I follow this blog consistently and I'm usually with you but I don't agree here. There is something really creepy about this whole plan. From the first pdf that was released it has seemed more like something from a dictatorship than from a republic. The whole thing is just too much about Obama, for Obama and by Obama.

I understand that we need to be careful with the comparisons to Hitler and others. But I don't think it's unreasonable (and certainly not idolatrous) to be concerned about this.

I didn't wade into the previous discussion, mainly because I didn't want to. I am not against the President speaking to schoolchildren, per se. I think it would be a great idea to start the tradition of it happening every single year.

Aside from this specific issue, I don't understand how you equate not voting to taking a stand against the drama being displayed by many. While I understand the grief it causes you to see our culture to get so up in arms about something that is relatively small when compared with the cosmic, supernatural battle that is afoot in our country, I don't understand why this grief would cause you to not want to voice your assent or dissent, your approval or disapproval or simply your opinion on certain candidates, ballot initiatives or other proposals.

Maybe you could connect the dots for me, because I'm not getting the full picture here. I, personally, am okay with the Presidential address. I won't go into the details - that is for the other post (which I am intentionally avoiding). Please fill me in on how you get from grief/disgust/frustration/anger? to possibly committing to not voting.

Sure, voting can be driven by worry and fear, but it can also be driven by logic, rationale and, most importantly, the Spirit. Right?

Matt keeps mentioning "the media." I don't know what that means. I don't watch ANY television news. None. Zero. I have no idea what FOX News or any other place is featuring about this.

Ditto online. I am woefully ignorant about the media representation on this.

I am however immersed in voices from friends and family and the community I pastor. I don't have any idea how to "weigh" who's voice is stronger -- those who are pro or those who are anti -- I can only speak for the overwhelming voice of "my community." And I think they are representative, based on my experience, of just plain ol' regular church folk. Not fundamentalist. Not conspiracy theorists. Just regular evangelical conservative people.

And they are freaking out.

Please fill me in on how you get from grief/disgust/frustration/anger? to possibly committing to not voting.

I would see it as aiding and abetting the political idolatry of my brothers and sisters.

I hope nobody reads me as saying that's what they should do. I'm just speaking for myself, as someone who has voted Republican in every election I was able. Not only did I vote for McCain in 2008, he was the first candidate I picked and rooted for before the Repub primaries. He was more "my guy" than any other guy I'd ever voted for. And yet when I pulled the lever for him, I did it completely differently than when I pulled it for W. twice. I voted for McCain and then I stopped caring if he won or not.

When Bush/Gore hung on chads, I watched Fox News every spare second, all the way into December when the result was finally handed down. When Obama/McCain was up in the air for only a matter of hours, I turned off the TV as the first results came in, and went to bed unconcerned.

I don't mean to make this about myself, but I like who I am now a lot better, and the difference is not me, but Jesus and what he's done in my life.

So what I'm saying is, for me, if this deluge of conservative paranoia, fearmongering, and worry keeps up, I will resist it by not helping it reward itself with a won election.

I think it varies person to person (referring to the "firestorm" or whatever it is).

They'll show the speech in my son's junior high. We asked him what he wanted to do. He's OK with watching it so he'll get to. I can't remember what the verdict was at my daughter's high school (seems that they may not be showing it).

Jared, my only advice would be to do what you think is right. But please don't over-generalize. There are great differences in how people are reacting to this. It's not binary hot/cold. I def agree that many people are reacting to the Obama presidency in an over-zealous way. But some people have concerns that should not be too big a cause for grief. This is the way our country works.

For instance, my wife, who is a very loving and very centered Christian woman is not happy about the white house broadcasting Obama's speech into the schools, along with the study guide. Maybe you think she's crazy, but there it is.

Some kind, caring, thoughtful Christian soul on the other thread labelled her (and several other of my family members that I care about way more than I care about the blogosphere) a "moonbat". Nice.

For every Christian person who's freaking out, there are probably five who could care less, and another one who's applauding the whole thing.

And we're going to hit a lot more of these items in the next few years. I had hoped when Obama was elected that we wouldn't become what the left had become over the 8 years of Bush's tenure. Probably a pipe dream.

Maybe a third party is called for. I've kind of given up on a Government answer and am for voting all of them out. Or at least limiting the damage. My kids have to grow up in whatever national situation we bequeath to them.

I kind of wish I had avoided the two recent threads (this one and the earlier one). They've done more damage to me than they were worth - probably for different reasons than the ones that have disturbed you.

Time to retreat, for me at least.

There are great differences in how people are reacting to this. It's not binary hot/cold.

I know.

I thought it had been clear that I am expressing grief over those who are reacting "hot." Perhaps not.

I thought I had made it clear that I am not an Obama supporter. If anyone cares to go back to the pre-electon days, they will see my posts critical of him.
What I mean by that is, I stand with conservatives against liberal governance, and specifically, I think Obama is a waste of a presidency.

If it is sounding like I'm saying "If you disagree with the President's views/positions/character, you are an irrational idolater," I have failed. Because that's not what I'm saying.

I've just been more affected by the outrage from those closest to me about this little incident than I expected to be. And I don't know if I can "come back" so to speak.

I think Jared's main point -- that Christians shouldn't be freaking out -- is valid. Being concerned and freaking out are two different things.

Personally, I'm not concerned at all. I think people's naivete feeds into the hysteria. Obama will be gone, for sure, by 2016. He can't legally appoint himself fuhrer. Thanks to the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a retire-the-jersey genius, we have safeguards against such tyrannical coups.

Sure, anything's possible, and it's good to be continually concerned, but hysteria doesn't help anyone.

Obama is President of the United States; he's not Emperor Palpatine.

Even if he was Emperor Palpatine, he's certainly not God.

And I get what you're saying. If you think that abstaining from the next election will help you avoid aiding and abetting, then I don't suppose that I can dissuade you. As you've mentioned, you're not being prescriptive about it, so I have little, if anything, to complain about.

While elections can't fix everything, they have great sway over the course of government. For example, if there are two candidates up for a position and one seems to be a fearmonger who rallies people around false pretenses, similar to the paraphernalia Bird got regarding health care earlier this summer, you can vote for the other candidate. I think that would further your cause moreso than abstaining.

If there are two candidates who seem to be equally political, for lack of a better term, you might not vote for either of them, but I would suggest that you send each of them a letter telling them exactly why you aren't going to vote for them. Maybe someone reads your letter and tosses it, or maybe you cause someone to think twice. You can do more to make your voice heard than just pulling a lever, although I personally believe that lever-pulling is one of the greatest things about this country and hate to see someone so disgusted with the state of affairs that they decide to opt out altogether.

Let's hope and pray that things get better before they get worse, in regard to all of the political drama.

It seems to me that a lot of conservative Christians believe that saturation in media (print, radio, television, blogs, is there an end to it?) is a pollution-free zone, contra James 1:27.

Who can be bothered with widows and orphans (and all other vulnerable ones at the fringes of society) when there's a country to save?

The speech is "optional" for teachers at the public school my wife teaches at.

For that reason, I don't understand the fuss at all.

The "media" is just a generally accepted term that refers to anywhere news or opinions are reported or broadcast - newspapers, television, blogs, probably even Twitter now. That was what I was taught in school before the Internet even existed. I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to sound like some snotty reference to something that no one knows what it is - I just didn't know there was any confusion over what that meant. I see it used on blogs all the time.

Jared, I understand what you mean about your local community. However, you didn't say anything about that in your original post. You link to a post that would be considered part of the media, and you posted your thoughts in a general arena that is outside your local community. If you only want it to apply to your local community, then you need to restrict the broadcast of it to that community. Once you post it to the broader community of the Internet, you have to understand that your comments are going to to be interpreted as being addressed to the entire Internet community, unless you specify otherwise. I was just responding to the statements on your post, which appeared to be directed at everyone out there.

You will also notice that I said "many people" and not "you Jared." I thought you were addressing the general reaction out there, and so was I.

Same goes for Piper and anyone else that blogs - if you want your message to address the action of a local community, then just make sure you make that clear. You didn't say where you were hearing this fear and paranoia from, and you linked to a page out in the media, so I responded with my thoughts on the media in general.

Just remember, not everyone that reads this blog will know you like Bill and Bird and the others... we don't necessarily "know where you are coming from."

Sorry for the confusion.

Matt, I assumed you to be saying that the news media was distorting the outcry, making a minority sound like a majority.

I don't know about that because, as I said, I don't watch any news or read any newspapers or surf WorldNet or any of those places I used to surf.

But I posted this on the Internet b/c what I am hearing, via Facebook friends and via blog posts, is an audience who needs to read this perspective. So I am broadcasting it to the very community that is overreacting.

Have you read the comments under Piper's post? You've got a few who are saying "Amen" and a bunch who are suddenly rethinking their admiration of Piper. "Hitler" gets mentioned at least twice.
And Piper's audience is not made up of militia-minded fundamentalist "moonbats." It is made up of "mainstream" evangelical Christians.

If none of this applies to you and your circle, awesome. But it does to mine and many others'; the sheer volume of online discussions testifies to that.

How am I supposed to know that you don't follow much media?

Because I told you. Once in the comments under the original post where you mentioned the media, and to which I replied that I only pulled that news article in b/c I wanted a link for the post (and discovered that quote in the process). And once again in comment #6 above. I suppose you didn't read my first comment in the original post or missed it somehow.

The point was that you are broadcasting to a community that is much larger than JUST your local community

Um, yeah.
I am posting on the internet. I've been doing this a while, so I know.
As I said in my response, I am seeing the paranoia on the internet. So I'm writing about it on the internet.

This really isn't about my view on this. This is really about your view of me. I'm not new to this kind of thing in the blogosphere and you aren't the first to act the way you do every time you come here.

You are shooting down everything I said in reaction to your original post by adding to it in the comments, and that is just uncool.

I don't know what this means. I did a post. You commented with criticism. I responded to that criticism in the comments.
Am I not supposed to do that?

Matt, this is not new, this thing you do here. It's silly.

You have threatened to leave before, b/c of me or us or whatever it is here that just rubs you the wrong way. But then you come back and it starts all over again.

Disagree. But don't get all personal when I disagree with your disagreement. That's just weird.

I suspect reading and interacting here is not good for you. It seems obvious you can't read my stuff without feeling need to tell me how wrong/exaggerated/overblown/uninformed or whatever it is. It's old. Probably best if you were "out."

I'm with you, Jared!

There are people who just hate Pres. Obama so much that they actually think that this is rational. It's wrong. It's not how Christians should act.

The opposition to Pres. Obama has become its own idol, standing alongside the collection of idols worshiped by the Religious Right. Not everything he does is evil. Some is. Some isn't. I'm all for people opposing the evil bits.

I refuse to help people who oppose his choice to speak to school kids, his choice of beer, his mustard selections, etc..

Good thoughts, Jared. Take the plunge! Don't vote!

Hello,
As a parent of a homeschooler, we opted-out of the speech. As a parental rights activist, I have some important comments to add to this discussion.
Post-hoc we can agree that the speech was relatively benign. However, the greatest concern lies in three things. First, our President could have laid to rest many fears and attacks by simply releasing the speech text earlier and never introducing the lesson plan. Rather than silence it, he permitted it to brew. Second, it was not the speech that causes a parental rights activist alarm. It is a president who believes that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is good for American children. President Obama supports this treaty which, if ratified, would subjugate parent's right to educate children according to their own worldviews to the federal government's oversight. Look at our website. If you disagree with me concerning this UN treaty, I welcome dialogue in a common mutual for truth.
Third, our federal government is extending its reach farther into our private lives. I am actually more concerned about our President's other actions than his speech to children.
Sincerely,
Dr. Eric Potter
Tennessee Director for Parental Rights.Org

PS: I confess. I was fooled by GWB and only recently have begun to see his departure from conservate values in hindsight. Can you forgive me?