Originally posted by: magomago
These types of events are just "feel good session" to woo religious voters...but does it really make a difference?
It certainly makes a difference, but to make headway in the general question of what this sort of event entails, you have to look at the event and draw some distinctions. The first is politics vs. religion. This was essentially a political event. All the players knew this, but Warren and McCain perhaps better than Obama, who made the greatest effort to discuss religion.
Warren seemed to me to be most interested in making some morally-directed political claims; to draw the candidates towards his political goals. In this, McCain played ball well for the home team. Obama, not so much -- his position on abortion for example did not please Warren. The game here was the political perspective of the so-called religious right, the team which McCain is much more strongly associated with -- which views Obama as the outsider. Obama's position was to un-alienate them as much as he could, and to validate his Christianity despite that.
Anyone who attended to hear about religion was likely disappointed by the event, beyond the self-satisfied club membership parts expressed by Warren and McCain. Obama also stood at the threshold, but I don't feel that he crossed the line to self-aggrandizement based on his religion. Instead, I think he got the question on his religion right, consistent with the religion. This I hold as the second distinction, again religion vs. politics, but from the perspective of real religion. The event was real politics. Real religion is very different. It shies away from self-aggrandizement, and public display of piety as such. These tend to be foolish and dangerous from the point of view of spirituality.
In this view, Obama came much closer to the real danger by actually talking about the religion. McCain simply trotted out some dogma and in doing so clearly demonstrated his lack of understanding of some of the profound elements of the religion.
But, it is also an error for me to apparently impose on you how I think about the religion, so I say this merely as sincere personal opinion. You can form your own.
I disagree with the OP if he meant that we should tolerate politicians while they apparently pander to certain religious constituents while acting in a different manner. That would be a form of institutionalized hypocrisy -- a real tragedy for all concerned. I think that all the players did us all a favor here on this point -- by not trotting out the religion as religion more; to avoid entrenching hypocrisy, to simply make the political elements clearer as questions of positions on issues of interest.
They could have done more to make elements of the religion and their personal perspectives on that clearer. That they didn't in my view is a good thing in itself because of the dangers of egoism and hypocrisy, and also a secularly-comforting indication that the candidates are not driving their political ambitions solely by their personal religion. But just as it's not good to feign piety, it's also not good to feign secularity, so I think this was good after all -- if you're interested in this aspect, then you can find some clarity on these matters from this event.