"while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (2 Corinthians 4:18)
President Obama's address in Newtown, Connecticut last night was outstanding. I did not vote for him either time. I have strongly disagreed with the President and have soundly criticized him on numerous occasions. I was pleasantly surprised at HOW well done that address was. I particularly appreciated the very fine use of Scripture from 2 Corinthians 4 and 5 regarding eternal life and Heaven, as well as the reference to Jesus saying, "Let the little children come to me". I fear many detractors will see these references as pandering to the religious or as just trying to placate people. I did not receive or perceive this that way at all. I was pleased with President Obama truly being Presidential and bringing the appropriate words. The media is focusing on his inference to gun control in that speech, and yes it was there. And, as much as I'm a big Second Amendment person, I see no problem with banning military style assault weapons. But it's the proper and appropriate usage of Scripture and references to Jesus in a "secular public" setting that delighted me. Mr. President, may we see more of that sort of thing. And, if you'll draw more strength and comfort from Scripture and pass that along to the citizens, I see that as a very good thing, indeed.
EMMYS 1970: My World...and Welcome To It
1 year ago
2 comments:
I was pleasantly surprised that no one has (yet) complained about church and state separation after the Scripture references his his speech. ...Though I do somewhat object to their use divorced from their context (particularly the "Let the little children come" bit).
Regardless of anyone's feelings on gun control, these are not decisions to be made right after local tragedies. Important legislation should never be passed primarily from an emotional place.
Personally, though things like this do happen, I do not believe in banning so-called assault weapons. I think the implicit intent of the second amendment is for national security and that includes in times of potential war. Because it explicitly mentions militia, the intent is for ordinary citizenry to have access to weapons of war should they be necessary. We've lived in a fairly secure nation for a long time, and have fought foreign wars so long we have forgotten what it was to have wars on our own soil. While it is only the remotest of possibilities that such firearms would be necessary for the common man, I believe it is just as irresponsible to impose restrictions on liberties which may have unintended consequences in the future. I see no reason we cannot regulate and infringe the rights of some persons (i.e. the mentally ill), but we cannot infringe the rights of the People. Oh, and if someone owns the weapon which a deranged person uses, and they knew said deranged person had access to it, they should be tried as accessories to murder. It's the same as the Biblical principal that if your ox gores some guy then you aren't responsible, but if you knew your ox was crazy and it gores some guy then you are responsible.
We allow our "Ox" to gore about 20,000 people annually. I think it is our obligation to make sure we aren't the crazy ox.
Post a Comment