Sarah clarifies her response to my post:
[B]y accepting his invitation, and by agreeing to terms that were set up by Warren and Warren alone, the candidates were acquiescing to him being the arbiter of what the important political and theological questions are (and that it's proper to pose theological questions to political candidates in the first place).
But they are doing no such thing. By attending, the two candidates aren't saying that Warren is the only arbiter of these questions any more than letting Brian Williams moderate a debate makes him the only arbiter of what's important. What they're saying, rightly, is that Warren represents an important interest group that they need to engage with. Attending to various special interest groups special concerns is part and parcel of running for President.
Why not other faiths? Both candidates have already genuflected before AIPAC, offering their support for a critical issue to many Jewish-American voters. Other religious groups are either fairly divided, too small, or not interested enough in politics to host a similar panel. From a progressive point of view, it's too bad that evangelicals are simply the largest and best-organized politicized voting group.
It's one thing if you take issue with the fact that conservative Christians are, once again, an influential voting bloc -- as a liberal Catholic, I hate that they set the standard for what Christianity and faith mean in the public square. But, it's a whole different -- and wrong -- argument to act as though either candidate is responsible for creating Warren's status or as if Warren is somehow crazy to be highlighting his priorities when candidates appear at his forum. Both Obama and McCain are just acknowledging and dealing with a political reality. Finally, some, if not many, of Warren's questions were important, no matter what faith you are.
--Tim Fernholz
