Superbowl advertising's biggest controversy is usually who has the funniest commercial. Surprisingly, this year's Superbowl advertising will not be all fun and games, but instead is a venue for one of culture's greatest divides: pro-life vs. pro-choice. The participants in this heavy-weight bout are the Heisman and national championship icon Tim Tebow with his mother and pro-choice advocate Planned Parenthood.
Tim is the son of missionary parents that served in the Philippines. When Tim's mother, Pam, was pregnant with Tim she had complications, and so a doctor recommended Pam have an abortion for her own safety. Obviously, she disregarded this advice and gave birth to Tim, who has since become of of college football's most celebrated athletes and a very outspoken voice in the Christian community.
So, now enter the Christian advocacy group Focus on the Family who invited Pam and Tim to do the ad, which will emphasize the theme "Celebrate Life, Celebrate Family." CBS, host of the Superbowl, is airing the ad despite policies against showing controversial advocacy ads. Their take seems to be that this is just a positive story about a high profile family and is not intended to condemn abortion or its advocates.
Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood finds such a position disingenuous on the part of CBS and Focus on the Family. But unable to muster enough public pressure to get CBS to pull the ad, they responded by creating their own ad on You Tube. So, the battle is underway.
I imagine that more controversy would have been caused by pulling the ad than letting it air, since they had already agreed to do so. Tebow is unbelievably popular and if he's got a story to tell, then he will get to tell that story. I, for one, am glad he gets to tell it, along with his mom. Tim Tebow was not just a disposable fetus in his mother's womb, and as living breathing proof of that fact, pro-choice groups feel threatened by him and his mother speaking out for life.
I've seen the Planned Parenthood ad and is respectfully and tastefully done. Yet, this controversy demonstrates this debate is far from over. There has been evidence that a lot of Americans are ready to move past this debate both in the political and religious arena. I am not sure myself that the battle for life has always been fought wisely and effectively. However, there are so many lies that are circulated by the pro-choice community (many of which I am sure they sincerely believe) that I believe there must always be a counter-voice, a voice that will speak up for the most helpless of all humans--the unborn.
Many that have pro-life leanings but are ready to move past the debate do not understand fully what is at stake. I may not be a Catholic, but I always appreciate a good writer. Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote a great book called Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. It isn't all about abortion, but it contains the best pro-life argument I have ever read. In it he says, "First, there are no 'small murders.' The respect of every human life is an essential condition if a societal life worthy of the name is to be possible. Secondly, when a man's consciousness loses respect for life as something sacred, he inevitably ends by losing his own identity" (60).
What is at stake in a culture that treats unborn life as disposable tissue is the very destruction of the meaning of human life, not just for the unborn, but for the born. Life itself has lost its very sacredness and society becomes a veritable hell on earth where every decision is made in the name of individual convenience and thus ushers in the death of compassion and civility. I am glad for the Tim Tebows of our nation that very well may help us hold back that awful reality foreseen by Ratzinger.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Holy Bothering
Based on my past experience, I am not the greatest candidate to read the entire Bible through in a calendar year. The truth is that I have often questioned the value behind such an approach, which probably contributes to my failure rate (100%) in attempting this endeavor. I feel like if I read three chapters a day over the course of the year that I will not be very good at reading other books that also help me grow spiritually and assist me in ministry. On the other hand, I could certainly gain from developing the habit of daily Bible reading.
However with all that said, it bothers me that I have never read the Bible cover to cover (which is way more important than those other books I like to read). So, I decided on a new strategy; I would read nothing else but the Bible for four months. If I read nine chapters a day, then I will finish the Bible in that time period instead of a year. I started on January 5th and so far so good. I finished the Pentateuch yesterday. It has really been an eye-opening experience to read so much of the Bible at such a rapid pace. You may lose the ability to dwell on details, but you gain something in regards to the connected themes of the Bible.
I read Genesis through Leviticus before taking a break from the Pentateuch to read Mark. It was amazing to experience just how different reading the teachings and actions of Jesus was compared to reading the Pentateuch. Though much more interesting, I could not read Mark as fast. The words of Jesus "give us pause" to quote a good friend.
There is a lot of fascinating material in the Pentateuch, but I confess that there are a lot of things that bother me. Let's be honest; they probably bother you too. I don't feel like men and women are treated equally or even valued equally under the Mosaic Law, but I will leave that topic for another day. I will only add that yes it is true that the Law of Moses was much more considerate of women than other Ancient Near Eastern law codes, but that doesn't necessarily explain away all the inequalities between men and women under the Law of Moses.
Yet, what is truly bothersome is the frequent command to either stone or burn or otherwise cut off from his or her people those foolish enough to transgress God's law. To be sure, God differentiates between those that simply make a mistake (unintentional sin) and those that willingly transgress. Still, there is death for those who blaspheme, takes the name of God in vain, worship idols, practice sorcery, divination, witchcraft, rebels against their parents, desecrates the Sabbath, commits adultery, etc. All of this threat of death reminds me of growing up with the threat of hell constantly proclaimed and seared into our consciousness.
Late we see the flaws in such an approach. We find ourselves far more motivated by grace and the love of God than threat of punishment, and indeed this seems to be a consistent emphasis in the New Testament. It is present in the Old Testament as well (just as the threat of hell is present in the New), but what gives with the extreme threat of punishment in the Old Testament for offenses that many of us (if not all) have committed?!
Well, the truth is that our modern sensitivities, evidenced by the fact that many consider lethal injection to be cruel and unusual punishment, has little chance of truly comprehending life and death in the Ancient Near Eastern world. Also, we elevate individual rights and dignity to such an extreme that is hard for us to understand how stoning an individual (or in some cases his entire family) for the benefit of the entire community (or nation) was more sensible than showing individual compassion.
Yet, what we really don't get is far more important than the differences in modern and Ancient Near Eastern sensitivities. We simply don't understand the holiness of God. I suggest the Pentateuch is really about two related themes. The first is the narrative of God's developing relationship with his people--the call of Abraham, the Patriarchs, the journey to Egypt, his dramatic rescue through Moses, the Wandering, and the preparation for entering the Land. The second theme is God's gracious willingness to dwell amongst his people, evidenced by the manifestation of his glory at the Tabernacle.
All of the sacrifices, the laws, the death penalties, etc. exist so that God's people will not be consumed by the holiness of God. Yes, God values every individual but not so much that he will allow sin in the camp to threaten the entire community. God's holiness cannot abide sin and rebellion. So, the people are to be holy as he is holy. If your actions threaten this tenuous relationship between God and his people, then you are going to be eliminated (a constant refrain is "the sin must be purged from among you").
We take holiness for granted, because we rightly believe that we are made holy by the blood of Jesus. We know that no amount of law keeping could truly make us holy. But with the passage of time, and our general neglect of the Old Testament, we forget just how holy God is. Then we forget just how holy we are supposed to be. Yes, the blood of Jesus is a better motivator for holiness than the threat of being stoned, but there is also an even greater price to pay for making a mockery of that blood and the holiness it brings. It means we are "crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace" (Heb. 6:6). In doing this, we separate ourselves from God forever.
Peter tells his audience, quoting Leviticus, to be holy as God is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Being holy as God is holy begins with recognizing just how holy God is. I think we had better read the Old Testament with the humility to learn instead of rendering modern day assessments that have no regard for the holiness of God!
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Thoughts on Unity
I began my new ministry in Portales with a sermon on unity from John 17, which contains the great prayer of unity offered by Jesus before his crucifixion. Just like many concerned Christians, I have often thought about unity, but have rarely come up with any novel approaches to address the division that is throughout Christendom.
Usually when this topic is addressed to a particular divided group, John 17 is highlighted and an emotional appeal is articulated for Christians to honor the prayer of Jesus and just be united. Complimenting this appeal is usually some proclamation that our differences are for the most part petty and that what we have in common is far more precious than what we don't. This kind of approach usually gets the gathered emotionally committed to unity. There is a spirit of repentance and togetherness. The songs and prayers are accompanied by tears and embrace. Someone will usually say this is a glimpse of heaven.
But then those of the gathered assembly go their separate ways and we have to ask the question: was any real unity accomplished? Christian Church and Churches of Christ had a round of such gatherings in 2006 --marking the hundred year anniversary of their split. They repudiated such a split and affirmed all they had in common, but is that unity?
I have a couple of problems with making unity the end goal of our efforts: one practical and one theological. The practical concern involves trying to decide what unity looks like. Unity becomes an ambiguous ideal, one that no one is ever sure when it is truly accomplished. Speakers that often opine about unity rarely will tell their audience "we will know that we are united when..." Would we all have to worship together on Sundays for this ideal to become reality? Or is unity merely acknowledging we have the same Savior and that we won't throw spiritual stones at each other anymore (this would certainly be an improvement)? The only worthy vision of unity, in my view, is the one in which we can all assemble as one people to praise the Lamb on the throne (cf. Rev. 5). I don't know that we can get there this side of eternity.
My theological concern is that as I read scripture, unity is not something we can accomplish. This has been played out in our own Restoration history. Declaration and Address was signed just over 200 years ago by Thomas Campbell and others with the vision that all denominational lines would simply dissolve into the greater union of believers. Sounds great, but the patternist approach--the idea that we would all be unified by simply following a supposedly obvious New Testament pattern--was ultimately doomed to add more factions than it would ever contribute to the cause of unity.
Rather unity is given and accomplished by God through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Go back and read John 17. Is there any place in that prayer that calls on the disciples to create unity? Go read Eph. 4:3, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." Our role in unity is to maintain what has already been created and given. We do not create unity, though we certainly can and do create division.
So, does this mean we can do nothing regarding the division we see throughout Christendom or even amongst our fellowship and congregations? Absolutely not. We can begin to make strides in enjoying greater unity when we realize that such unity is given by Jesus and not created by us. We can better focus then on being the disciples and the church we are supposed to be and when this begins to happen unity amongst ourselves and others will increase. We don't rally around unity; we rally around the cross. But when you find a whole lot of disciples at the cross, you will find them united!
Obviously, where we have contributed to division and factions we need to repent, be humble, and ask for forgiveness. This will allow the gift of God's unity to wash away the walls of division and hostility that we have erected. We can't solve the division we see all around us and around this world, but perhaps we can start with this humility and seek to enjoy the unity already given to us in Christ Jesus!
Usually when this topic is addressed to a particular divided group, John 17 is highlighted and an emotional appeal is articulated for Christians to honor the prayer of Jesus and just be united. Complimenting this appeal is usually some proclamation that our differences are for the most part petty and that what we have in common is far more precious than what we don't. This kind of approach usually gets the gathered emotionally committed to unity. There is a spirit of repentance and togetherness. The songs and prayers are accompanied by tears and embrace. Someone will usually say this is a glimpse of heaven.
But then those of the gathered assembly go their separate ways and we have to ask the question: was any real unity accomplished? Christian Church and Churches of Christ had a round of such gatherings in 2006 --marking the hundred year anniversary of their split. They repudiated such a split and affirmed all they had in common, but is that unity?
I have a couple of problems with making unity the end goal of our efforts: one practical and one theological. The practical concern involves trying to decide what unity looks like. Unity becomes an ambiguous ideal, one that no one is ever sure when it is truly accomplished. Speakers that often opine about unity rarely will tell their audience "we will know that we are united when..." Would we all have to worship together on Sundays for this ideal to become reality? Or is unity merely acknowledging we have the same Savior and that we won't throw spiritual stones at each other anymore (this would certainly be an improvement)? The only worthy vision of unity, in my view, is the one in which we can all assemble as one people to praise the Lamb on the throne (cf. Rev. 5). I don't know that we can get there this side of eternity.
My theological concern is that as I read scripture, unity is not something we can accomplish. This has been played out in our own Restoration history. Declaration and Address was signed just over 200 years ago by Thomas Campbell and others with the vision that all denominational lines would simply dissolve into the greater union of believers. Sounds great, but the patternist approach--the idea that we would all be unified by simply following a supposedly obvious New Testament pattern--was ultimately doomed to add more factions than it would ever contribute to the cause of unity.
Rather unity is given and accomplished by God through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Go back and read John 17. Is there any place in that prayer that calls on the disciples to create unity? Go read Eph. 4:3, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." Our role in unity is to maintain what has already been created and given. We do not create unity, though we certainly can and do create division.
So, does this mean we can do nothing regarding the division we see throughout Christendom or even amongst our fellowship and congregations? Absolutely not. We can begin to make strides in enjoying greater unity when we realize that such unity is given by Jesus and not created by us. We can better focus then on being the disciples and the church we are supposed to be and when this begins to happen unity amongst ourselves and others will increase. We don't rally around unity; we rally around the cross. But when you find a whole lot of disciples at the cross, you will find them united!
Obviously, where we have contributed to division and factions we need to repent, be humble, and ask for forgiveness. This will allow the gift of God's unity to wash away the walls of division and hostility that we have erected. We can't solve the division we see all around us and around this world, but perhaps we can start with this humility and seek to enjoy the unity already given to us in Christ Jesus!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Hell on Christmas
What kind of person thinks about the troublesome doctrine of hell during the Christmas season? Hey, I can't control when the thoughts occur. After all, this is "preacher thoughts" and such thoughts are not inclined to follow the liturgical calendar. (For the record, I love Christmas and love to reflect on the birth of Immanuel during this time).
Actually, it was a conversation about Christmas that led to my thoughts on hell. I was watching a news commentator interview a president of some free thought organization that capitalized on the holiday season to spread their message of godlessness and the triumph of reason (we might ask them where does reason come from and how do we know it is indeed reasonable, but that's for another blog). What the woman found most objectionable about faith in the biblical god was--no surprise--the doctrine of hell. She viewed it as a terrifying means of indoctrinating children into staying in the faith.
Hey, I am sympathetic to her concern. I have sat across the table from Buddhists in Japan who could not consider becoming a Christian, because they thought it meant they accepted their deceased loved one was in eternal torment. At that point, it really doesn't matter if your doctrine of hell is eternal conscious torment or annihilation. Hell is the final and complete separation from God and all things good and holy. There is no way to sugarcoat it.
Postmoderns hate the doctrine of hell, because it represents the ultimate exclusion in a world of inclusion (that latter point may be debatable, but this is the way postmoderns see the world or at least how they think the world should be).
But let's be real honest for a moment. It is not possible to be a Christian who relies on the authority of Scripture for the understanding of his/her faith to reject the doctrine of hell. Many Christians claim not to believe in hell. Fair enough, but they have rejected biblical authority. There's simply no way around that.
Biblical Christians should remember that we cannot say with certainty who is consigned to hell, nor has that ever been our job. We can handle this topic of hell with much more humility and sensitivity than we have in the past.
Yet, I imagine if I asked the aforementioned free-thinking lady if she desired justice in this world, she would say yes. Now again there is a problem with reconciling the concept of justice with an atheistic worldview, but leaving that aside, most will agree that justice is desired and found severly lacking in our world.
So, you tell me; is it better for their to be a hell or for those responsible for enslaving 250,000 Haitan children to escape justice in this world and the next? There can be no justice, if injustice is not rectified in the world to come (because I don't see it happening in this world). So, if there is no hell, then there is no justice. But the Christian God is a just God. We may just need to do a better job of remembering and communicating that fundamental aspect of our theology.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Does God care what choice we make all the time?
I finally concluded a 5 and a 1/2 month job search this week. We are moving to Portales, NM where I will be the new pulpit minister at the 3rd and Kilgore Church of Christ (http://www.3kchurch.org/). Of course, we are both relieved and excited, but there were so many lessons learned through the thoroughly exhausting journey.
I applied to 23 churches over five months and, of course, in the end there was only one standing. Along the way I withdrew my candidacy from several, but many took care of that for me! I had two in-person interviews that did not result in an offer, and obviously one that did. I turned down three interviews at the end, because my search was concluded, but there was a touch of irony there. For over three months, I couldn't buy an interview and then in the last few weeks I had back-to-back to interviews and three invitations!
Because there were so many opportunities swirling around me at the end, I thought the decision would be rather complicated. My mother-in-law kept saying that the decision would become clear when it came time to decide. I love her, but I didn't believe her. I thought, how do you know God will make it clear? Is God under any obligation to make it clear? Could he present two (or more) totally acceptable, but not obviously clear choices and be pleased with either choice?
When the church in Portales made their offer it still was not very clear. But then an amazing thing happened ; less than 48 hours from the time of the offer, God made it crystal clear what we were to do. My mother-in-law was right!
Who can say that God always has to work one way or another? I don't know that he always has to get us to a specific location/situation. We are movable parts on a big playing field (the Kingdom), so God is not hamstrung, if someone chooses one place over another. However, in this case, God seemed to want us in Portales. I like the peace that comes with that kind of clarity!
I applied to 23 churches over five months and, of course, in the end there was only one standing. Along the way I withdrew my candidacy from several, but many took care of that for me! I had two in-person interviews that did not result in an offer, and obviously one that did. I turned down three interviews at the end, because my search was concluded, but there was a touch of irony there. For over three months, I couldn't buy an interview and then in the last few weeks I had back-to-back to interviews and three invitations!
Because there were so many opportunities swirling around me at the end, I thought the decision would be rather complicated. My mother-in-law kept saying that the decision would become clear when it came time to decide. I love her, but I didn't believe her. I thought, how do you know God will make it clear? Is God under any obligation to make it clear? Could he present two (or more) totally acceptable, but not obviously clear choices and be pleased with either choice?
When the church in Portales made their offer it still was not very clear. But then an amazing thing happened ; less than 48 hours from the time of the offer, God made it crystal clear what we were to do. My mother-in-law was right!
Who can say that God always has to work one way or another? I don't know that he always has to get us to a specific location/situation. We are movable parts on a big playing field (the Kingdom), so God is not hamstrung, if someone chooses one place over another. However, in this case, God seemed to want us in Portales. I like the peace that comes with that kind of clarity!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Making Peace with Postmodernism
I can remember when the subject of postmodernism was a trendy topic at every Bible lectureship. In fact, in the mid-to-late nineties you didn't really have a legitimate lectureship without a class on postmodernism. I attended some of these classes until I got tired of hearing the same stuff over and over again.
Looking back on our (speaking from my experience in Churches of Christ) early tone and rhetoric, I would say it was skeptical at best and down-right combative at worst. Postmodernism was viewed as the great cultural threat to the Church or even to the very concept of objective truth in general. It seemed that no matter how many lectureships and articles we produced on postmodernism that we usually always focused on its emphases of pluralism and insistence on subjectivity. If anyone dared to raise a positive element of postmodernism, they were usually eyed with suspicion...maybe they don't believe in objective truth either.
Now keep in mind that this is mainly my subjective recollection. I am sure we produced some fine scholarly work on the relationship between postmodernism and the gospel, but I was either to simplistic to recognize it, or I just never went on a hunt to find it.
Still I bet my recollection isn't too far off. It seems to me that our analysis of postmodern culture is much more sophisticated today. We recognize that both subjectivity and pluralism present challenges for those of the Christian faith. However, I think we eventually began to realize we were critiquing postmodernism from a modern vantage point (which is full of anti-Christian bias as well, but that is the subject of another blog) instead of a biblical/Christian worldview critique.
Now we seem to appreciate that postmoderns place a great emphasis on authentic relationships and spirituality. Postmodernism also keeps us honest in forcing us to own up to the reality that we all have biases. Truth itself may not be subjective, but we cannot evaluate truth claims in a detached and objective manner. Objective truth is still disseminated through the subjective individual. Christians are finally beginning to see the rationale in putting down our combative rhetoric against postmodernism and instead learning to contextualize the gospel for a postmodern audience.
In some ways, we are making peace with postmodernism; not because we think it is thoroughly biblical (and we must know and show where it is not), but because we realize that is no less biblical than the modernism that preceded it. Or maybe its because we finally realized that instead of focusing all of our energy on condemning the prevailing culture, we had better start finding a way to redeem it.
A good read on this subject (especially for preachers, but for all church leaders too) is Chris Altrock's Preaching to Pluralists: How to Proclaim to Christ in a Postmodern age.
Looking back on our (speaking from my experience in Churches of Christ) early tone and rhetoric, I would say it was skeptical at best and down-right combative at worst. Postmodernism was viewed as the great cultural threat to the Church or even to the very concept of objective truth in general. It seemed that no matter how many lectureships and articles we produced on postmodernism that we usually always focused on its emphases of pluralism and insistence on subjectivity. If anyone dared to raise a positive element of postmodernism, they were usually eyed with suspicion...maybe they don't believe in objective truth either.
Now keep in mind that this is mainly my subjective recollection. I am sure we produced some fine scholarly work on the relationship between postmodernism and the gospel, but I was either to simplistic to recognize it, or I just never went on a hunt to find it.
Still I bet my recollection isn't too far off. It seems to me that our analysis of postmodern culture is much more sophisticated today. We recognize that both subjectivity and pluralism present challenges for those of the Christian faith. However, I think we eventually began to realize we were critiquing postmodernism from a modern vantage point (which is full of anti-Christian bias as well, but that is the subject of another blog) instead of a biblical/Christian worldview critique.
Now we seem to appreciate that postmoderns place a great emphasis on authentic relationships and spirituality. Postmodernism also keeps us honest in forcing us to own up to the reality that we all have biases. Truth itself may not be subjective, but we cannot evaluate truth claims in a detached and objective manner. Objective truth is still disseminated through the subjective individual. Christians are finally beginning to see the rationale in putting down our combative rhetoric against postmodernism and instead learning to contextualize the gospel for a postmodern audience.
In some ways, we are making peace with postmodernism; not because we think it is thoroughly biblical (and we must know and show where it is not), but because we realize that is no less biblical than the modernism that preceded it. Or maybe its because we finally realized that instead of focusing all of our energy on condemning the prevailing culture, we had better start finding a way to redeem it.
A good read on this subject (especially for preachers, but for all church leaders too) is Chris Altrock's Preaching to Pluralists: How to Proclaim to Christ in a Postmodern age.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Lack of Wisdom in Obama's War on Fox
This is my first non-theological post (though ultimately everything is theological!). We will call this a political post; I guess. I have been quite appalled at the Obama administration's efforts to marginalize Fox News. I think it is very unwise and actually petty.
First a couple of qualifiers. I am not anti-Obama. I never have been. I almost voted for him, but couldn't pull the trigger because of his pro-choice record. Still, when I voted for McCain, it was one of those 51/49 kind of decisions. In the end, I had to vote with my heart (instinct). Regardless, I have never bashed Obama and never cheered for him to fail. I hoped his policies would succeed in getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been directly impacted by this woeful economy. How could I not pray for the success of his economic stimulus?
I am also not all that upset about his health care reform. I despise health insurance companies and it is absurd that there are nearly fifty million Americans without health insurance. The Bush administration had eight years to do address this crippling issue, but apparently found it not politically expedient to lift a finger for reform. I believed that Obama's election victory granted him a mandate to try it his way.
Yet, all of the above demonstrates the foolishness of what Obama is doing in relation to Fox News. If you haven't followed the story, Obama's aides have been lambasting the Fox network to other media outlets, refusing to acknowledge it as new agency, admonishing other media outlets to ignore stories that break on Fox, and refusing interviews to the network while making the rounds with all the rest.
See, I watch Fox News. I don't like all of their commentary programs (Beck andHannity), but I enjoy O'Reilley and the news coverage in general. When the President marginalizes Fox News, they marginalize me (and other folks like me). Guess what Obama administration? I am not a rank and file Republican or right-wing nut-job who likes to get his ideology massaged by watching Fox News. I am an independent swing voter and there are millions out there similar to me.
Furthermore, the paranoia necessary to fuel a war on America's #1 watched cable news channel is downright disconcerting and beneath the dignity of the presidency. Are they so thin-skinned in the White House that they can't tolerate any dissenting voices? Are their egos stroked so frequently by MSNBC and other such media outlets that they are shocked beyond belief when they encounter criticism? Is it really in America's best interest to try to silence your opposition?
Here's hoping President Obama and staff get wise, because their current path concerns me. If they don't, then the swing voters they are alienating will having something to say in the ballot boxes soon enough.
First a couple of qualifiers. I am not anti-Obama. I never have been. I almost voted for him, but couldn't pull the trigger because of his pro-choice record. Still, when I voted for McCain, it was one of those 51/49 kind of decisions. In the end, I had to vote with my heart (instinct). Regardless, I have never bashed Obama and never cheered for him to fail. I hoped his policies would succeed in getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been directly impacted by this woeful economy. How could I not pray for the success of his economic stimulus?
I am also not all that upset about his health care reform. I despise health insurance companies and it is absurd that there are nearly fifty million Americans without health insurance. The Bush administration had eight years to do address this crippling issue, but apparently found it not politically expedient to lift a finger for reform. I believed that Obama's election victory granted him a mandate to try it his way.
Yet, all of the above demonstrates the foolishness of what Obama is doing in relation to Fox News. If you haven't followed the story, Obama's aides have been lambasting the Fox network to other media outlets, refusing to acknowledge it as new agency, admonishing other media outlets to ignore stories that break on Fox, and refusing interviews to the network while making the rounds with all the rest.
See, I watch Fox News. I don't like all of their commentary programs (Beck andHannity), but I enjoy O'Reilley and the news coverage in general. When the President marginalizes Fox News, they marginalize me (and other folks like me). Guess what Obama administration? I am not a rank and file Republican or right-wing nut-job who likes to get his ideology massaged by watching Fox News. I am an independent swing voter and there are millions out there similar to me.
Furthermore, the paranoia necessary to fuel a war on America's #1 watched cable news channel is downright disconcerting and beneath the dignity of the presidency. Are they so thin-skinned in the White House that they can't tolerate any dissenting voices? Are their egos stroked so frequently by MSNBC and other such media outlets that they are shocked beyond belief when they encounter criticism? Is it really in America's best interest to try to silence your opposition?
Here's hoping President Obama and staff get wise, because their current path concerns me. If they don't, then the swing voters they are alienating will having something to say in the ballot boxes soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)