To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To me, the bro-hah hah, has never been about President Obama giving a speech. It’s because the administration gave “lesson plans” for the speech. Let the teachers teach. They have enough brains to help their students decide how to understand the message. What makes the administration think they need their helpful hints? It’s dumb. selahV
John Piper says:
“I am stunned at the outcry against the President of the United States speaking to the youth of this nation about the importance of education”
But this is not what is really controversial…
I regularly read The Continuing Collapse by Bruce Shortt as it is featured on Voddie Baucham’s blog. Here is what they made of President Obama’s speech.
All three people (Albert Mohler, John Piper, and Bruce Shortt) agree that the content of the speech is unobjectionable.
Albert Mohler mentions the lesson plans seemed to promote a cult of personality. Bruce Shortt obviously sees this more as part of a calculated plan, and has a more generally cynical/hostile tone to government education.
John Piper praises the speech but does not mention any controversy over lesson plans.
Towards the end of Mohler’s comments he says: “The politics of celebrity is a dangerous business. President Obama is a cult figure and a pop icon. That cuts both ways. The Obama campaign capitalized on it, and the Obama Administration attempts to do the same. But the President’s constitutional role is that of the nation’s Chief Executive, not its icon. This is not the Soviet Union or North Korea. We do not need a cult of personality around this White House, and the President is ill-served by those who would present him as a pop icon. The President should call all citizens to serve the nation — not to serve him and help him meet his goals.”
when GW Bush came on the scene – many conservative Christians appear to have been lock-step with GW in a similar way Mohler warns about. I don’t remember hearing similar warnings from the conservative Christian side. perhaps i missed it?
Bush had a cult of personality and was a pop icon???? News to me.
On the conservative Christian side, you’re dang right he did Darius. It was really quite embarrassing and still is today about how uncritical conservative Christians were of him & how they spoke about him. This blog is a case in point.
GWB: pop icon? no.
But this…”when GW Bush came on the scene â€“ many conservative Christians appear to have been lock-step with GW in a similar way Mohler warns about. I donâ€™t remember hearing similar warnings from the conservative Christian side…” pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Richard Eric Gunby
Hmm? Actually, I am most disheartened and stunned at the shallowness and lack of understanding, and the utter lack of Biblical wisdom displayed by John Piper and Al Molher.
They don’t get it. They are apparently blinded by the darkness. Obama is a through and through radical Marxist (and puppet head) with no allegiance to the Constitution or anything Biblical. Yes, he sounds good on some things, but that is simply deceptive window dressing.
I am ashamed at both of these “doctrines of grace” Christian leaders whom I have much praised and admired in the past.
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.
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?
is a review that expresses concerns.
Richard, even if Obama is a radical Marxist what does that have to do with anything?
I am responding in Richard’s place with my own opinion.
Please consider the hypothetical situation that Obama is a Marxist. If he is, then we should consider what a Marxism could/would do in this situation.
History would suggest that a Marxist would see this as an opportunity to indoctrinate children with his or her philosophy. This is a standard strategic approach for Marxists.
We should then consider what is the appropriate response of a constitutionally minded America. America should protect their children from such potential indoctrination if they believe that parents have the right to do so (constitutionally and by God’s law).
Therefore, Americans who believe the President to be a Marxist and who want to uphold the constitution and their own rights of protecting their own children, should oppose this act.
RESPONDING TO JOSH,
I wish you had been more expansive in your question. As is it is so open to variious interpretations.
At first I thought, “He’s pulling my leg, right?”
Then I thought, well, maybe he has been schooled in the (wrong) thought that the Bible doen’t support one form of govennment over another or others.
Then too, maybe he just isn’t getting it, as to how pervasively unbiblical socialism actual is.
I even wrote a friend and said, “He’s pulling my leg, right?” Then “what should I reply?”
In the interim, Eric POtter has supplied a fine answer detailing “what difference it can make. Thak you Eric.
(Good choice of name, too)
Oh well. For my part, I think too many people today are saying, “it’s not raining,” evan as the water rises above their collective necks.
p.s.= Regarding a Biblical perspective on government, please see my posting of a video and especially the quotes that follow below it at:
Thanks for the words of appreciation.
I also want to add another thought. If someone takes an oath of office to uphold the constitution of our United States, but then promotes and practices marxist policies, then… they are violating their oath of office. The US Constitution opposes a number of Marxist principles and the two are NOT compatible. Many leaders in our nation are violating their oath of office through Marxist practices. So, it does make a difference in even the wider scope of our nation.
Some will ridicule an antiquated notion of “upholding an oath of office” or “constitutional vs. unconstitutional”. However, that same person person be flabbergasted if they hire someone to repair their sink and it is not done right. It is a simple expectation that an agreement to do something for some price will be carried throught to completion. We should expect our elected (and thus priviledged) officials to carry out their side of the agreement.
Thanks Eric Potter,
Appreciate you extremely fine and right additional comments!
Hope you check out my site and multiple postings, and comment there too!