Out the Door

Really Freaked Out by Children Singing Obama's Praise

By now most everyone has seen or heard about the New Jersey school children singing praises to President Obama.  If you haven't here's one of several that are on-line.

This video freaks me out to the point I am about lost for words.  I remember growing up and seeing pictures of school children in communist countries singing songs to their leaders.  This is the stuff of dictatorships and atheistic tyrannts.  If these children were singing about Castro, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussien, I could see that happening.  I would expect nothing less from these types of dictators.  Yet here are American school children singing, "Mr. President, we honor you.  Mr. President, you're number one." 

Now I'm all for honoring our president regardless who it is.  But when little children who have no choice are coerced into singing about how great a man the president is goes way beyond honoring the office.

What is our nation coming to when children can sing songs to the president to the tune of "Jesus Love the Little Children," and can't sing the original words to that same song because it speaks of Jesus?  President Obama should speak out and say while he's honored by the gesture, we are one nation under God and not one nation under the president.  Of course, that's not going to happen so this attack upon the freedom of thought which is central to our country's way of life will go unchallenged by anyone in a position of authority.

Don't like the rules, then change them

Ever child learns that rules are designed to make a game fair and because of that you can't change the rules just because you're bigger or stronger.  It seems this is a lesson that the Massachusetts Democrats failed to learn.

In 2004, the rules in Massachusetts were that if one of the Senator's seats became vacant before the end of a term, the governor could appoint someone to fill that position.  John Kerry abandoned his Senatorial seat in order to run for president that year.  The Democrats who controlled the state legislature changed the rules so that rather than the governor appointing a replacement, a special election had to be held.  It just so happened in 2004 Massachusetts had a Republican governor and the Democrats were afraid he would name a Republican replacement.  So being bigger and stronger, the Democrats in the legislature changed the rules.

Fast forward to 2009.  Once again a Massachusetts Senate seat is open.  SURPRISE!!  The Democrats want to change the rules again because now there's a Democratic governor.  They now want the governor to have the power to appoint someone to the Senate position.  I have little doubt they will make this change.

Isn't it great to be bigger and stronger than your opponent, so you don't have to play by the rules and you can just make them up as you go along?  Is it any wonder that there is a growing lack of respect for authority and the rule of law in our land?  When those empowered to make the rules will change the rules whenever it is to their advantage the lesson is clear, playing by the rules is less important that getting whatever you want.

More Choices than a Vegas All-U-Can-Eat Buffet

With 33 pages of statements on nearly every conceivable issue the UM Social Principles offer more choices than a Vegas Buffet.  And it seems that people pick and choose as freely.

One person favors government run health care and thus quotes these lines;
Providing the care needed to maintain health, prevent disease, and restore health after injury or illness is a responsibility each person owes others and government owes to all. para. 162V

The same person who favors homosexual  marriage and thus passes over these words;
We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. para. 161B

Another person opposes genetic enegineering and pulls out these words:
We oppose the cloning of humans and the genetic manipulation of the gender of an unborn child. para. 162O

This same person who likes a beer with their hotdog at a baseball game overlooks these words:
We affirm our long-standing support of abstinence from alcohol as a faithful witness to God's liberating and redeeming love for persons.  para 162L

Now I'm not in the position to point fingers because I must confess I've been just as choosy.  But I wonder if people can pick and choose which of our Principles they endorse and which they reject, how much real power do these Principles have?

My answer is "not much."  My bet is that the majority of United Methodist don't even know there is such a thing as the Social Principles and that even fewer have actually read them or studied them.  I realize I may be wrong about this since the Social Principles are the bedrock document for a number of United Methodist clergy.  But it's been my experience that even these individuals emphasis some and ignore others.  Something tells me it just shouldn't work that way.