I was greatly disappointed by the results of the November presidential election, but there seemed to be a couple of silver linings. Obama’s lack of experience and Washington outsider status was supposed to result in open-minded picks for his cabinet. This sort of outside of the box appealed to me even across party lines. If even a small part of changing the way business is done in Washington was realized, I believe that it wold be a change for a better. For a while, the president-elect appeared to be drifting to the center, which would be a much better place than the fringe of the left where he could be found in the US senate.
Illinois politics has been at the center of a firestorm lately with their governor, even though it has been traditionally more corrupt than most states. What strikes me is the cabinet selections; instead of a team of rivals, we are getting just a bunch of people from Illinois. First, the beady-eyed, shifty Rahm Emmanuel was appointed chief of staff. Then Barack appointed as secretary of education another guy from Chicago. And while it sounds from initial reports that he has done some good things, the media outlet I was listening to (NPR) kept talking about how he plays pick up basketball with the president elect. I don’t like it when any media outlet goes in the tank for one party: I refuse to listen to Hannity and hardly ever listen to Limbaugh for this very reason. The more I watch cabinet appointments, the more I see that “change you can believe in” is empty rhetoric that slightly misled me and completely duped many starry-eyed idealists. But what bothers me is that Obama’s background was not thoroughly examined by major media outlets, even though he came from the most corrupt political arena in the country, but they went sprinting to Alaska to check out what had been happening in Wasilla, Alaska with the dangerous Sarah Palin. What the American public needs is transparency, but as long a couple well-constructed, well-delivered sentences sweep people off their feet, our nation will not be stronger.
I know that Friday Nights are coveted and you have so much going on in your busy lives, but if you are politically minded, you need to watch John Stossel’s“Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics” at 10 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 17 on ABC. For the fortunate among us, DVR it…and spread the love around.
When I first saw this video, my thoughts were all over the place. If you haven’t seen it, you probably should. As far as I know, the video is 22 children, ages 5-12, singing an original composition for the Obama campaign with a group called “Sing for Change.”
I know the video has been yanked from a few YouTube spots, and I’m not sure why or by who. Watch below and tell me what you think.
The French have long fancied themselves as a bastion of tolerance. This, however seems to be far from the truth. The French adherence to secularity has led to some seemingly intolerant policy. In February 2004, they passed a school ban on religious ware like burqas, yarmulkes, crucifixes and turbans. Most recently, they decided “the burqa is incompatible with French nationality” and are not allowing a 32 year-old woman from Morocco, Faiza M., to become a citizen. They said she “adopted a religious practice incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes.” This woman as a French husband and 3 native born French children.
There are no doubt many evangelicals who think it is incredible that this Muslim woman turned away by France. To do so, in addition to being generally ignorant and quite unlike Jesus, is to misunderstand the France’s intention. The French are committed to secularity, not tolerance. Secularity is blindly intolerant of all things dubbed religious. Many American Theocrats would gladly swap the Frances Secularity for their own particular brand of faith (make no mistake, Secularity is very much a faith/religion). Be careful. The tide can quickly change and today’s acceptable practices can become tomorrow’s marginalized religion.
It concerns me that so many American Christians seem to want our government to function as an arm of their church. A Secular government is obviously not the answer. I’m not sure is a neutral government is even possible, although it seems to me to be preferable. For now, I am challenged by the words of Romans 12:18, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” Oh to have a government that sought the same.
Comments (0) 
