bite.

We have a long tradition of separation of church and state in the US. While this separation is not directly Constitutional, we do have an establishment clause in the Constitution, and the separation does date to the writings of the same man who drafted the Declaration of Independence. It's generally pointless arguing original intent of the founding fathers when they never specifically address an issue (like abortion, gay marriage, pornography, etc.), but in this case we have direct writing on a specific issue from one of the crafters of the country's founding documents!

What tends to happen, and this is exactly what's happening with McCain, is that people get so hung up on the minutæ of religion and religious beliefs that they ignore everything else. Does the flavor of christianity of a candidate really matter when the country is approaching a recession while involved in two wars and presumably facing daily threats of international terrorism? Does it really matter what name is on the front of a candiate's church (if they even go to church) if they have a comprehensive energy and economic plan?

It should not. And this is the problem with having this forum in a church. Both candidates appear to be running for the position of Preacher-In-Chief. No other location or moderator would give such an impression. If they had this forum in the Staples Center and were interviewed by Bobby Knight, nobody would assume they were trying to win over basketball fans, nor that their choice of who they cheer for would make that much of a difference in their campaign.

Warren has been quite outspoken about the candidates, clearly supporting Republican candidates over Democrats, and whatever candidate "wins" the forum will be presumed to be the choice of evangelical christians across the country and assumed to support the doctrine of the Lake Forest church.

This is a two-fold problem. The evangelical vote is a very loud minority who wants to do away with many of the United Nations' human rights, and both candidates have fallen into the trap of trying to appease and win their vocal support. Does a candidate really want to be associated with diminution of human rights? Second, we've already seen on a national scale what happens to candidates who are too closely associated with a specific church doctrine. Both Senator Obama and Senator McCain have faced criticism based on their pastors' public statements. Why should they get involved with another outspoken pastor whose theology will now get scrutinized and criticized? Why would either candidate want to potentially open himself up to such criticism? A person's choice in belief systems is their own. One may be able to glean some insight about what the candidates think about social issues, or the economy, or globalism, by knowing their specific religious beliefs, but why not just ask them about social issues, the economy, or globalism?

I didn't read the candidates' responses to this question. I'm not interested in what they say because the reason is obvious: they want the vociferous evangelicals to start chanting their names from the pulpets.

24. What would you tell the American public if you knew there wouldn’t be any repercussions?

Let's assume he meant negative repercussions. How about, "If you want governmental social programs, a clean environment, and peace and security, you have one option: pay more taxes. The government can not provide services, and clean and protect the air and water, and provide armed forces and security without money to pay for them. Upset about soldiers not getting enough protective equipment? Pony up for it. Upset that it takes too long for the government to fix your roads? Pony up for it. Upset that college is costing you too much out of pocket? You're going to have to pay more taxes for the government to put more money into the schools. Government may print the money, but they can't make it appear out of nothing."