After Obama’s advance team annoyed city officials in Bristol, VA, the candidate then threatened Congress with a big stick. (This would be the same Congress, wherein members of his own party think he is setting the bar too high.)
Meanwhile, the local masses don’t care if Obama can actually make good on his campaign promises or what those promises might cost. They seem enthusiastic about the candidate because…
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1629337593705998513]
Let me get this straight — his appeal in the Tricities area is (1) he’s a black and (2) he talks pretty? Bah! This is like me saying I don’t support him because he has gianormously large ears. This is, of course, not the case… although the ears are a little distracting.
Either way, like it or not, I think Obama has a decent shot at the White House. So, would that be such a bad thing? Would the world come to a crashing end? Although I don’t agree with all of his policies, surely there would be some positives to an Obama Presidency.
Let’s see there’s… uh…
Well, the President gets to make judical nominations, which means it’s possible the SCOTUS could end up looking a bit less like the Board of Trustees for the Oral Robert Bible College.
There’s that.
(Head to Times-News for full video report on Obama’s visit to Bristol.)
[...] Angelia on improvements Barack Obama might make to the high court: Well, the President gets to make judicial nominations, which means it’s possible the SCOTUS could end up looking a bit less like the Board of Trustees for the Oral Robert Bible College. [...]
Um…The Supreme Court has five Catholics on it (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, and Mr. Chief Justice Roberts), and I hardly think the board of Oral Roberts University looks anything at all like the largely Catholic (and in most cases Catholic educated) Supreme Court of the United States.
David, I never made the “papist” reference. Kleinheider did. If you’d feel more comfortable substituting Oral Roberts with Saint Michael’s, feel free.
It’s basically the same composition: predominately white, predominately male, predominately conservative, and predominately Christian (SCOTUS having five Catholics, an Episcopalian and a Protestant – all appointed by Republican presidents.)
The “conservative” majority of the Court has already influenced numerous rulings. And whereas you and I have differing points of view on many issues and because I believe opposing viewpoints help create some balance, the notion of one more conservative jurist slapping their butt on the big bench – particularly to replace Ginsberg or Breyer (even Kennedy or Souter) troubles me.
So, yes, I’d consider an Obama nomination/appointment beneficial.
The point is that the statement was incredibly ignorant, and as a reader of your work I am quite surprised that you made it.
You are right that we see the world differently. I believe in the Constitution of the United States, and that it was meant to be interpreted as written. I am not one to blab on about what I think of this or that issue before we find out whether the Constitution first has anything to say about it.
I oppose the notion of federal funding for aborticide and federal protection for the same for the same reason I oppose the PATRIOT Act: It is unconstitutional.
Perhaps you are eaten up by the reality that the Constitution was written for, in the words of John Adams “a moral and religious people, and it is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other.” Christendom, it would seem, is not something you embrace deep into the depths of yourself. You embrace the modern, liberal view of “balance,” which is really an excuse for the cultural de-Christianization of the nation.
You are free to believe and embrace all of this, of course, as we are all free to believe and embrace what we like. If anti-religious or anti-faith feeling (which is really all that the idea of “separation of church and state” is intended to bring about-the secularization of society-any talk of “balance” in this way is a sort of soft social rejection of cultural Christendom) is your cup of tea, you were right to go to the Democratic Party meeting that I read you went to and were afraid to share with your family. The modern Democratic Party is crawling with secularists and believers in “balance.” If that is what you believe in, you might as well not be ashamed in it and go quite public with it.
As the believer must confess with his lips the Lord Jesus, so the secularist must also not be afraid of his or her faith-and it is a faith-and be unafraid to associate with those who also profess the faith.
David,
I accept your appraisal. Admittedly, there was not a great deal of thought put into the statement and ultimately it was made in jest. Considering the context in which it was made, I’m sure you realize this. On the off chance that was not clear, I wish to state, for the record, I also do not think voters are so shallow as to support Obama simply because he is a skilled orator or because he’s black – not all of them anyway.
As to the remainder of your comment, yes, it is quite clear we have some fundamental differences of opinion. And do you mean Christendom in terms of being a prevailing religion and having influence on politics and culture? This I accept. Christendom as a form of governance, wherein doctrine decrees public policy, no I do not. I believe this is unwise from both a theological standpoint and a historical one. I cannot imagine I’ve ever written anything that would lead you to believe otherwise.
I also find the notion of the Democratic party being little more than the playground of heretics quite ridiculous. Nevertheless, I appreciate your suggestions regarding what faith I should profess and the party or group with which I should align myself. I will take this under advisement.
And finally, I am flattered that you read my blog and hope you will continue to do so. In time, I’m sure you’ll find my father’s displeasure over my willingness to unabashedly cross party lines is a recurrent topic here – and has been for quite some time. And I’d consider the internet to be going “quite public with it.”
However, should I opt to support a Democratic candidate in the upcoming congressional election, I suppose I could profess this upon all the town squares within in the district and hand out campaign buttons as I go.
Don’t suppose you’d want me to save you one, huh?
A.