Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2008 > August > 15 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USBarr goes to court to demand entry into Saddleback Church
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Barack Obama and John McCain are scheduled to make a joint appearance Saturday at Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif.
No other candidates have been invited, which has ticked off Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr.
Russ Verney, campaign manager for the former Georgia congressman, has just sent out a mass e-mail saying Barr will seek a court order to require the church to invite him, too.
Which perhaps is an odd thing for a Libertarian to do — asking a judge to determine whom a church should invite into its sanctuary.
Here’s a portion of the note:
After weeks of negotiations and calls to Saddleback Church from leaders from every corner of the political spectrum supporting Bob Bar’s inclusion, we’ve been left out in the cold.
The only people getting into the event are Obama, McCain and those who reportedly paid $500 to $2,000 to the church to sit in the audience.
Yesterday, I reported to former Congressman Barr that we’ve exhausted every avenue. I told him, “We’ve had calls placed to Pastor [Rick] Warren from very powerful leaders from the left and the right, we sent in our personal request, and placed numerous phone calls that have not been returned. You are not going to be included.
“Our only option left is to threaten to file an temporary injunction as our attorney’s believe they are in violation of the law.”
Bob responded by saying, “No, don’t threaten to do that … Just do it.”
As you read this, our attorneys are filing an injunction against Saddleback Church to include Bob Barr in their forum this Saturday.
Services »
Comments
By Mark W. Rutherford
August 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this
It is not an odd thing for a Libertarian to expect that when the government has laws and rules, that all be required to abide by the same laws, rules and “playing field”, even churches.
It really is the government, through the onerous McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws, telling churches who can be invited to its forum. The church is in violation of the law, and Barr, who is forced by government to comply with the law, is forcing the church, McCain and Obama to play by the same rules to which he must abide.
In this case, the rules benefit him. Usually, they don’t.
By Craig
August 15, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this
Strange a Libertarian wants to use the power of government to force his way in a church. Judges determining who gets to enter churches? So much for the freedom of religion and assembly…not to mention private property. I hear the Fascist Party is looking for a candidate for President.
By michael
August 15, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
I don’t know about McCain Feingold, but if the church excludes a candidate from a forum, that’s a violation of its tax-exempt status.
By AFH
August 15, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this
YES! Hoist McCain by his own petard!
I have no problem with using the Kings muskets against him and this is exactly one of those oppertunities.
McCain-Feingold strangles third parties dead, yet McCain doesn’t feel he needs to live by the rules he helped write, introduce, and pass?
This is justice manifest.
ALIVE * FREE * HAPPY Libertarian
By John Campbell
August 15, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Separation of church and state goes both ways. If they want to enjoy tax exempt status then they shouldn’t be picking winners and losers in the presidential race.
Go Bob Barr!
By Robin White
August 15, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this
I am a big supporter of the church, but I have placed a call and wrote a letter asking that they reconsider and allow Cong. Barr to speak. I encourage all to do the same.
Saddleback Church 1 Saddleback Pkwy Lake Forest, CA 92630 Phone: (949) 609-8000 & (949) 609-8778 & E-mail: info@saddleback.net
I would like to write off my donations and since they risk losing their tax exempt status, i asked the Pastor for the good of the church and its supports, to reconsider. I am actually suprised they have not returned my calls or emails yet. Perhaps they are so flushed they do not need or want my money any longer?
Thank you and god bless,
Robin
By D'angelo
August 15, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this
Is is just me or does Barr look like a black dude in “white face” makeup? I have always thought this about him.
By Kyle
August 15, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this
@Craig: Freedom of religion and assembly aren’t the issue.. Churches are tax-exempt. By sponsoring an exclusive debate for only two candidates, the Church is effectively making a huge contribution to McCain and Obama.
It’s a shame Pastor Warren doesn’t realize how much it’d benefit his Church to sponsor the first real debate of the season… so many people would tune in just to see Barr and McKinney intellectually upstage Obama and McCain.
By Don Patterson
August 15, 2008 7:04 PM | Link to this
We Libertarians are filing an injunction today requesting equal time at the tax-exempt Saddleback Church which is holding a presidential forum on Saturday, August 16. If not equal time we should get at least five to seven percent of the time which is where Bob Barr is polling.
How can the church show a political preference in its national program?
Don Patterson Libertarian Candidate for Congress Californaia 48th Congressional District
By George Dance
August 15, 2008 7:16 PM | Link to this
If the only penalty the court can assess on the church is loss of its tax-exempt status, then I don’t see any Libertarian objection to that. Not that I’m in favor of taxation — if you take money by coercion, it’s stealing — but that’s no justification for tax exempt status for just some people or groups. Granting them that doesn’t stop stealing, but just means they steal more from the rest of us.
By G.E.
August 15, 2008 7:48 PM | Link to this
Once again, Bob Barr exposes himself as the statist thug and parasite he is and has been all of his adult life.
Boil this story down to its essence:
Bob Barr wants to use the government’s guns to force his way into a private debate.
That is totally unlibertarian.
To the moron who says he/she’s a “happy libertarian” or this is a case of McCain being “hoisted on his own petard” — B.S. This is hardcore statism and interference with a church. Why should the church’s rights be violated in the name of “getting back” at McCain.
To the other bloodthirsty statist who said that the church should have its tax-exempt status revoked: Do you realize there are literally dozens, maybe hundreds, of people running for president? Should the church not be allowed to have a debate unless they invite EVERY ONE of them? Fine. I’m a candidate for president as of now. Let me in the debate.
A private group should have the freedom to associate with whomever they want and exclude whomever they want. This is not the statist-quo, but Bob Barr is supposed to be a libertarian. “Supposed to be.” He’s a statist thug and a complete disgrace to libertarianism.
All of the delegates who voted for him in Denver should be holding their heads in shame. This guy has done nothing but repeatedly embarrass the Libertarian Party.
By ray
August 15, 2008 8:34 PM | Link to this
de’angelo@5:25 - you should have seen that brother before he ate the cheese made of milk from borat’s mama’s teat…whitened him up significantly.
By Craig
August 15, 2008 8:49 PM | Link to this
Please show me specifically what law is being broken. This is a forum between two people and religious leaders. This happens all the time. If Mr. Liberty Barr has a problem with this why hasn’t he challenged this before? Seems odd he’s only upset when HE is not invited.
How can this be a tax exempt status? This church and all affiliated with this have not endorsed anyone. No one has been endorsed by Warren or all hosting this. It’s non-partisan discussing religious values. If you care to prove to me that a candidate HAS been endorsed then by all means do so. Barr proclaims to want the government to remain out of church and private life but when no one gives him attention he’ll beg and plead for the government to force HIS will on others. Looks like Barr still has a little PATRIOT Act in him after all.
By Sarajo
August 15, 2008 9:06 PM | Link to this
Saddleback is a private religious institution, they are free to invite, or not, anyone to speak. Bob Barr is certainly demonstrating that HE is NOT emotionally mature enough a candidate to be leader of the free world. I am a Georgia resident, he did not impress me as my senator - and he impresses me even less now with his threats to forcefully include himself in a privately sponsored debate (which in reality is only a discourse since Obama is too afraid to meet McCain face to face). In my humble opinion Bob Barr is an idiot and a spoiler.
By Mayhew
August 15, 2008 9:08 PM | Link to this
Aww… poor Jason Seagraves, aka G.E.
His preferred candidate for the Libertarian nomination supported legalizing child porn and guess what, she lost. Jason was actually one of her nominator at the convention with a less than inspiring speech.
Jason never got over it so he trolls the Internet looking to botch Barr’s run.
Barr did not write McCain Feingold but his campaign is controlled and limited by its regulations. If he stopped abiding campaign finance law then he gets fined or goes to jail. When McCain and Obama violates campaign finance a “good libertarian” is supposed to look the other way according to Jason and other “pure” libertarians.
Don’t be fooled, anarchists attempted to take over the LP years ago, they were successful for awhile and the nomination of Barr put the last nail in the anarchist coffin. They’ll have to find a new home in the Boston Tea Party because the LP now belongs to true libertarians, not anarchists cloaked in the libertarian banner.
By member and citizen
August 15, 2008 10:24 PM | Link to this
Libertarian - Chooses to break themselves away from one or another party, in favor of independent thinking. Unless he/she can benefit from using the services of the others.
We call these “users”
By James2
August 15, 2008 10:27 PM | Link to this
@Mayhew, thanks for saying what needs to be said! I am a card carrying LP member since 1995. I too am tired of the “star trek convention” faction of our party.These same type of people derailed the great Harry Browne in 2000! I voted for Barr in all 6 rounds and I am damn proud for doing so!
By Imperial
August 15, 2008 11:12 PM | Link to this
Please, somebodoy explain how exactly the law was broken?
By richardwinger
August 16, 2008 12:32 AM | Link to this
The law that was broken says organizations that sponsor debates must have objective criteria on whom to invite.
By FormerLPMember
August 16, 2008 12:55 AM | Link to this
James2 Check your history, Harry Browne was the LP’s standard bearer in both 1996 & 2000. May he rest in peace. I’m glad he’s not alive to see Bob Barr as the LP’s presidential candidate. Mayhew true libertarians?? Do you even understand The Philosophy of Liberty George Dance Would you turn in your neighbor if you knew he was cheating the federal government on his tax returns? Would you turn him in for a reward? Anybody who has the balls not to pay federal taxes should be considered true American Patriots.
By Mark Jordan Koeff
August 16, 2008 1:01 AM | Link to this
The Saddleback Civil Forum is just that. It is a “monthly forum intended to promote personal responsibility, social civility, and spiritual maturity. World leaders in science, business, education, the arts, entertainment, government, health, and religion are invited to speak on subjects of community interest. Sometimes speakers are ordinary people with extraordinary stories, such as a recent forum when five Jewish holocaust survivors shared how they survived the World War II death camps.” These forums have NO government sponsorship, and thus, “separation of church and state,” has no relevance to the personal invitation of Rick Warren.
Though Saddleback does honor ‘separation of church and state,’ Rick Warren does not recognize a ‘separation of faith and politics.” He tell us, “Faith is simply a worldview and everyone has some type of worldview. Whether you are an atheist, secularist, Buddhist, communist, Christian or any other faith, you have a worldview. Your worldview is your personal database that you reference to make every decision. Any leader who claims that he will ‘not allow his faith to influence his decisions’ is either ignorant or dishonest, as that is impossible to do. Leaders make decisions based on their values, or worldview, so it is entirely appropriate for voters to want to know what a candidate’s worldview is.”
Lastly, of the 5000+ seats that were available, less than 250 seats were sold. That is, 95% were given FREE to Saddleback Volunteers. I was one of the fortunate ones to be given a FREE ticket. The mere 250 seats that were sold were mainly to outsiders, and done so for the sole purpose of helping to defray the enormous costs in making this forum available to a national audience.
What cynics and naysayers alike must understand about Rick Warren is this: he is the real thing. Try as hard as you like to fabricate whatever specious rationale you contend is at the heart of his motivation, where verity is sought and not the promotion of an agenda, you will find a man of honor, compassion and integrity. You can fault him for being human, but not for caring, loving and daring to make a difference.
By FormerLPMember
August 16, 2008 1:36 AM | Link to this
Someone’s math isn’t right??
Russ Verney’s email says the seats sold for $500 to $2,000
and Mark Jordan Koeff states “The mere 250 seats that were sold were mainly to outsiders, and done so for the sole purpose of helping to defray the enormous costs in making this forum available to a national audience.”
But CNN, FOX News and MSNBC are scheduled for 2 hours of prime time television coverage. That type of coverage must cost in the hundreds of millions if not in the billions of dollars???
By Mark Jordan Koeff
August 16, 2008 2:26 AM | Link to this
Respectfully, “math” was neither the issue nor has it been presented.
The only variables/facts known are the number of seats available (5000+), and the vast number of seats given away - FREE (all but 250).
It is not my place nor purpose to express the degree to which the few ticket sales are helping to defray costs. I am ignorant of the costs, the entities who are footing the bill, and the particulars in how national news plugs into a local feed.
The issue was not the cost of organizing the event, but making known, factually, the manner the tickets were distributed. Such was misrepresented by Russ, and I have merely set the record straight.
By Tonya
August 16, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
While tickets were allowed to be purchased, over 2000 tickets were free to Saddleback members and volunteers and tickets also went to Santa Ana School District students and chaperons. Someone needs to double check their facts before posting partial information to slant to their point of view. That’s the problem with society. Half-trutths. We teach our children that these are lies. The church only had 6,000 tickets and over 100,000 members. They also had to upgrade their equipment so that the media’s video feed would work.
By Mark Jordan Koeff
August 16, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
Thank you Tonya for your comment, however, in the spirit of your note’s call for whole truth, I think it is important to as accurate as the facts are known and stipulated by Saddleback Church. To wit, there over 4,750 (not 2000) given FREE to Saddleback Volunteers. Lastly, if I might expound a tad, Saddleback invited the principals of schools in the Santa Ana district to select some worthy students to attend for free in order to experience the American election system. 22 students and 2 chaperones have been awarded seats.
By ScottLiberty
August 16, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
Obama and Mccain get 24 hour a day coverage. Why are we excluding the other candidates for this very important race???
By SpaceyG
August 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
I hear Rielle Hunter’s doing the AV.
By Tonya
August 16, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Sorry Mark, your comment had not posted at the time I wrote mine so I had not read yours. I was referring to the letter discussed in the article.
By Mark Jordan Koeff
August 16, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
Scott, other candidates are not being ‘excluded’ so much as it is in the best interests of the greatest number of voters to ‘include’ the only two, most viable candidates.
Considering the odds of the other candidates being elected are infinitesimal, Saddleback, in my estimation, has wisely determined that the most productive expenditure of time, energy and interest was to invite those two candidates whom the American pubic have at the fore when contemplating the next president of the United States.
Frankly, I did not even know until yesterday that there actually WERE any other candidates. And with their poll numbers hovering around 2-6%, does that really constitute a feasible candidacy?
Personally, I am excited about attending today’s forum and am wholly satisfied with Saddleback’s practical approach and consideration of my time.
By Bruce
August 16, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
Look - the church has a right to invite or dis-invite anyone they choose. Barr (and I’m a Texan) has zero chance of winning (less chance than Ralph Nader). Even his home state will overwhelming vote against him. This is just a ploy for attention. No court is going to force Saddleback to invite him.
By Bruce
August 16, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this
Look - the church has a right to invite or dis-invite anyone they choose. Barr (and I’m a Texan) has zero chance of winning (less chance than Ralph Nader). Even his home state will overwhelming vote against him. This is just a ploy for attention. No court is going to force Saddleback to invite him. Besides, Warren will ask only social gospel questions anyway (no questions about how one of the candidate’s views on Christianity differ radically from Biblical and historical teaching and understanding). We won’t learn anything we didn’t already know.
By Bruce
August 16, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this
Look - the church has a right to invite or dis-invite anyone they choose. Barr (and I’m a Texan) has zero chance of winning (less chance than Ralph Nader). Even his home state will overwhelming vote against him. This is just a ploy for attention. No court is going to force Saddleback to invite him. Besides, Warren will ask only social gospel questions anyway (no questions about how one of the candidate’s views on Christianity differ radically from Biblical and historical teaching and understanding). We won’t learn anything we didn’t already know.
By Bruce
August 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Look - the church has a right to invite or dis-invite anyone they choose. Barr (and I’m a Texan) has zero chance of winning (less chance than Ralph Nader). Even his home state will overwhelming vote against him. This is just a ploy for attention. No court is going to force Saddleback to invite him. Besides, Warren will ask only social gospel questions anyway (no questions about how one of the candidate’s views on Christianity differ radically from Biblical and historical teaching and understanding). We won’t learn anything we didn’t already know.
By Brenda
August 16, 2008 9:42 PM | Link to this
Thanks Robin for the number and email. I listened Sat. night and wondered why Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin were not on there. I wish Christian leaders would realize they are pawns to the two main political parties. As an Evangelical I fully supported Ron Paul until he dropped out. Now I am looking at either Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. Things won’t change until a third party that follows the Constitution is given an equal voice. I called Pastor Warren and told him that as a Chrisian Leader he could give legitimacy to these parties that the main stream media shuts out. I won’t vote for either Obama or McCain this year because they don’t follow the Constitution and I am fed up with giving parties my vote.
By Don
August 17, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
OK! So you’re hurt that you didn’t get invited. Get over it!
The church is not a place for resentment and animosity anyway. That’s a PURPOSE we need to be pursuing before we polarize this country any further. Show some leadership there.
By No Longer Interested in the Libertarian Party
August 17, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
I am no fan of parties, but I understand that people need them. My disgust with the Resucklican party was so much that I hoped to work privately as an individual citizen to create a natural balance between the Libertarians and the Democrats.
I’ve given money to Bob Barr as a result. After seeing the way Libertarians are enthusiastic about this, I see that they’re hypocrits of their own beliefs, just like Resucklicans and that they don’t really want smaller government or individual liberties. Furthermore, at least Resucklicans actually want to win elections. Bob Bonehead has only gotten $50,000 in donations from Libersucks.
I’m not wasting my time any more with the Libersuck party. They don’t believe in freedom, they just pretend to.
Court order my a$$.
By Blonduxo
August 17, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this
Excerpt from my letter to Warren: As someone who has purchased at least 5 copies of your best selling book for myself and others I would like to take this opportunity to offer some commentary on the Civil Forum which is being televised as I write this. Yes, as noted in the announcement statement: ‘This is a critical time for our nation and the American people deserve to hear both candidates speak from the heart – without interruption – in a civil and thoughtful format absent the partisan ‘gotcha’ questions that typically produce heat instead of light. ’ This is a critical time and it is high time that someone like you, Sir, embraced the idea that Americans deserve to hear from all presidential candidates, and especially from those who do not get media exposure from the main stream media. You had this incredible opportunity and squandered it. It is most unfortunate that you chose to include only presumed nominees from the two major political parties, unfortunately fostering the notion that a) they will automatically be nominated as their parties presidential candidate, and b) that there are only two political parties with only these two candidates to choose from. First of all, Senator McCain and Senator Obama are not officially any parties candidate. In fact, Hillary Clinton’s name will be submitted into nomination at the Democratic Convention, and former Gov. Mit Romney and Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, both Republicans, have only suspended their campaigns. As you may (or may not) know, the delegates are not legally committed to any candidate, the numbers reported in the main stream media are only guestimates. Delegates may vote for whichever candidate they choose to vote for, and if no candidate receives 51% of the vote on the first round, the candidates are released from any moral obligation and the voting- and electioneering- continues until a candidate receives the majority and thus that parties nomination, or Superdelegates intercede in the case of the Dems.
Secondly, I am sure Americans would have been delighted to hear the presidential candidates Ralph Nadar (Independent), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution party), Bob Barr (Libertarian party), and Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), just to name the other presidential candidates who easily come to mind, answer the same questions posed to the two presumed candidates. You had a very bully pulpit and commanded two hours of prime time television on a major cable outlet and instead of providing a welcome relief from the constant non-stop reporting of every fly swat and sneeze of these two presumed nominees, we got more of the same, with the bonus, however, of the positing of identical questions, for which I commend you. Your purpose was noble. Again, I must quote from your press release: ‘The primaries proved that Americans care deeply about the faith, values, character and leadership convictions of candidates as much as they do about the issues.’ As the Saddleback Civil Forum was established to promote civil discourse and the common good of all wasn’t it imperative to offer the same opportunity to the other presidential candidates??? Sir, you have that opportunity still. I urge you to make it right and just and to demonstrate your good will and faith by providing a forum for these other candidates. Viability should not be defined by the main stream media, nor by you. Such an action is highly prejudicial. At this critical time for our nation the American people most certainly deserve to hear all candidates speak from the heart – without interruption – with the goal of producing light. Why hide their lights under a bushel? What would Jesus do?
By Nathan
August 18, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
I guess that Libertarians don’t know about the 12th Commandment … it reads, “Thou Shalt Not Whine.”
Since Saddleback church did not hold a “Debate,” debating laws are not applicable and therefore they can choose who they like to hold a discussion forum.
By Witty Nickname
August 18, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
Seems like the libertarians may need to call Whine-1-1 and get a WAAA-bulance.
By AFH
August 18, 2008 6:21 PM | Link to this
Libertarians, Constitution Party and Greens all suffer from a Catch-22 when it comes to media exposure.
They are the specific underdogs, and only the most reprehensible, jack booted thugs would do anything but give benefit of the doubt for them doing everything they could to be included in everything they could. Calling that effort whining is kicking a man when he is down.
Badnarik and Cobb tried the same thing last election cycle several times so did Harry Browne, so this is clearly not a Bob Barr anti-libertarian move.
Saddleback Church is not an innocent private organization in terms of taxes. They take in money with special privileges and they receive subsidies for their non-profit work, which is taken from tax-payers. I have nothing against the Saddleback Church and nothing against Libertarians using the framework we are all stuck with to try and leverage it’s injustice so often used against them.
Challenging McCain-Feingold is also Libertarian good-works.
Libertarians are the only political party that is sworn not to use a gun to indoctrinate people on it’s principles. They also work hard to protect the rights of all people. What they stand for is pure, and the fact that there are so many people paying attention to them makes my heart warm, because it means that what they are doing this time around… is working.
ALIVE * FREE * HAPPY Libertarian