Most of us have heard sermons and received instruction that we should be good stewards, but what is a "steward," and how does one become a good one? We all have some idea that stewardship relates to how we manage our property, but what is the Truth about good stewardship? What do all the sermons and instructions mean? Is this just another way for the pastor to get more of our money away from us during this financial crisis, or is this stewardship business really commanded by God?
First, lets take a look at a law from the Old Covenant (testament) that I recently received via email:
"And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 19:10).
Obviously, God is commanding property owners, especially those with crops, to use them in a certain way that cares for the poor and travellers, presumably accomplishing His will that they receive care/support/food from believers. Though it may sound like a sinful question, many believers might ask themselves, "What right has God to tell us how to use our property?"
"1The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, 2for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers" (Psalms 24:1-2).
"But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you" (1 Chronicles 29:14).
The answer is that God owns the world and everything in it, including the people. He owns it because he created it. God invented the world, and so he has, essentially, a holy patent that never expires. Like a craftsman who builds a house on his own land with his own materials and labour, who can tell such a man what to do with the house or anything in it? Does the craftsman not own that house completely?
You may have worked all your life for your savings, your possessions, and your material wealth, but you did it using God's creations. At most, we have a license to use these things, but, ultimately, they all belong to God. Take our craftsman example: assume that such a man has a child, a son, and that he provides that son with a bedroom in the house he built. We call that room the son's room, but really it belongs to the craftsman. The craftsman, also a father, has given his son charge over that room and holds him accountable for his use, care, maintenance, and general management of the room he provided. What father has never told his son, "Clean your room!"? Also, what father gives his son $500 and says, "Son go buy a lollipop,"? The father wants his son to use what he is given wisely.
In the same way, God owns everything that he has created, and he grants us a license (or "permission" if you prefer) to use it. However, God has retained the right to govern how we use the material wealth and possessions that He has created. Like the craftsman, God will require us to give an account of our use, care, maintenance, and general management of the wealth and possessions that He has provided us. For us to ask what right God has to instruct us in the use of our material wealth and possession, this is no different than the son asking his father, the craftsman, what right he has to force him to clean the room. How completely ungrateful.
The Lord has instructed us that "true religion" is caring for those in need (see this post for scriptural evidence and citations). The Lord made caring for travellers and the poor a part of His covenant with the Jewish people (Lev 19:10). The Bible makes no secret that we are, as believers, "stewards" of God's possessions rather than the true owners of our own, and the Lord, as the master of those possessions, shall require us all to give account:
"1And he [Jesus] said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed" (Luke 16:1-3; KJV).
I cited the KJV because it uses "steward" where the ESV uses "manager." However, the two words can mean the same thing (they also can have different connotations). I have heard that, historically, the first recorded uses of the English word “steward” are from the 11th century, referring to an official who controlled the domestic affairs of a household. I do not have a citation that I trust as evidence for this, but it holds true with the Biblical usage. The root words stig and ward mean "house" and "keeper," respectively, which combined suggest that a steward is the "keeper of the house" (hence my example of the craftsman/father, his son, and the craftsman's house).
That is what we are - the keeper of our father's house. The Lord's house is this world, which he crafted himself with aid of no man. There was no man to offer aid. We are also a part of the Lord's house, created to be his stewards. After all, Adam was given charge over the Earth from the beginning, was he not? In Genesis 2:15, God put Adam in the garden "to work it and keep it". In Genesis 2:19-20, God gave Adam leave to name every animal and beast. Adam was the first steward, but he did break the one commandment of the master: do not eat of this specific tree. When Adam was required to give account for his stewardship of the garden, God asked Adam whether had eaten of the tree. When Adam admitted this, God could no longer trust Adam to remain in Eden and refrain from eating more forbidden fruit. For that reason, both Adam and Eve were cast out (Gen 2:23-24).
Good stewardship is listening and obeying the will and commands of the master/owner. It does not end with money or material possessions. All that is belongs to God - even our bodies. Will we be good stewards? Praise God for Jesus Christ, that there is mercy and grace, because none of us perfectly listen or obey. Therefore, there are no perfect stewards. But neither mercy nor grace relieves us from our responsibilities.
If I leave you readers with only one thought, then it is this: no matter how wealthy or poor you may believe that you are, nothing belongs to you: stewardship is about how you use what you are given, not how much you have. In Luke 16:10, Christ himself said, "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much."
Remember, in Mark 12:41-44, the widow gave more out of her poverty than the rich who gave out of their abundance. If you are rich and keep your money and wealth all to yourself, then you are a bad steward. If you are poor an give only the little you have to the Lord's service, then you have given much. In the same way, a believer who uses his/her talents only for personal gain has been a very poor steward of those talents, which also belong to the Lord! A person who strives to use his/her talents serve the Lord has been a good steward of them.
I will end this post by asking you to read Matthew 24:45-51. In those verses, Christ talks about the "good and faithful servant" as opposed to the "wicked servant" who watches over the master's household. I only realized very recently that the servant, as a master of the household, is a steward. When our master returns, will he put us in charge of many things, or will he "cut us to pieces" and assign us a place with the hypocrites? Salvation may be by grace, but Christ makes it clear that, in some fashion, our works, as stewards, will be judged. We will have to give an account to Christ upon his return.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
True religion in action.
As a followup to our post on what "true religion" is and why believers should be proud to call themselves "religious" (read it here), I'd like to point our readers to a minister who is practicing true religion. Take a look for yourself here.
Summed up, this minister put true religion into practice by selling his $50,000.00 Infiniti Coupe in order to save $600 a month. With those savings, he sponsors children through Compassion International. The idea is to live with less in order to give more.
So, what's the point? Do you need to sell your car and buy a clunker? That's not what I am preaching here, folks. However, I do support their idea: make reductions in your spending on material things and use it to ensure that the impoverished get to eat and sleep under a roof. James 1:27 teaches us that true religion is (1)being unstained by the world; and (2) aiding those in need. Isn't it interesting how those two things are related? It's easier to visit the needy when you've focused less on material gain.
So, you could buy that $50k car, or you could make do with one that costs $25k or even $15k. The $25-35k you save would do a lot for a ministry like Compassion. You don't have to sponsor a child - make a 1-time donation to the unsponsored children's fund. It doesn't obligate you to dfo more, and your money goes directly to support children who have no one to sponsor or support them.
If children aren't your conviction, then feel free to support Food For the Poor. Feeding the hungry is a powerful witness for the Christian faith.
Please, do not think that because you cannot give a lot that your donation won't mean a lot to organizations like these. If 100 people give a 1-time donation of $1, then these roganizations can use that $100 to provide food and shelter to many who don't have it. In many third-world economies, the US dollar still goes a long way. Ever dollar donated is a major victory for those in need. Please stop to consider their needa.
You do not need to be "convicted" to donate $1 or even $10. Do it because you know the Lord your God considers it to be true religion. Do it because you want to love as Jesus did: sacrificially. Do it because God considers it a loan that he will repay (Proverbs 19:17). Just don't do it to make yourself look pious or righteous in the eyes of others (Matthew 6:1-4).
Have a heart. There are many who are suffering in this world, and they need your help. Please, please, give to one of these organizations and practice the religion that you preach.
Summed up, this minister put true religion into practice by selling his $50,000.00 Infiniti Coupe in order to save $600 a month. With those savings, he sponsors children through Compassion International. The idea is to live with less in order to give more.
So, what's the point? Do you need to sell your car and buy a clunker? That's not what I am preaching here, folks. However, I do support their idea: make reductions in your spending on material things and use it to ensure that the impoverished get to eat and sleep under a roof. James 1:27 teaches us that true religion is (1)being unstained by the world; and (2) aiding those in need. Isn't it interesting how those two things are related? It's easier to visit the needy when you've focused less on material gain.
So, you could buy that $50k car, or you could make do with one that costs $25k or even $15k. The $25-35k you save would do a lot for a ministry like Compassion. You don't have to sponsor a child - make a 1-time donation to the unsponsored children's fund. It doesn't obligate you to dfo more, and your money goes directly to support children who have no one to sponsor or support them.
If children aren't your conviction, then feel free to support Food For the Poor. Feeding the hungry is a powerful witness for the Christian faith.
Please, do not think that because you cannot give a lot that your donation won't mean a lot to organizations like these. If 100 people give a 1-time donation of $1, then these roganizations can use that $100 to provide food and shelter to many who don't have it. In many third-world economies, the US dollar still goes a long way. Ever dollar donated is a major victory for those in need. Please stop to consider their needa.
You do not need to be "convicted" to donate $1 or even $10. Do it because you know the Lord your God considers it to be true religion. Do it because you want to love as Jesus did: sacrificially. Do it because God considers it a loan that he will repay (Proverbs 19:17). Just don't do it to make yourself look pious or righteous in the eyes of others (Matthew 6:1-4).
Have a heart. There are many who are suffering in this world, and they need your help. Please, please, give to one of these organizations and practice the religion that you preach.
NEWS: The "Goracle" speaks - hilarious.
I highly recommend you read this hilarious prophesises of Al Gore, the "Goracle" in the report by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post here.
Feel free to comment below - this may be the funniest news article yet.
Feel free to comment below - this may be the funniest news article yet.
Monday, January 26, 2009
NEWS: Obama v. Kennedy...
See the report here.
Now that President Obama has attacked Rush Limbaugh, an easy target for a hyper-liberal, it seems that he is aiming his guns at Sen. Ted Kennedy regarding the construction of an off-shore "wind farm," designed to provide a "clean" energy source.
"Kennedy has fought the Cape Wind project for eight years, arguing it would kill birds and endanger sea life while imperiling the scenic area's tourism and fishing industries. The turbines would stand 440 feet above sea level when the tallest blades are pointing straight up. The Kennedy family's oceanside Hyannis Port, Mass., compound would have a clear view of the project to be located 4.7 miles offshore, but Kennedy says it is not why he opposes the project. "
Two democrats entrenched in a political over the environmental impact of a wind farm. Our president wants clean, alternative energies. Senator Kennedy claims that the wind farm will damage sean and animal life and that it will cost tourism and jobs. At least one of these gentlemen remembered to check whether there would be an effect on people, even if it was an afterthought.
"Wind energy accounts for only 1 percent of the nation's electricity. A federal report last year said wind energy could generate 20 percent by 2030, with offshore sources accounting for nearly 20 percent of that. "
If the report is accurate, then we will spend barrels of federal tax dollars financing and subsidizing the construction of an energy source that, presenlty, accounts for a whopping 1% of our energy reserves. If we are lucky, then maybe we can get it up to 20% in a little over two decades. Of course, in that amount of time, our population will have likely grown enough to require 10-15% more electricity than we currently use (I am guessing - please provide reliable figures if you read this and have them).
So we have two democracts arguing over the environmental costs of building a wind farm that will likely do little to address the current energy demand, and we are supposed to ignore Rush Limbaugh (according to President Obama - see our earlier news post here)? I highly suspect that Rush would say something of the tune of, "Wind power is nice and clean, but what are you doing to create jobs and solve the existing energy demand? I mean, the current recession may be over in 20 years by the time wind power has an effect, if it has one at all."
And Rush would be right, hypothetically. Why are we arguing the environmental impact of a project that will cost plenty of tax dollars while providing very little benefit to the Americans who paid for it? Why are we not curtailing government spending on ventures that do not address our present economic crisis? I love animals and sea creatures, but they do not get priority status over people surely? At least Kennedy made a good point: jobs could be lost.
So, if I have to choose sides in this liberal debate, then I have to side with the senator. After all, it is his state. Were he not suffering from a brain tumor, I doubt President Obama would be crossing Senator Kennedy on a fight the man has been waging for nearly a decade. This proves something to me that I saw during the election season: Barack Hussein Obama is an opportunist. There's nothing especially wrong with being an opportunist, but when the opportunity you are seizing is precipitated by the possibly fatal illness of a long-time ally, surely you should at least consider the principles of loyalty and fair play? The logic I see being followed is this: Senator Kennedy's malignant brain tumor spells out a strong possibility that he will soon drop out of the political spotlight, so why should BHO care that he owes his present success, at least in part, to Kennedy's support?
Loyalty. It is a concept of which our president has no grasp. He abandons his allies when they are of no further use to him or when it will profit him to do so. Senator Ted Kennedy now joins the ranks of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. The message here is clear: President Obama will accept your support, but do not expect to get so much as a cookie for it.
Now that President Obama has attacked Rush Limbaugh, an easy target for a hyper-liberal, it seems that he is aiming his guns at Sen. Ted Kennedy regarding the construction of an off-shore "wind farm," designed to provide a "clean" energy source.
"Kennedy has fought the Cape Wind project for eight years, arguing it would kill birds and endanger sea life while imperiling the scenic area's tourism and fishing industries. The turbines would stand 440 feet above sea level when the tallest blades are pointing straight up. The Kennedy family's oceanside Hyannis Port, Mass., compound would have a clear view of the project to be located 4.7 miles offshore, but Kennedy says it is not why he opposes the project. "
Two democrats entrenched in a political over the environmental impact of a wind farm. Our president wants clean, alternative energies. Senator Kennedy claims that the wind farm will damage sean and animal life and that it will cost tourism and jobs. At least one of these gentlemen remembered to check whether there would be an effect on people, even if it was an afterthought.
"Wind energy accounts for only 1 percent of the nation's electricity. A federal report last year said wind energy could generate 20 percent by 2030, with offshore sources accounting for nearly 20 percent of that. "
If the report is accurate, then we will spend barrels of federal tax dollars financing and subsidizing the construction of an energy source that, presenlty, accounts for a whopping 1% of our energy reserves. If we are lucky, then maybe we can get it up to 20% in a little over two decades. Of course, in that amount of time, our population will have likely grown enough to require 10-15% more electricity than we currently use (I am guessing - please provide reliable figures if you read this and have them).
So we have two democracts arguing over the environmental costs of building a wind farm that will likely do little to address the current energy demand, and we are supposed to ignore Rush Limbaugh (according to President Obama - see our earlier news post here)? I highly suspect that Rush would say something of the tune of, "Wind power is nice and clean, but what are you doing to create jobs and solve the existing energy demand? I mean, the current recession may be over in 20 years by the time wind power has an effect, if it has one at all."
And Rush would be right, hypothetically. Why are we arguing the environmental impact of a project that will cost plenty of tax dollars while providing very little benefit to the Americans who paid for it? Why are we not curtailing government spending on ventures that do not address our present economic crisis? I love animals and sea creatures, but they do not get priority status over people surely? At least Kennedy made a good point: jobs could be lost.
So, if I have to choose sides in this liberal debate, then I have to side with the senator. After all, it is his state. Were he not suffering from a brain tumor, I doubt President Obama would be crossing Senator Kennedy on a fight the man has been waging for nearly a decade. This proves something to me that I saw during the election season: Barack Hussein Obama is an opportunist. There's nothing especially wrong with being an opportunist, but when the opportunity you are seizing is precipitated by the possibly fatal illness of a long-time ally, surely you should at least consider the principles of loyalty and fair play? The logic I see being followed is this: Senator Kennedy's malignant brain tumor spells out a strong possibility that he will soon drop out of the political spotlight, so why should BHO care that he owes his present success, at least in part, to Kennedy's support?
Loyalty. It is a concept of which our president has no grasp. He abandons his allies when they are of no further use to him or when it will profit him to do so. Senator Ted Kennedy now joins the ranks of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. The message here is clear: President Obama will accept your support, but do not expect to get so much as a cookie for it.
NEWS: Obama v. Rush...
See President Obama's attack on Rush Limbaugh here. See Limbaugh's response here.
Apparently the new administration feels that Rush Limbaugh is a threat: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told top GOP leaders at the White House. Of course, the truth is that Republicans can't listen to Rush if they want to get Obama's agenda accomplished, but should that be there goal?
Minority parties have but one power in our country: to represent an opposing viewpoint and to force a deadlock on actions that strike a partisan tone. BHO's agenda, as our earlier posts elaborate, is a completely partisan one. He seeks special treatment for homosexuals, increased hate crime legislation, and the expansion of US taxpayer-funded abortions both at home and abroad. Why would any sound-minded Republican want to "get things done" when the things Obama wants to accomplish are so far from the GOP platform? If the GOP stopped listening to Rush and signed on with President Obama, then we would effectively have 1 party in this country rather than 2.
Most people I meet in my daily life would prefer that, if we change our political system, to have multiple, viable political parties - not fewer. Effectively, Obama is asking Republicans to admit defeat, tuck their tales, and join the victors. Well, certainly the DNP has won the battle for America this term, but there will be other elections, and the war is hardly over. I don't care what your party affiliations are: no man can honestly love the Lord and hate the unborn child. This isn't just an economic debate we are having. By prioritizing our pocket books, even with good cause, America has sold its soul for "economic stimulus." That has never been more apparent to me than when I read Obama's agenda at http://www.whitehouse.gov/. Unfortunately, what America will see is a taxation on employers that drives up the unemployment rate and increased government spending that will give away our future as a nation, weaken us, and leave us broken.
It is no wonder President Obama is condemning Rush. I don't love the big guy. He's rude and crass at times, but then, he is speaking the truths Obama does not want you to hear. Read his response to Obama's attack, and you will have the opportunity to see what this administration does not want you to know.
Apparently the new administration feels that Rush Limbaugh is a threat: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told top GOP leaders at the White House. Of course, the truth is that Republicans can't listen to Rush if they want to get Obama's agenda accomplished, but should that be there goal?
Minority parties have but one power in our country: to represent an opposing viewpoint and to force a deadlock on actions that strike a partisan tone. BHO's agenda, as our earlier posts elaborate, is a completely partisan one. He seeks special treatment for homosexuals, increased hate crime legislation, and the expansion of US taxpayer-funded abortions both at home and abroad. Why would any sound-minded Republican want to "get things done" when the things Obama wants to accomplish are so far from the GOP platform? If the GOP stopped listening to Rush and signed on with President Obama, then we would effectively have 1 party in this country rather than 2.
Most people I meet in my daily life would prefer that, if we change our political system, to have multiple, viable political parties - not fewer. Effectively, Obama is asking Republicans to admit defeat, tuck their tales, and join the victors. Well, certainly the DNP has won the battle for America this term, but there will be other elections, and the war is hardly over. I don't care what your party affiliations are: no man can honestly love the Lord and hate the unborn child. This isn't just an economic debate we are having. By prioritizing our pocket books, even with good cause, America has sold its soul for "economic stimulus." That has never been more apparent to me than when I read Obama's agenda at http://www.whitehouse.gov/. Unfortunately, what America will see is a taxation on employers that drives up the unemployment rate and increased government spending that will give away our future as a nation, weaken us, and leave us broken.
It is no wonder President Obama is condemning Rush. I don't love the big guy. He's rude and crass at times, but then, he is speaking the truths Obama does not want you to hear. Read his response to Obama's attack, and you will have the opportunity to see what this administration does not want you to know.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
IMPORTANT NEWS: Obama's agenda filled with social issues and priorities, NOT just economic.
See the full report here, courtesy of the American Family Association, who copied it straight from the White House website. Rather than focusing on the economy, our president's priorities include support of abortion, special treatment for homosexuals, and expanded hate crime legislation. Sure, the economy is in his revised agenda now, but it's a very small part.
What is it about the unborn that our president hates? Why is his first and highest priority in office to target a fetus rather than a terrorist or the national debt? Whatever his politics, is killing the unborn children of this nation really more important than national security or the economy?
Speaking of the economy, how will affording special rights and privileges to homosexuals, at the taxpayer's expense, improve the economy? This hardly seems the time for more government funded programs and legislation. I do not wish to see homosexuals persecuted. I disagree with their beliefs, but they have rights already. They CAN get married and enjoy the same financial benefits the law affords married couples. They have to marry someone of the opposite sex, however, just like the rest of us, as God intended. I don't want them to lose any rights, but the law already affords them the exact same treatment and rights as any heterosexual person. Legislation based on sexual orientation, like legislation based on race, can only serve to afford them greater or lesser rights under the law than heterosexuals. Either result is unacceptable, immoral, and completely wrong.
In this blogger's opinion, hate crime laws are racist by definition, and they discriminate not just against criminal defendants, but against their victims as well by segregating them into two categories: victims of crime and victim's of hate crimes (see a more detailed explanation here). The difference? One person is victimized because the perpetrator is, allegedly, a hateful racist or bigot. The other is victimized because the perpetrator is a hateful selfish person that apparently is neither a racist nor a bigot. So, different victims receive different amounts of "justice" depending on whether a judge/jury feel the perpetrator was hateful. I feel sorry for white victims, because they will never be the victims of "hate crimes." The Reverend Lowery's benediction, approved by our president, clearly shows that it is not racist or hateful to attack whites (see report here).
President Obama must hate whites: he failed to condemn the Rev. Lowery's racist benediction, and now he wants to segregate white victims from minority victims. I respect him as our president, because I believe we Christians must support our leaders (Rom 13:1) and because I believe as Americans we should respect the office of the president. However, I do not feel obligated to respect President Obama's agenda, his decisions, or his politics. I say that, having read his agenda, seen his preliminary decisions, and having heard his politics during the election, I respect none of them.
Mr. President: you claim that you want to reach across party lines like John McCain. Is that true, or is it merely a smokescreen? I cannot see that statement as anything but a bald-faced lie in light of the agenda you have adopted. How is death to the unborn, special treatment for homosexuals, or racist hate crime legislation reaching across the lines to the republicans who are sternly against all three? The answer is that you are either ignorant of what the GOP's positions are on these issue (doubtful), or you have lied to this nation and betrayed our trust after less than a week in office.
It is my prayer that our president decides to stand by his word, reconsider his partisan agenda, and unite this nation by first addressing universal issues like unemployment and the damaged economy. I hope that you will all join me in this praying for President Obama in this way.
What is it about the unborn that our president hates? Why is his first and highest priority in office to target a fetus rather than a terrorist or the national debt? Whatever his politics, is killing the unborn children of this nation really more important than national security or the economy?
Speaking of the economy, how will affording special rights and privileges to homosexuals, at the taxpayer's expense, improve the economy? This hardly seems the time for more government funded programs and legislation. I do not wish to see homosexuals persecuted. I disagree with their beliefs, but they have rights already. They CAN get married and enjoy the same financial benefits the law affords married couples. They have to marry someone of the opposite sex, however, just like the rest of us, as God intended. I don't want them to lose any rights, but the law already affords them the exact same treatment and rights as any heterosexual person. Legislation based on sexual orientation, like legislation based on race, can only serve to afford them greater or lesser rights under the law than heterosexuals. Either result is unacceptable, immoral, and completely wrong.
In this blogger's opinion, hate crime laws are racist by definition, and they discriminate not just against criminal defendants, but against their victims as well by segregating them into two categories: victims of crime and victim's of hate crimes (see a more detailed explanation here). The difference? One person is victimized because the perpetrator is, allegedly, a hateful racist or bigot. The other is victimized because the perpetrator is a hateful selfish person that apparently is neither a racist nor a bigot. So, different victims receive different amounts of "justice" depending on whether a judge/jury feel the perpetrator was hateful. I feel sorry for white victims, because they will never be the victims of "hate crimes." The Reverend Lowery's benediction, approved by our president, clearly shows that it is not racist or hateful to attack whites (see report here).
President Obama must hate whites: he failed to condemn the Rev. Lowery's racist benediction, and now he wants to segregate white victims from minority victims. I respect him as our president, because I believe we Christians must support our leaders (Rom 13:1) and because I believe as Americans we should respect the office of the president. However, I do not feel obligated to respect President Obama's agenda, his decisions, or his politics. I say that, having read his agenda, seen his preliminary decisions, and having heard his politics during the election, I respect none of them.
Mr. President: you claim that you want to reach across party lines like John McCain. Is that true, or is it merely a smokescreen? I cannot see that statement as anything but a bald-faced lie in light of the agenda you have adopted. How is death to the unborn, special treatment for homosexuals, or racist hate crime legislation reaching across the lines to the republicans who are sternly against all three? The answer is that you are either ignorant of what the GOP's positions are on these issue (doubtful), or you have lied to this nation and betrayed our trust after less than a week in office.
It is my prayer that our president decides to stand by his word, reconsider his partisan agenda, and unite this nation by first addressing universal issues like unemployment and the damaged economy. I hope that you will all join me in this praying for President Obama in this way.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
NEWS: Obama's inauguration to cost $170 million during worst recession in years.
See the report for yourselves here. Mr. Obama to be President Obama, and I believe in respecting the office of the presidency. However, there is a substantial difference between respect and worship. At a price tag of over $170 million, this inauguration feels like more than just a ceremony given our national leader out of respect. Why the sudden increase in spending on this ceremony? We would be naive to assume that it is purely the result of increased security and and logistical spending. So what is the stimulus for this change? I guess, as Mr. Obama says, anything is possible, but paying off the national debt is not seeming like a possibility our nation will ever attain when indulging in such careless spending.
Or, at least, that is my two cents.
ROB: I agree, up to a point. The problem is that I think we're both predisposed to dislike Obama. It's hard to overcome or even fully recognize our confirmation bias -- fitting any new facts into the picture we have, and using them to affirm our preexisting beliefs.
It's hard to really imagine being on the other side. I can see a bit of an argument, though. To an extent, if people are excited about this inauguration in some ways it's good for them to be able to come in large numbers (the opening of this event to the public being a major factor in the increased cost). It could be good and/or inspiring for some people to be able to witness this inauguration, which means so much to them, in person.
Personally I think it comes uncomfortably close to a cult of personality, and unlike some of Obama's more ardent followers I have no need for a new Messianic figure. I also think it borders on irresponsible to spend so much money going into what is likely to be a major recession (though apparently the cost to the government itself won't be higher than other inaugurations; the increase comes from Obama's coffers). On the other hand if it inspires hope and confidence in the public, mitigating the hopelessness and despair inherent in a poor economy to some extent, it could be a valuable gesture.
Or, at least, that is my two cents.
ROB: I agree, up to a point. The problem is that I think we're both predisposed to dislike Obama. It's hard to overcome or even fully recognize our confirmation bias -- fitting any new facts into the picture we have, and using them to affirm our preexisting beliefs.
It's hard to really imagine being on the other side. I can see a bit of an argument, though. To an extent, if people are excited about this inauguration in some ways it's good for them to be able to come in large numbers (the opening of this event to the public being a major factor in the increased cost). It could be good and/or inspiring for some people to be able to witness this inauguration, which means so much to them, in person.
Personally I think it comes uncomfortably close to a cult of personality, and unlike some of Obama's more ardent followers I have no need for a new Messianic figure. I also think it borders on irresponsible to spend so much money going into what is likely to be a major recession (though apparently the cost to the government itself won't be higher than other inaugurations; the increase comes from Obama's coffers). On the other hand if it inspires hope and confidence in the public, mitigating the hopelessness and despair inherent in a poor economy to some extent, it could be a valuable gesture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)