Question of the Day: State of the Union

Don’t get political – you know, ‘Conservatives, as modern representatives of fascists are going to hell’ or ‘All Liberals are baby killers’. Neither are true.

But, was there any thing in the President’s speech which would appeal to justice issues encountered by the Christians? Was their anything really that was against orthodox Christian doctrine? How should Christians respond? Positive, negative? Indifferent?

Does anything which President Obama said negate Romans 13?

Is it the role of the Church to may a moral voice in the political atmosphere? And can we do anything to act a mediator or reconciler between the two sides on any issue?

You Might Also Like

23 Replies to “Question of the Day: State of the Union”

  1. Obama’s desire to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” can actually help to fulfill the “days of Lot” (Luke 17, cf. Gen. 19), the fulfillment of which will hurry up the return of the Heavenly Commander-in-Chief who will make all things straight (pun intended)! Interesting Google articles include “Obama Supports Public Depravity,” “Obama Avoids Bible Verses,” “Separation of Raunch and State” and “David Letterman’s Hate Etc.” – required reading for the “Obama 101” course.
    PS – You’re invited to use these new pro-life slogans: “Unborn babies should have the right to keep and bear arms – and legs and ears and eyes etc.!” and “Unborn babies should have the same right to be born alive that abortionists had!”

    1. I don’t think that repealing a hypocritical law will bring about ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’. And no, you can keep the slogans.

  2. In response to the hypocritical law concept, I thought the military’s policy was quite reasonable, and I fail to see the hypocrisy of it.

    And as to the State of the Union Speech, I don’t remember anything else in it that could be taken as a clear violation of any particular scripture, unless being deceptive in a public forum and disrespectful to judges and hypoctical in speech is considered Biblically verboten. I didn’t really like the speech at all, although I listened to the whole (70-minute!) thing. It made me long for the good old days when the “State of the Union Address” was just a paper the President sent off to Congress to be read, and not a public forum for mixing political and moral platitudes with unfair shaming of opposiiton.

    1. What? You don’t like the drama and the hand-clapping? The campaigning, the protesting, the smiling, the angst. I mean, what else do they have to do – certainly not actually work.

      But, seriously, I would much prefer public servants stopped being politicians when they were elected. I wish we had a James K. Polk.

      1. I hate drama and hand-clapping. Posturing has become (or always has been) a disgustingly common part of life, and it just makes things even more difficult for us when we try to figure out how things actually are as opposed to how they look. For all the good things we have in our democracy, the fact that power is given to whoever can make people excited about themselves and wary of the opposition certainly can be a drag sometimes. Personally, I don’t have much regard for either party right now, and the alternative parties all seem like obsessive little dogs more bent on nipping at our national heels than actually doing anything substantive. Oh well. I guess that’s why we have the Church, which, dysfunctional as it is, manages to still be worth paying attention to.

  3. I’m a relatively big fan of President Obama, but I thought the SOTU lacked the polish and finesse of his Cairo speech.

    The incessant clapping was obnoxious, as was the inappropriate comment by Justice Alito.

    As to Alwyn’s extremist non-views on DADT, all I can say is that–like it or not–there are gay people in the military already. These individuals, like their straight counterparts, are excellent soldiers with a deep love of country and willingness to give their life in service to her. The hypocrisy is that the military’s fear of gays creates an acceptance of lying, which is far worse than being gay.

    I love when straight people assume that gays are going to be all over them in the showers. My response to that is “honey, get over yourself; you’re not that cute to begin with.”

    DADT is absurd and should be repealed. One of the greatest armies in recorded history (Sparta) was made up almost entirely of men who had meaningful relationships with other men.

    Alwyn, you’re a clown. Save your asinine slogans for your Westboro Baptist picket signs.

    1. Did you realize that, according to Cicero, the institution of Spartan pederasty was such that by the age of 12 “there was not any of the more hopeful boys who did not have a lover to bear him company.” If you are going to make the argument for the inclusion of gays in the military, I think it might be wiser not to bring up Sparta’s “meaningful relationships.”

      1. Mitchell–

        Good point. I definitely don’t want to create the impression that I’m in favor of pederasty. I’ll read up and provide a more appropriate example.


  4. Regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, this seems a policy which both avoids lying and keeps a sensible compromise. Noting who we are at war with, removing DADT would certainly lead to interesting recruiting posters with slogans like “kill a gay, join the Taliban”.

    Much of the rhetoric is that LGBT should be treated at the same level as other fundamental rights: The right to practice your own religion and freedom of conscience, the right to be considered based on your merits, rather than your skin color. We can argue that LGBT deserves to be honored at the same level. I would argue that equating them doesn’t honor LGBT one bit, but rather debases religion, conscience and race to the same level of an immoral sex act. In other words, it doesn’t bring justice to the little boys, but rather injustice to everyone else.

    1. Looney–

      Again, there are already gays in the military. These men & women are in as much jeopardy as their straight counterparts, and are under stress to conceal their relationships at home in a way that straight people are not. This concealment routinely requires soldiers to change pronouns and/or make up wives/girlfriends where husbands/boyfriends exist. This is a lie. And in an environment where trust is important to survival, it’s far more important that a soldier is honest than that he happens to be gay.

      Furthermore, no matter the lies of Christian extremists, being gay is NOT exclusively about sex acts. That’s such a silly idea when you take time to move beyond the talking points.

      1. Robert, I fail to see how “don’t ask, don’t tell” compels people to lie. Unless “lie” has been redefined …

        As for the importance of trust, I agree. But who determines this? The soldiers? Or the LGBT activist community? Ordinary Americans? Or intellectual super-elites?

        I am not worried about stress as people try to conceal their temptations. When I am angry with someone, I have to conceal it, maintain harmony, and get over it. That is what we are supposed to do in life. There are plenty of other things I manage the same way.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.