This is why I HATE politics. And American evangelicals, on both the right and the left, are idolaters about this stuff.

I was waiting for the dig . . . :-)

I was there. I am guilty. I hope to never be that version of myself again. :-/

I actually thought my final paragraph was somewhat parallel to your recurring thought about American Christians needing a good dose of persecution. :-)

True, true.

Your post is spot-on. I just don't like thinking about the spot-onishness of it.

I'm not paranoid about it, but I don't like this idea. I think it makes the president out to be an authority figure in the eyes of schoolchildren rather than an elected official. The sample lesson plans say to ask students such things as "What is the president asking me to do?" and "How can we help the president?"

So kids are going to learn at school that they should do what the president asks, and help him however they can. Then they will go home and wonder why their parents disagree with the nice leader. :)

I know, trying not to be paranoid. One thing is for sure though: If President Bush had done the exact same thing, the media and the Left would be absolutely hysterical.

I think it makes the president out to be an authority figure in the eyes of schoolchildren

Inklingstar, he is an authority figure. He's the president.

Yes, he is a public servant, elected by the people. But he is the leader of our nation and deserves the respect of his office. That's not conservative or liberal; it's just good "respect for those in authority."

The questions in the teacher helps are benign. Answering "What ist he president asking me to do?" is not the same as being told what to do. He's going to ask kids to work and study hard. We already tell our kids to do that, and so should our schools. It's not suddenly authoritarian if the president says it.

George Bush Sr. challenged kids the same way in 1991. He told them to stay off drugs, maintain good fitness, be good students, and maintain integrity (not cheating, not being lazy, etc.)
Do you think we should have protested?

Jared, the level-headed commentary I've heard on this is concerned more with the content of the speech, rather than the giving of it. That he is giving it on the first day back to school, as opposed to some other occasion like Memorial Day, which I'm not sure any previous president has done, is perhaps worthy of a mild eyebrow raise.

If Obama hadn't--through his associations; his appointments (with one being associated with views government sterilization for population control and another signing a document supporting investigation into a 9/11 conspiracy); his unguarded moments when he opened his mouth; his numerous policy choices showing a reckless devotion to a radical ideology--given me reason to lend increased scrutiny to any choice he might make, I really wouldn't care. But this is a man who has allowed and encouraged a cult of personality to spring up around him, with Obama youth groups (here and here), creating his own pseudo-presidential seal during his campaign (here; some other iconography here), allowing celebrity endorsements like this, maintaining a permanent grassroots network as a political arm independent of the Executive (here), setting up a "snitch line" via e-mail for political opposition ("flag@whitehouse.gov"), and passing a $6 billion "national service" bill that had a provision to explore compulsory service for youth (here). And as far as I'm aware, there isn't a speech that he's given where he hasn't pushed his radical agenda or undercut America in some fashion. So, with all this against him and the fact that he uses normally healthy things like "working hard, taking education seriously, and being a conscientious citizen" as auspices for his ideological ends, forgive me if I don't trust his good intentions or the banality of the subject matter.

However, I will agree with you that this is an overreaction. Once speech, whatever it is, is not going to indoctrinate our youth. Still, our President has shown all the incompetence of Carter with decidedly more Leftist radicalism. I will remain on the lookout.

Curious: Did you read the PDF lesson plans? Did anything in them trouble you or make you go hmm (before they were edited/changed by the DOE)?

I'll tell you what specifically troubled me about this, from the PDF itself:

I did not like that my kids were going to be told it is important to listen to the President and all elected officials. I was always taught they are supposed to listen to us.

I did not appreciate the exercise of having to write essays and brainstorm how kids could help Obama.

7 -12 graders would be treated to notable quotes and speeches made by Obama previously, interpret the quotes and speeches, and share with the class what Obama believes. Not what Lincoln thought about education, or Oliver Wendall Holmes, or Eleanor Roosevelt. Obama, Obama, Obama. Alone.

They are also supposed to talk about Obama's other historic moments and what the impact has been. Uh. 7 months as president? 2 years in the senate?

Obama, Obama, Obama.

Then, they must talk about what lines from Obama's speeches resonate with them. What are the three most important words in his speech?

Really? This seems like an academic pep talk? Not to me.

The main focus of the planned activities AFTER the speech is done is all about Obama---his legacy, his history, his speeches, his words, how they make us feel, what his words are telling us to do.

Then, they are to imagine Obama's NEXT speech, which means this isn't a one-time thing. What should HE say to us? Who should he say it to?

So, yeah. Those things troubled me.

Interestingly enough, my kids' public school is not showing it or participating in any of the activities. Just got the email a few hours ago. We were given links to where we'd be able to watch the speech as a family, if we choose. We might. I am not about shrinking away from hard topics with my kids.

I'm the filter, for now.

the first day back to school

My kids have been in school 2 weeks already.
I don't know what first day has to do with it anyway.

David, should the President ever be allowed to speak to school children?

Should any president every be allowed to? Or only if everyone agrees with their associations and policies?

I really think this is a lousy hill to die on.

Curious: Did you read the PDF lesson plans? Did anything in them trouble you or make you go hmm (before they were edited/changed by the DOE)?

Yes.
I don't know if I saw them before or after. But I read them. Nothing made me go hmmm. I would only go hmmm if I suspected they were some sort of subliminal code that would make my kids communists.


I did not like that my kids were going to be told it is important to listen to the President and all elected officials. I was always taught they are supposed to listen to us.

Can't they listen to both? Understanding that we are the final authority and filter?

I mean, if you don't want your kids to listen to the president, that's cool.

I've always taught my kids that's important to listen to and respect all authorities, in schools, church, community, and government. And they don't get to opt out of respect if Daddy didn't vote for the guy.

I would bet anything that if Bush had tried this a few years ago, you would have Democrats making the same fuss.

But I would encourage everyone not to just believe everything you see in the news. They tend to over-sensationalize things to the extreme. Yes, a few weird people are accusing Obama of being Hitler or whatever. Just like they did of Bush, Clinton, etc, etc before that. Most people that are keeping their kids out of school object to a politician directly addressing their children without knowing exactly what he is going to say. Yes, he gave a few basic points.... but the smarter thing would be for him to pre-record his message and let schools preview it before showing it. And above all, he is a politician, even if he did make it to president. You can't expect people to just get over their distrust of politicians just because one got elected president.

If fact, when I was a public school teacher, there were actual a few laws that required closer screening of all messages being delivered to school students. Some schools are upset that they have to require police officers to submit detailed notes of everything they are going to cover, but the president gets to just say that he has some important points and that is it.

I personally wouldn't keep my kids from see the speech myself (if I had any). But I support the parents that don't want their kids to see it. They have that right to not expose their kids to what they want. When I was a teacher, some kids would have to leave the room while Channel One was playing. Some parents objected to them seeing Brittny Spears dancing around half naked in a Pepsi commercial or whatever other trashy stuff they let pass for commercials. Can't say I blame them.

But the media would have you believe that it is just a bunch of stupid, half-crazed weirdos that are raising a ruckus about Obama's speech, and that is just not a case. I talked with one parent that was not going to let their kids go to school that day. She just had an honest discomfort with an elected official addressing all school children at once. She couldn't exactly put her finger on it, but she felt like it was crossing a line that didn't need to be crossed. And this woman is not Obama hater... believe me.

Just try to get to know the people you are judging before you throw stones, okay?

But I would encourage everyone not to just believe everything you see in the news.

It ain't the news. It's my friends and family all over Twitter and Facebook.
I just found the news article (and the Sen. Russell quote) so I'd have a link.

I do think parents have a right to prevent their kids from seeing whatever they don't want them to see. Never suggested otherwise.

Just try to get to know the people you are judging before you throw stones, okay?

Matt, you crack me up.
I wonder if I could do a post critical of anybody that you wouldn't automatically think was judgmental because it was written by me. :-)

"My kids have been in school 2 weeks already.
I don't know what first day has to do with it anyway."

Most kids are going back to school Sept. 8th, or something close to it, so they chose a date around the general time kids return to school, I believe.

"David, should the President ever be allowed to speak to school children?"

Did I say that he shouldn't? What I said is that I do not take his actions for granted. And I believe, with a small sample of the evidence that can be arrayed against him, that that vigilance is not unfounded. But I said nothing of disallowing him from carrying out his normal duties as President. It's just that he has a habit of wanting to exceed his normal duties as President.

"Should any president every be allowed to? Or only if everyone agrees with their associations and policies?"

If a president had been elected who associated with members of the Klu Klux Klan (Reverend Wright) and militant white supremacists (Saul Alinsky), neither clearly repudiating their views nor his association with them, would you be asking me that question?

But since this question flows from an assumed answer to the first, it is moot. The question that should be asked in the first place is, "What is the content of the speech?" If he was saying something like "this country should be more White" or "you colored students need to realize you're inferior to whites" (yes, I'm using an extreme example), I would say no.

In summary, I acknowledge Obama as an authority figure, but I do not trust him. That's a tricky position to be in, but I have a President who wants to be a political messiah, so I'm forced to it.

"I really think this is a lousy hill to die on."

And I would express a similar opinion. But I already said essentially the same thing in my prior comment.

If a president had been elected who associated with members of the Klu Klux Klan (Reverend Wright) and militant white supremacists (Saul Alinsky), neither clearly repudiating their views nor his association with them, would you be asking me that question?

Yes.

I hear you to be saying that, depending on the president's policies and perspective, he should or should not be allowed to speak to school children.

The question that should be asked in the first place is, "What is the content of the speech?"

Based on the available evidence and advance notices, I am reasonably certain the content is similar to the content of Bush Sr.'s speech in '91.
The text will actually be posted in advance on Monday, so concerned parents can review it.

I'd never dream of telling my kids not to respect the president. But when the President is TELLING me to respect the president?

That's weird.

I don't think my kids are going to turn into communists because Obama talks to them. I am not a dumbass.

My internal "hmmmm" was activated by the fact children are supposed to spend a whole day learning about Obama's speeches, history, how it makes them feel, how inspiring HE is.

It isn't, "Work hard in school, kids!"

It's:

• Brainstorm or Concept Web: What other historic moments do you remember when the President spoke to the nation? What was the impact? Students could create a Cause/Effect graphic organizer.

I'm sure Bush Sr. asked kids to spend the day ruminating on all of his accomplishments and speeches, too.

"I hear you to be saying that, depending on the president's policies and perspective, he should or should not be allowed to speak to school children."

I think that caution and vigilance should be proportional to the manifest evidence of a political leader's character, views, and policies, in all regards. I do not agree with "civil disobedience" or uses of power that would interrupt their legitimate authority (or harass them in innocuous actions, like giving speeches to kids), but I do believe the use of shaming and pressure from the constituency are legitimate tools when any political leader acts in a manner unbecoming of their office. I do not, however, say that this is one of those cases.

"Based on the available evidence and advance notices, I am reasonably certain the content is similar to the content of Bush Sr.'s speech in '91. The text will actually be posted in advance on Monday, so concerned parents can review it."

Then that sufficiently answers the question. If the content of the speech is innocent, then I have no objections. I think parental discretion is the best course in this case.

My only point is this: If a person has just finished with viciously beating you, flinching when they hand you a glass of water might be an understandable reaction. Many of Obama's actions in the last six months have done violence to this country's institutions and political order. People are weary and wary. You have good points, but you're too dismissive of that wariness as paranoia.

Brainstorm or Concept Web: What other historic moments do you remember when the President spoke to the nation? What was the impact? Students could create a Cause/Effect graphic organizer.

Gretchen, I tread lightly, b/c I don't want you to think I'm insulting you again. But I just can't see what is nefarious about these questions. "The President" could refer to any president if the teacher allows it. How many school kids can answer this with a memory of an Obama speech anyway? And what would be wrong if they did?
Assuming the teachers actually choose to use these questions, which they aren't obligated to.

I guess I don't see anything wrong with students actually reflecting on what they hear. I guarantee that plenty of kids with outspoken anti-Obama parents will provide "equal time" in classrooms if these reflections are allowed to take place.

Look at it that way. Without asking questions and for reactions, it's Obama talking and that's it. This way maybe actual discussions can take place.

Many of Obama's actions in the last six months have done violence to this country's institutions and political order

Which institutions? And how has he changed the political order?

you're too dismissive of that wariness as paranoia

Respectfully disagree. As long as I continue to see calls for protests of "socialist indoctrination" in my Facebook feed and "Obama is the antichrist" in my email inbox, I'm gonna keep dismissing. And jeering.

"Which institutions?"

1. Noting the prior examples I've already presented, he's done quite a bit to expand the scope and role of the presidency in ways that the office was entailed for.

2. The seizure of the census (important to redistricting and representation in Congress) from the Department of Commerce, bringing it under direct control the White House and the planned use of a private political advocacy group (ACORN) in gathering census figures. In the first case, it was unconstitutional; it's supposed to be conducted by an independent appointee, operating under the purview of Commerce. In the second case, it's unprecedented, especially when you consider that the same organization had 15 different state investigations and a federal investigation coming out of the '08 election (and now a number of prosecutions).

3. The forced takeover of auto companies and the forcing financial solvent banks like Wells Fargo to take federal, to increase federal regulation.

4. The linking of infrastructure dollars for thew states in the Stimulus Bill to concessions for increased federal oversight and regulation of functions and powers retained by the states.

5. The summary and illegal firing of the AmericCorps Inspector General, after he brought potential misuse of funds to light.

6. The attempted passage of "card check" and the elimination of the secret union ballot. Try to ram it through earlier this year.

7. The attempted passage of Cap-n-Trade. Economic analysis provided here. A good summary of the monkeying going on here.

8. The attempted passage of socialized health care. I assume you don't summary of that one, other than the fact that the House bill HR3200 would kill private health care and, among other things, institute mandatory "dying with dignity" counseling for the elderly (though I believe that was removed, after all the flak it received).

Items 6 - 8 would increase the power of the federal government on a scale akin increase in power that FDR's New Deal during the Great depression, all but turning us into a socialist European state, with federalism being essentially dead.

"And how has he changed the political order?"

I said he did violence to the political order, not that he has fundamentally changed it, though there hasn't been a lack of effort on his part. Perhaps the two things he has done is introduce a level of corruption even the Clintons didn't reach and actively marrying the institution of the presidency to his own political agenda to an extent not reached by any prior holder of that office, save FDR.

"Respectfully disagree. As long as I continue to see calls for protests of "socialist indoctrination" in my Facebook feed and "Obama is the antichrist" in my email inbox, I'm gonna keep dismissing. And jeering."

Actually, I would enjoin with you on such a response, but I was not referring to those types of cases. I only referring to garden variety distrust of Obama.

Also, the unprecedented speed of increase in the national deficit and the reckless borrowing from foreign lenders has greatly endangered our economic security, in a way FDR didn't even manage. The National Debt Road Trip will give you an idea of the scale of the thing.

For my part . . .

Regardless of the politics, my wife and I have both just commented on the "All Obama, All the Time" culture we're in right now. For someone with his vaunted political skills, he seems to work off a playbook that has one play in it: "when in trouble, give a speech/make an appearance" - I don't think that's going to work much longer, and this administration has shown that it has a remarkably tin ear, to this point, at least.

For instance, right or wrong, a noisy segment of the population has been freaking out for the past month at town halls. There is palpable fear of the Government takeover of healthcare. He's already giving a speech to joint houses of Congress on Sept 9. Plus, let's not forget that most of us parents are somewhat insane when it comes to anything having to do with our kids. And some genius in the WH decided this was a good time for Obama to deliver a message to school children, along with a helpful study guide with questions like "How can you help the President"?

Political tin-ear. We're saturated.

The (for the most part) fawning media coverage he's received through the campaign and the first part of his presidency, plus the historic nature of his election, have served to add to the saturation.

I'm a conservative. I want to keep Government at a nice distance from me. President Clinton (who's - I can't believe I'm saying this - tenure grows rosier every day in comparison) knew what to do when his poll numbers crashed. He was a master politician. I'm not sure Obama has those skills.

I ramble. Let me sum up:

1. I'm with Jared on his overall point. Many of us (and it's - by far - not just evangelicals. Run of the mill conservatives are freaking out) need to calm down.

2. I do think that, at this time, this speech is a political mistake. Not a big one, but a mistake nonetheless. The intentions are good, but it's a continuation of a overbearing (and somewhat messianic) "tone" that this administration has that those in the opposition simply do not trust. Fair or not, right or wrong.

3. I don't think anyone's going to die on this hill. This is hill 1,939 of about 10,000 hills conservatives are charging up these days. This will be forgotten soon.

4. I need a break from Government.

Remember that Nero was emperor when Paul and Peter wrote these words (although there is probably some Fox News and talk radio addict on this thread prepared to argue that Obama is worse than Nero).

Romans 13:1-7: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

1 Peter 2:13-17 - "13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Hutch, thanks. I've struggled with what the proper response is to a government I'm not thrilled with.

It can be argued (in fact, Thinkling-friend Thor has argued this with me) that the United States was founded in sin and rebellion, because our founding fathers disobeyed the passages you referenced.

I don't hold to that, of course, but I'm not sure where the balance lies. Or I could be wrong and Thor could be right.

Thoughts?

The American Revolution does not seem to meet classic just war criteria. The colonists claimed, "No taxation without representation," but the biblical admonition to pay taxes says nothing about representation. Many of the early Christians were not Roman citizens, and thus were not represented (Jesus said to render to Caesar to a group of Jews who were not represented).

In 1765, the American colonists possessed the most freedom of any people on earth, and they were probably the least taxed. The British government had just waged a very expensive war, whose success would have made many of the colonists very wealthy (George Washington was among many who claimed land in the Ohio River valley). Since the British government was deeply in debt, it was only fair that it would demand that the colonists help pay for a war that benefited them immensely (both by making them safer from French and Indian attacks and by opening up new territory for settlement). Many scholars (such as Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, and Mark Noll) have demonstrated that the American colonists were far more influenced by radical Whig thought from England (which contained all kinds of Enlightenmnet assumptions) than they were by any kind of deliberate Christian thought.

Hutch - good point.

David Marcoe, I live in suburban Atlanta and reading your thoughts here is like standing in the lobby of our local mega-church and listening to the dads talk politics.

That's not a compliment. Sorry.

Jared - great post. For my part, I have to confess that I do dutifully read the political posts from Bird, Bill, and Shrode, but they make me glaze over after awhile. The reasoning is sound, but I still feel like I'm reading a pro-life voters guide sometimes. I still like it though - the writing is great! (I'm trying to over-correct for sounding more negative than I mean to).

I get discouraged that I need to go almost all the way over to the Emergent blogs if I want another Christian perspective on politics. Jared, thanks for your ability to center us on the gospel in all things......its a gift.

Right now, IMO, any opinion expressed publicly by a conservative should center on support of the people making history by standing up for themselves at the Health Care Town Halls. Good for them - rally behind them - they need it.

That said, I do have to admit that I'm glad that my youngest is already a sophomore in HS. I am concerned about the direction of our education system. My kids are in (relatively) good public schools.......but if I was starting over today, I think I'd have to start saving money for an alternative.

I just can't get beyond 2 things:

a) He's our president and he wants to encourage kids to work and study hard.

b) If you asked a typical left-winger, he'd give you a laundry list as well of things Bush II has done to cause violence to our institutions. War on Terror, Homeland Security Act, rendition, etc etc. We've all heard the list. And they would use the same thing for suspicion over his talking to school children.

And I guarantee most of those angry about Obama's planned speech would call them unpatriotic lunatics.

nhe, there's a reason why I don't post on politics (here, at least) anymore.

And, about your "Dad's at the megachurch" comment - please don't take this wrong, because it's not aimed at you necessarily, but there's a large segment of the Christian blogosphere that's one long shower of cr@p aimed at how awful, stupid, hypocritical, etc evangelicals are. Your comment is typical.

I've retreated. I can't take it anymore.

Jared - rule #1 about human beings. We're all hypocrites.

Actually, that's rule #2 :-) - rule #1 is that we're all crazy. Secondly, we're all hypocrites. Products of the fall.

I'm out.

Bill,

there's a reason why I don't post on politics (here, at least) anymore.

I had noticed it had been a while since we had heard from you on such matters. This here culture warrior would like to know what gives? if it's any of my business ...

I'm just weary. I know the fight that's going on to reform the evangelical church (which is where all political posts on this space eventually get to) is a good fight. I applaud those fighting it. I'm just not bent that way. I can't join in.

Bill - I think there's a HUGE difference between the "evangelical" and the "far right leaning Christian" (who is in danger of polarizing and becoming irrelevant).

My active participation in the "_____"-storm was aimed at the latter - I place you in the squarely in the category of the former.

I think a loud voice decrying the latter is needed for such a time as this. Gospel-Centered stuff like Thinklings and Jared's blog are the only healthy counter. The shower you speak of doesn't sound fun though - I'm thinking of what Andy Dufrane must have smelled like before the rain shower in Shawshank.

I was just being honest before - I don't always agree with you guys - but I'm still feeling the man love for you (in a good way). I've never been one to shy away from telling my friends I disagree with them sometimes.

Bill - I think there's a HUGE difference between the "evangelical" and the "far right leaning Christian" (who is in danger of polarizing and becoming irrelevant).

Well, I don't think so. Most of the talk about evangelicals in the bsphere lumps them together, with the requisite "present company excepted" disclaimers. :-)

I think a loud voice decrying the latter is needed for such a time as this. Gospel-Centered stuff like Thinklings and Jared's blog are the only healthy counter.

I agree. I think Jared's blog is one of the most important in the Christian b-sphere. Thinklings probably not so much :-)

My problem with the general tone of things out there is my own.

Just thought I would share this-

Letter to Alton Frailey, Superintendent of Katy ISD regarding speech

Alton,

I wanted to make you aware of my opposition to next week's broadcast by the President of the United States to my elementary and junior high children. While no one knows the exact text of the speech, this unprecedented presentation gives me serious cause for concern. Here are a few of my issues.

First, if the President is simply delivering an innocent "stay in school" message, he is requiring Katy ISD and all other districts nationwide to use precious time and other resources just to deliver a message they hear frequently from people closer to them. Hearing such a message means more from parents, family, and teachers locally. This address is, at best, a waste of time and money.

Second, few people on either side of the political spectrum would argue the fact that our current President excels at campaigning and persuasion. And given the massive programs implemented, pending implementation, and proposed by this administration, it is logical that the President has been using any and all avenues to reach the American public to convince them of his programs. As an staunch opponent of higher taxes, larger federal deficits, unfunded mandates, and expanding entitlement programs, I would be extremely upset if Katy ISD was the vehicle for the President to advance his economic agenda.

Third, some of the teacher tools that are on the Department of Education website contain talking points that I find patently offensive and contrary to our basic form of government. Questions such as: "Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials" and "What is the president asking me to do?" imply that we, as citizens, should look to those in power for answers and guidance. Quite the opposite is true; this nation is run by men and women who were chosen by the citizens to serve them for short periods of time. During that limited tenure, these elected officials represent the people of the United States. It is the President and other elected officials who should be listening to the citizenry, not the other way around.

Finally, I know that the President's supporters will argue that a message about "persisting and staying in school" is a noble message and one that our children should hear from many sources, and I agree. But I am uncomfortable with any politician, regardless of office or political party, that would use the public school system and my children as an opportunity to stay in the public eye. There is a reason that this event is unprecedented; every President until now has seen it as inappropriate to start their next election campaign by aiming at high school students who will be eligible to vote in 2012. I think this event is narcissistic and improper.

Unfortunately, at this time, I cannot allow my children to attend school on September 8th. Unless the district makes the decision to forgo the President's address entirely, I cannot subject my children to either (a) the address itself or (b) the possible classroom or teacher stigma of being excluded from the event during the day. I would suggest that Katy ISD recommend parents and caregivers allow their children to watch the address at home via the replay link already detailed at the Department of Education website.

Thank you for your consideration and time,


Regards,

Matt Smith

"During that limited tenure, these elected officials represent the people of the United States. It is the President and other elected officials who should be listening to the citizenry, not the other way around."

I never heard any conservative say anything like this when George W. Bush was president. Conservatives claim to be holding to some long-standing principles regarding the executive branch, but they really only try to curb executive branch powers when Democrats are presidents.

I don't remember at any point when we covered any of Bush's speeches or other addresses -- as when he urged vigilance after 9/11 and what-not, all good stuff -- anybody saying we shouldn't be listening to him, he should be listening to us.

Politics.

I didn't vote for this anti-christ, nor do I endorse his method of going about this. I wouldn't be for a Republican President soliciting 'help' either. This man is a wolf in sheeps clothing and my child will not be participating in this. Federal statute denies any authority to the Department of Education to provide any kind of curriculum or anything that can be passed down to the state. And I don't care how you 'label' me.

Well, I don't think so. Most of the talk about evangelicals in the bsphere lumps them together, with the requisite "present company excepted" disclaimers. :-)


When on earth did this happen? Even much of the Emergent crowd would consider themselves evangelical (just not in print :)). I guess I'm thinking that I would discredit any right-wing bashing in the Christian blog sphere that didn't come from a confessing evangelical........as I understand the word.

Do we need a Godwin's law for Christian internet discussions on the odds of someone accusing another of being the/an "antichrist"? :-)

Some contemporary conservatives are the biggest bunch of SORE LOSERS ever. They sound even worse than liberals did in early 2001 after the Florida controversy. Elections have consequences. By getting elected, Presidents get to speak in public to national audiences. By getting elected, Presidents earn the respect and honor that is due to the highest office in the land. Schoolchildren should honor and respect the president just as they would honor and respect their teachers, principles, and local police officers. I think that a lot of conservative Christian parents are teaching their children disrespect for authority by the way they are behaving in this episode.

Conservatives claim to be holding to some long-standing principles regarding the executive branch, but they really only try to curb executive branch powers when Democrats are presidents.

I heard many conservatives -- even Rush Limbaugh -- voice concerns about Bush's expansion of government. Many also voiced concerns about the Patriot Act.

... and the Iraq war as well.

Bob, did any of them say that, based on those things, he shouldn't be allowed to speak to school children?

Bill,

Well, I don't think so. Most of the talk about evangelicals in the bsphere lumps them together

I'm confused. Not your fault. It's pretty much my modus operandi. But, are you saying that you see evangelicals and right-wing extremers as different, but the bsphere lumps them all together, or are you saying you yourself have come to see them as the same thing, or ... ? And, if I may, are you still the culture warrior we have come to know and love, but just tired of fighting the battle, or ... ? I'm just not clear. And if you don't want to talk about it much more, no prob. I just have really appreciated alot of your posts in the past. Maybe your experience will give me something to think about too.

Bob, did any of them say that, based on those things, he shouldn't be allowed to speak to school children?

My statement was a direct (and, I think we all have to agree, accurate) response only to the one statement that Hutch made about conservatives(comment 31), not to the original issue about the school thing. As for the school thing, I hope I can comment more later.

Some mainstream conservatives complained about Bush spending too much money, particularly on domestic programs. But only Ron Paul types were complaining about Bush expanding the power of the executive branch. National Review, The Weekly Standard, FOX News, etc. were usually always defending Bush's expansion of the powers of the executive branch.

Wasn't Bush slow to respond to the 9/11 attacks, because he was too busy speaking to schoolchildren! Their parents weren't there! I don't remember any conservatives attacking Bush for speaking to those schoolchildren.

I think that a lot of conservative Christian parents are teaching their children disrespect for authority by the way they are behaving in this episode.

I disagree Hutch. I believe conservative Christians are misguided in choosing this hill on which to die.

But when it comes to protecting their children from messages that are being delivered from an elected official leader whose associations in the past openly promote the dismantling of the Constitution and ties to terrorism...then those parents can be in the wrong all day.

Wasn't Bush slow to respond to the 9/11 attacks, because he was too busy speaking to schoolchildren! Their parents weren't there! I don't remember any conservatives attacking Bush for speaking to those schoolchildren.

Yes, Bush was reading a book to schoolchildren as part of the No Child Left Behind campaign. One class.

Some contemporary conservatives are the biggest bunch of SORE LOSERS ever.

You're right, Hutch. I am a sore loser. This is the first election where my candidate for President did not win in my 20 plus years of being eligible to vote. (Bill's eyebrows just raised an inch.)

I'm sore from losing. The loss has not spawned a blind hatred for the current administration that clouds any judgement of reason and/or common sense.

All Presidents since the Nixon era, and perhaps before then, could just as easily be accused of dismantling the Constitution. That sentence is devoid of any meaning as it can also be said of hundreds of U.S. Congressmen.

Nearly every administration has had ties to terrorists as well.

OH! I get it. The difference is in the "openly" part. Who is it that defines that?

I know I wrote the post, but this is where I check out of the comments.

This is why I hate politics.

Ain't nobody even bringing in the idea of what Jesus might have to say about any of this. I can't waste my spirit on such wearying historical minutiae (which is what this is in the light of eternity and God's sovereignty). Been there, done that, almost hung myself with the T-shirt.

Jared is right. Jesus wouldn't give a plug nickle for this discussion with the possible exception of using it as an object lesson on idolatry.

I think you just made your point about the post, Jared.

Thank you for posting.

"Remember that Nero was emperor when Paul and Peter wrote these words (although there is probably some Fox News and talk radio addict on this thread prepared to argue that Obama is worse than Nero)."

As I listen to neither, I will never make the argument. Nor, would I engage in such hyperbole. It would be a travesty of history to make such a comparison.

Several points should be made about your cited passages. Nero didn't start out as a as a mad and violent emperor. In fact, he was reasonable well-liked, before his descent into madness after the burning of Rome. Further, Nero was the only emperor who directly targeted Christians for persecution (most of the Roman persecution was far more diffuse and local). And even if Christians had wanted to resist, they were in no position to. That they were writing at the time of Nero (those precise Epistles may have been written before Nero, as he reigned close to the eyewitness period) is neither here nor there. His acute persecution was brief and brutal, but his actions were brutal in regards to the whole Empire. He ordered the heads of noble families to commit suicide and will their fortunes to him so that he could continue to pay for his extravagant expenses. Were the relatively brief, but horribly brutal actions of an emperor to his whole empire grounds for Christians to rise up by themselves? An interesting question.

Those verses say several things. First, even though they are children of the Kingdom, they are also still subjects of the Empire, subject to its authorities, or the authorities of whatever community they belong to. Second, that they are Christians is not grounds for ignoring the authority of a Pagan. Third, though God is their ultimately judge and Christ is their intercessor, it does not give them warrant to do as they please, for they still owe honor to the political authorities in the form of their civic obligations and obedience to the law. This was particularly important in the context of the early Church, as believers severed themselves from the honor code of their old lives and entered into a life concerned with what God found honorable.

But it fails to answer a principal question, where does legitimate authority end and how much is owed to it? As Christ said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's." Daniel'a refusal to worship to Nebuchadnezzar as a God certainly was not illegitimate and neither the refusal of an Christian centurion from Ethiopia in the later Roman Empire (I forget his name), who told the Emperor he bowed to his authority, but could not worship him as a god; both examples were violations of the law and the state religion. However, was the hiding of slaves on the Underground Railroad or Jews during WWII illegitimate defiance of authorities?

Clearly, the work of spreading the Gospel superseded any claims of just resistance and to do so would've have worked against showing neighborly love and working to spread the message. How this can be reconciled with later Christian thought on just resistance is something that need to be explored.

Still, it appears that we can justify individual or group non-violent resistance in cases where authority exceeds it legitimate powers, but this resistance is limited. But what of violent resistance? Let's say you were a peasant in some principality way back when and some soldiers, using the authority of the local noble, seize your daughters and have their way with them. The noble does nothing when you appeal to him. It happens again. What do you do? Let's say this noble then enacted a decree allowing for the act to occur systematically. What do you do then?

"In 1765, the American colonists possessed the most freedom of any people on earth, and they were probably the least taxed."

Neither of which are factors to the complaints of the Colonists

"The British government had just waged a very expensive war, whose success would have made many of the colonists very wealthy (George Washington was among many who claimed land in the Ohio River valley)."

It was also Washington who lead the forces who fought in the first battle of the French and Indian War. Colonist blood was shed as well. I also imagine that the Colonies expended treasure in raising militia that fought. Further, entire fortunes were drained from wealthy citizens funding the American war effort. Washington refused to be paid a salary for the entire war. Lastly, they knew the odds of the victory and the potential consequences for their fortunes. What do you think would've made for more financial security, buckling down or resisting?

"Since the British government was deeply in debt, it was only fair that it would demand that the colonists help pay for a war that benefited them immensely (both by making them safer from French and Indian attacks and by opening up new territory for settlement). "

Which wasn't the point of contention. Whether having a little freedom or a lot, the point was whether or not the British government was acting legitimately.

"Many scholars (such as Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, and Mark Noll) have demonstrated that the American colonists were far more influenced by radical Whig thought from England (which contained all kinds of Enlightenment assumptions) than they were by any kind of deliberate Christian thought."

And there are many scholars who would argue that they were consciously shaped by Christian political thought. That contemporaries like Edmund Burke, who railed against radical Whigs, supported the American Revolution, but rejected the much more radical French Revolution, might an indicator. In fact, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, and Washington, and even eventually Jefferson, rejected the the French Revolution. Moreover, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Rush, Jay, and others among the Founders were various consciously shaped by Christian Natural Law thought. Just take a look at their writings.

Christian political thought, over the centuries, came to two conclusions. First, “No man can make himself king or emperor. The people raise a man above them in this way in order that he may govern them in accordance with right reason, give to each one his own, protect the good, destroy the wicked, and administer justice to every man." God acts through the will of the people to establish authorities and their sovereignty is a trust granted to them by the people. The second conclusion is, "But if he violates the contract under which he was elected, disturbing and confounding that which he was established to set in order, then the people is justly and reasonably released from its obligation to obey him. For he was the first to break the faith that bound them together.” That was written by Catholic scholar Manegold of Lautenbach in 1080. The same basic thoughts were repeated by Aquinas, whose philosophy came to dominate Medieval scholarship was was adopted as the official doctrine of the Church.

There, are, of course, numerous later examples: John Calvin; Calvinist political philosopher Johannes Althusius (1557 - 1638; "father of federalism"); Calvinist theologian and jurist Hugo Grotius (1583 - 1645; "father of the law of nations"); Samuel Rutherford (1600 – 1661; Puritan and writer of the Lex, Rex - "Law is King"); Dominican priest Bartholomew de Las Casas (1474 - 1566), writing, "As regards humans, it is shown that from the beginning of their rational nature, they were born free.... For liberty is a right necessarily instilled in man from the beginning of rational nature and so from natural law...."; Reformed clergymen Girolamo Zanchi (1516 - 1590), who wrote, "...whatever laws are contrary to God's honor or contrary to the welfare of human beings are sinful and tyrannical and should not be called 'laws.'"; Jesuit theologian and philosopher Francisco Suarez (1548 - 1617; considered the greatest Scholastic philosopher after Aquinas) who wrote, "...if a legitimate prince governs tyrannically and no other means of self-defence can be found than the expulsion and deposition of the king, then the people, acting as a whole...may depose him."

What emerges from the whole--and to go into the whole tradition would require several shelves of books--is that sovereignty is limited, conditional, and subject to just resistance by the people corporately, where it is exceeded.

What the American Revolutionaries asserted was that first, the actions by British government had violated their rights as Englishmen, rooted in the historic laws of Britain (the Declaration recounts the American assertions of those violations). Second, that the laws that Parliament were seeking to pass in the Colonies were a usurping of the authority of the colonial legislatures. It was contended that since their colonial charters were granted directly by the Crown and did not come from Parliament, the colonial legislatures, with in their own borders, had the same authority as Parliament with in the United Kingdom, thus any measure that Parliament sought to pass was a violation of their authority. From this then arose the attitude that the Colonies deserved representation with in Parliament and the slogan "No Taxation Without Representation!"

The practical violations of English rights were not necessarily as extensive as the principal violations of law and sovereignty, as well as the inevitable end to which all of would lead.

A notable feature of the American Revolution was it's restraint. They sought reform and reconciliation before revolution. Indeed, Franklin was, at first, attempting to acting as a mediator between Britain and the Colonies. He appeared in Parliament to try and voice colonial concerns, but the last time he appeared, he was made insulted, treated almost like a child, and had the concerns of the Colonies completed disregarded to his face, thus it was said that he went in a Briton and left an American. Once the last appeals to the Crown failed, independence was declared.

"The colonists claimed, 'No taxation without representation,' but the biblical admonition to pay taxes says nothing about representation."

The Bible also says nothing about legislative bodies or "rendering unto the King of England what is the King of England's." They were referring to what was proper with in the the system of government that had been set up in the British Empire.

"Many of the early Christians were not Roman citizens, and thus were not represented (Jesus said to render to Caesar to a group of Jews who were not represented). "

Israel, which had been divided into two separate provinces, was allowed to govern itself under its own law through the Sanhedrin. Jesus spoke very little to direct political matters, but he was speaking to what is owed to all legitimate authorities. Whether one might argue that Rome was a legitimate authority, at least in respect to the average citizen in their day to day life, I'll leave for a different debate.

"The American Revolution does not seem to meet classic just war criteria."

I happen to have a book titled "St. Augustine and the Theory of Just War," by John Mark Mattox. Augustine is call the "father of just war" and modern theory is based on his teachings. The book has a nice summary of the criteria for what constitutes a just war.

"Just cause The reason for resorting to war must, itself, be a just reason. Traditionally, just causes have included the defence of the innocent against armed attack, the recovery of persons or property wrongly taken, or the punishment of evil."


The protection of rights, the upholding of just government, and the prevention despotism might be a just cause. This, of course, assumes that the actions of Parliament and the Crown were heading toward an increasingly despotic state, which was the American assertion.


"Comparative justice Although war exists as an ethical possibility, there also exists a strong presumption against the resort to war as a means to resolve difficulties. Comparative justice requires – in addition to a state’s having a just cause for the prosecution of war: a position which, for good or ill, both (or multiple) parties to a conflict are likely to claim – that the claims of an aggrieved party also must be of such magnitude that the presumption against war is overridden."

As attempts of non-violent resistance, petition and reconciliation were made prior to the declaration of independence and a formal raising of military forces was made when troops were sent from Britain, that might fulfill that criteria.

"Right intention The outward disposition of parties contemplating war is not a sufficient guide as to whether the resort to war is actually justified; the invisible (but no less real) inward disposition is also important. The internal motivation must itself be just. Evidence of right intention might include the
pursuit of peace negotiations to avoid war, the avoidance of potentially unreasonable demands, etc. A right intention would not involve the desire for territorial expansion, intimidation or coercion, and it would be devoid of hatred for the enemy, implacable animosity, or a desire for vengeance or
domination."

Colonists argued the war was in defense of their rights under the law and for the preservation of just authority. If true, that might fulfill that criteria.

"Competent authority The decision to go to war can be weighed and declared only by that person, or body of persons generally recognized, by virtue of position in the social framework, to possess authority to make such a declaration, namely, that person or body with no political superior."

Samuel Rutherford argued in Lex Rex that where the Crown exceeded its legitimate authority, it was the duty of those authorities under the Crown to bring it back to its proper limits. Indeed, the English Civil War was fought on precisely that operative theory, with Parliament asserting powers independent of the Crown. Combined with criteria of just resistance and limited, conditional sovereignty, Colonial governments might be viewed as competent authorities to declare war.

"Last resort Not even those authorized to declare war are justified in doing so if there be any reasonable means to avoid it. That is, the prevailing circumstances must clearly indicate that no means short of war would be sufficient to obtain satisfaction for just grievances or wrongs against the state."

Again, the assertion, laid out in the Declaration, is that severing ties with Britain and preparing their defense was an action of last resort.

"Public declaration The aggrieved state must set forth the reasons that impel it to war as an indispensable part of its demonstration that all other means for peaceful resolution short of war have been exhausted. Such a declaration serves, among other things, as an occasion for national reflection as to whether all means short of war truly have been exhausted prior to the commitment to the enterprise of the nation’s resolve, energies, and resources. The declaration may come in the form of an ultimatum, which sets forth those remedies short of war that remain available, with the requirement that the offending party avail itself to those remedies prior to a specified time."

The Declaration of Independence might fulfill all those criteria.


"Reasonable probability of success Unless the cause that impels military action isof such importance as to merit defence even in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, a war that presents little or no hope of serving as a vehicle for obtaining satisfaction for just grievances is not morally justifiable."

The cause was asserted to be of the utmost moral importance, so it might fulfill that criteria.

"Proportionality The moral good expected to result from the war must exceed the amount of evil expected naturally and unavoidably to be entailed by war."

That is a complex moral discussion.

"Peace as the ultimate objective of war The end of violence, the avoidance of future violence, and, to the greatest extent possible, the establishment or restoration of happiness and human flourishing – in short, a just and lasting peace – must be the end toward which the war is fought."

I think we can assume that was the desired end on both sides.

In the interest of dispassionate inquiry, it could be anything asserted by the Colonies was in error or deceptive, as was would also be true of Britain. Neither side was without a vested interest, so maybe it wasn't as clear cut as we think, whether one falls on one side or the other on this subject. But to assert that it in no way meets just war criteria is presumptuous.

"But only Ron Paul types were complaining about Bush expanding the power of the executive branch. National Review, The Weekly Standard, FOX News, etc. were usually always defending Bush's expansion of the powers of the executive branch."

Considering the expansion of those powers came in wartime, the comparison to the current situation is not entirely apt. But were the powers asserted by the President and those granted by the Congress unconstitutional? That's the determining factor with any administration, GOP or Dem.

Bob, did any of them say that, based on those things, he shouldn't be allowed to speak to school children?

Jared,

This was your question, if you're still reading, which maybe you aren't but, oh well ...

With all due respect, I think you're kind of missing the point. It's not that

Do we really want to give the impression that working hard, taking education seriously, and being a conscientious citizen are all "socialist" (or even liberal) virtues?

and it's not that

he shouldn't be allowed to speak to school children?

The whole thing is that 1) he is going to speak to a huge number of school children simultaneously, then 2) if the teachers follow the suggestions of the D. of Ed., they are going to have the kids write essays on how "they can help President Obama", and 3) they will be encouraged (not assigned, I hope) to read books about Obama, and a few other things as well. When you put this together with that freakish video circulating with all those actors promising to "serve my President" by planting trees and being a better parent, when you put this together with the website where people can tell the government about the "health care lies" they have received, I mean, the whole thing just looks kind of creepy.

Yeah, there have been alot of over-reactions. And I can believe the White House's intentions were completely benign. But, heck, the whole thing looks like a dress rehersal for Brave New World. (Oh dear, I can hear the fingers flying at the keyboards already. Can I please just have a little latitude for a little snark and some rhetorical exaggeration? Is that so much to ask, folks?) The White House, their good intentions notwithstanding, should have seen this coming. I don't think the over-reaction helps, and I won't be pulling my kids out of school. But it's still creepy and I understand why people are upset. The WH should have seen this coming. Someone in an earlier comment said they were really "tin eared." That's a great way to put it.

Hutch,

Conservatives certainly did complain about the expansion of executive power under Bush. Again, think Patriot Act. Heck, Jonah Goldberg at Nat'l Rev. went as far as to say that compassionate conservatism had elements of fascism in it. Other than that, can't quote you chapter and verse, but it was there. Bush took it on the chin from NR more than a few times.

Parents cannot be too vigilante where this administration is concerned.

We need to teach David Marcoe what we in sales have learned when we email our customers about new products........the longer the message is, the less likely it is that they'll read it. I was fascinated to learn that an entire novel could fit in a thinklings comment stream.

Jared, if I recall, this isn't the first time you've walked into a crowded room, ripped the pin out of a live grenade with your teeth, tossed it up in the air, and walked out........I love it......sorry though that I tend to be one of the flame-fanners.

"We need to teach David Marcoe what we in sales have learned when we email our customers about new products...the longer the message is, the less likely it is that they'll read it. I was fascinated to learn that an entire novel could fit in a thinklings comment stream."

First, a lot of it was citations and quotes. Second, I've worked that way for years and it is a format that works well for the types of discussions I have, e.g. they don't lack for responses (as Jared well knows; my history on this blog goes back before you came here). Third, it's not a simple topic; I only dealt with a tiny portion of the whole issue. Fourth, in two cases now, the only thing you've supplied in reply to comments not addressed to you are sarcastic jibes that have absolutely nothing to do with what I've said. Is it really that hard to not say something that isn't insulting? If you would show some common courtesy, I'll welcome a lesson on brevity.

sorry man, it wasn't meant to be sarcastic, just true......it was really long......you're right though, sorry for being off-topic.

No big, but after the first "mega-church" comment, it feels little like sniping from the side lines. Anyway, apology accepted. And I apologize for being crotchety. I could've been a little less snarky.

I will say, however, it is massive, even for my long-winded posts. But the issue is complex one and I'm not sure I could've done it justice with something shorter. Still, I only scratched the surface with what is, relatively, a quick and dirty treatment.

Jared, THANK YOU!

I can only assume from the huge number of comments that you're getting some flak here (no, I didn't read them, it's 2am and I'm going to bed soon), but the "pick your battles" message is one that I've been trying to push. The President isn't going to brainwash our kids next week.

Frankly, I almost wonder if this wasn't planned just to make the Right fly off the handle again ... because to anyone who isn't a crazy anti-Obama nut, this must seem very, very silly. That means credibility is lost for the next fight, one that might actually matter.

"Frankly, I almost wonder if this wasn't planned just to make the Right fly off the handle again ... because to anyone who isn't a crazy anti-Obama nut, this must seem very, very silly. That means credibility is lost for the next fight, one that might actually matter."

So what if I person simply has a concern about it, instead of "flying off the handle"? Are they an anti-Obama nut? That they may ask a few questions is a sign of derangement? I'm not talking about the tinfoil hat set or the Birther conspiracy theorists. I'm talking about a person who might not take Obama at his word.

One extreme is met with another. Jared notes an overreaction in some quarters, but then anyone in that position of doubting Obama's intentions is characterized as simply being a crazed loon. Unlike the prior speeches by Reagan, both Bushes and Laura Bush, this one has a hell of a lot more involvement by the Dept. of Education and some of the activities are a little too Obama-focused. That's at least eyebrow raising, if nothing else.

I'm not talking about breaking out the torches and pitchforks. I'm talking about giving it a little more scrutiny. If it's truly innocent, we can go on our merry way and never worry about it again, but let's not take it for granted. That's all.

My wife is a public school teacher (middle school) and she told me that showing the president is going to be optional at her school........is that true across the board?.......I think that makes a difference.

David, frankly, if that's where you are, then I'm not talking about you.

I'm talking about the people who are pulling kids out of school, who are accusing the President of indoctrination, etc..

There are people who are flying off the handle, to repeat my expression. It sounds like you're not one of them. Great! Pleased to meet you.

For my own part, I'm tired of hearing for days that Pres. Obama ordered dijon mustard or drank a foreign beer and all of the other nonsense that lights up the Internet and talk radio. There is a huge element of irrational hatred of this President. There is a huge difference between irrational hatred and legitimate disagreement. As you note, there's a difference between the Birthers and a legitimate, level-headed critic.

For my own part, I think that this is silly. It's a speech. At worst, it's over in a day or two. But large numbers of conservatives will have made themselves look completely irrational in the run-up, and thus cripple their own ability to sway others later.

Jared: "Ain't nobody even bringing in the idea of what Jesus might have to say about any of this. I can't waste my spirit on such wearying historical minutiae (which is what this is in the light of eternity and God's sovereignty). Been there, done that, almost hung myself with the T-shirt."

I hear you, Jared. And I think your post was right on, and convicting.

But one reason it's hard to talk about what Jesus might do in specifics is because we don't know. Conventional wisdom would say that He would support Obama as His president. But he also might have dismissed both GWB and BO as sly foxes. He might have called them both (plus our entire congress) a brood of vipers, thus earning a solid round of tut-tutting from whoever supported those guys (note: I realize that at least in the second example I gave He was rebuking religious leaders).

It's not easy to know what He would do. There is plenty in the Bible in the way of condemnation of the leaders of a nation.

Our job is to shine as lights in the world, to speak the truth in love. I fail at that every day.

I know you're disheartened. I am too, for different reasons, though. It doesn't take more than a few minutes in the Christian blogosphere for things to turn into "I've seen the problem and it's you", us-versus-them-ism. This happens, by the way, with every good thing that comes down the pike in American Christianity. The idea of seeker-targeted church turned into that within about 30 seconds. I have a great fear that the current drive toward more Gospel-centered ecclesiology (something I GREATLY support) will veer off into that. I'm already seeing some of it.

Bottom line: I don't think Jesus would waste any of His time on the blogosphere. :-)

And we're probably all wrong, most of the time.

Wow - lots of comments to read.

If you focus in on the details --> the President talking to our children is nothing. This act in and of itself is absolutely no big deal. This is a big "yawner".

If you zoom out at the 50,000 foot level though, you have a person who wrote a autobiographical narrative about himself at the age of approximately 30 years. Before he was a Senator. Not that it is a prerequisite to have a legacy in order to write an autobiography, but it tells me everything I need to know about his psyche. It's all about him. I'm highly speculative that the bills that he is trying to pass, cap and tax and healthcare, he doesn't believe they are necessarily good for the country or that they are good for his party, but rather that they are good for his legacy. These are very huge bills that bring about huge changes.

So talking to our school children just adds to the "someday they are going to chisel my head into Mt. Rushmore" persona.

My child had to file out to the street and wave happily at George Bush's motorcade as it sped by her school. She wasn't given an option to support him or not.

I has to endure 8 long years under G.W. Bush. I consider him an evil - and I choose that word deliberately, as a Christian - man.

So I was called a traitor, and much worse.

Here's my question: Four years ago anyone who didn't support the president was a traitor. Why is opposing the president now patriotic?

Just wanted to say thank you for this post.

b) If you asked a typical left-winger, he'd give you a laundry list as well of things Bush II has done to cause violence to our institutions. War on Terror, Homeland Security Act, rendition, etc etc. We've all heard the list. And they would use the same thing for suspicion over his talking to school children.

I don't remember who wrote this or which comment it was in, in the long string of comments here ... but I thought I'd respond as a "typical" left-winger since there seems to be very few of them here. Bush did do violence to a number of our institutions with his ill-thought-out policies in the wake of 9/11. I believe that history will prove him to have been an extremely inept man in the face of dire need. That's me ...

Had he planned to speak to the nation's school children at any time during his administration, honestly, I'm not sure how I would have responded. However, I can say this with certainty ... I would never, ever have been so upset about it to have wanted my children to be "protected" from him. There were many times during his presidency when I also believed his actions to be evil. But he was the President. As such he was deserving of my honor, respect and audience ... and as a citizen I need to teach that to my children.

I think that most of you who are concerned about the lesson plans may have never seen one before. There was nothing worrisome in them at all. Yes, it does seem like a lot ... most teachers would likely pick one or two activities from the buffet presented there. A good teacher would use that as a springboard to develop a specific plan for his/her specific classroom taking his/her specific children in mind. I thought it was very helpful for teachers who would not have seen the speech ahead of time to prepare.

For those of you concerned about the so-called cult of personality, those of us on the left dealt with that for 8 years under Bush ... anyone with an ego large enough to actually campaign for president has an ego large enough to be on Mt. Rushmore. 'Nuf said. They are indeed larger than life and when we don't like them, well, their motives can appear nefarious. But I think in the end, too, we must remember that they are human. And they grew up here with similar hopes and dreams to all of us. Remember being told when you were a kid that if you did well in school you could be president one day? Yeah? Well, these guys did it. They really did eat their Wheaties and studied hard and made it. They're not bad, or out to do horrible things ... like parents who sometimes make mistakes, they actually want what's best for us. But it's on a HUGE scale. And it would be helpful we could all remember that.

All I can say is thank goodness I'm not like you Americans. :-)

Jared, can't add anything because you nailed it.

I'm also tired of the crew out there saying that can't respect our current prez until he grows into the office. That's bullcrap, frankly. And that's coming from someone who voted for the Constitution Party candidates in 2008.

Look, I went to Wheaton College. I saw firsthand what happens to kids who grow up in a bunker and are eventually allowed to crawl out. KISS wrote a song about them: "Junior's Gone Wild." Responsible parenting doesn't mean you put a lead shield around your kid. That so many parents are screaming about Obama's school speech—it only shows that the GOP has its moonbats too.

It isn't paranoid. A political figure speaking to the quintessential "captive audience" is a bit creepy -- though not immoral. I have the right to control the messages my children hear and I don't think it's paranoid to exercise that option with a POTUS who has cultivated a personality following -- not "the same" as Kim Jong Idiot or Saddam Hussein, but there is a lot of iconography of this POTUS floating around out there.

Also GWHB's speech was on C-SPAN and was voluntary -- it wasn't piped into every classroom (as was the apparent goal). I also have qualms about it under federalism and local control of schools. Also not paranoid.

And last -- getting worked up about people getting worked up is a bit rich since getting worked up is as old as the hills.... From Dick Gephardt in 1991:

http://ky3.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-obama-school-speech-debate.html

Best, Floyd

Floyd, getting worked up about idolatry is not the same as getting worked up in idolatry.

Unless you think Paul was a big fat hypocrite.

The President plans to talk about hard work, making good grades, and being a conscientious citizen. He is not giving a policy speech to kids.

Jared, all other aspects aside, I find it hilarious that (days before the speech was released) you told us definitively what its actual content would be, based on what a politician said it would be.

I didn't have any reason to believe otherwise. I found it ridiculous to assume he'd be pushing his health care initiative or any other policy stuff to children. As I said, he's a pretty tone deaf guy, but he's not stupid. I didn't see why he'd lie about this either.
And it turns out I was right.

Hi!
Thank you for writing a calm logical string of words about this issue. I try to talk about it but find it so asinine I can only babble incoherently. I have read Obama's entire speech and the study guides. It's no surprise that Obama is not encouraging the children to recite his name as a mantra, turn in non Obama loving parents, and go door to door promoting socialist policies. Obama is the president of the United States duly elected whether we like it or not. He is one of the most powerful leaders in the world. And all he wants to do is tell students to work hard in school. Golly, I'd hate to accidently influence students to work harder in school and respect their teachers. It is easy enough to discuss Obama's speech with your own children when they get home from school Tuesday. For example: "Was what he said about doing homework right? Yes, it is good to work hard in school. However, I think that some of the things he believes in are not right. Let's talk about his views." Just part of the simple process of educating your child. Being so paranoid that you won't let your child listen to Obama's speech is acting like he's an evil dictator. Feel free not to agree with him but he's not the next Hitler as one article suggested.