Tag: Barack Obama

Violation of an Oath

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

For those of you who keep current with political news the topic I am about to address, yes, I realize that the topic I am about to address is a few months old. It is not that I am just becoming aware of it. In fact, I was “hot on it’s trail” when it happened…but I decided to put it on the back burner and address it later after I had had some time to “cool down,” so angry did this news make me.

I am well aware of the fact that I tend to pay more attention to politics and care more passionately about it than the average citizen, and so I may get riled up over things that others may not even notice. But if this one goes unnoticed we have a serious problem.

See, in February, U.S. Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Egypt, and while she was there she took a swipe at the U.S. Constitution. She said, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, she suggested that the constitution of South Africa might be a better model, since it “embraced basic human rights [and] had an independent judiciary.” Justice Ginsburg has also been known to express admiration for the Canadian Charter of Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.

One of the reasons Ginsburg has expressed discontent with the U.S. Constitution is that it originally excluded women, slaves and Native Americans. (Of course, until recently, South Africa excluded blacks, too). I don’t think anyone would argue that the the U.S. Constitution is perfect. It was wrong to tolerate slavery and to exclude the vote from women and other minorities. Those flaws have, thankfully, been corrected. Therein, however, lies part of the beauty of our Constitution; it allows for corrections and amendments.

I do not fault Ginsburg for suggesting the a newly-forming representative democracy look at a field that does not contain the U.S. Constitution exclusively while preparing to draft its own constitution. What I do find egregious is her suggestion that the U.S. Constitution not be looked at at all. Notice she did not say that she would not look exclusively at our Constitution; she said, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution.”

By the way, are Canada and the EU really examples we should encourage other countries to follow? The freedom of speech in Canada is under attack pretty regularly. The Bill of Rights of Kenya–which was drafted by later-Supreme-Court-justice Thurgood Marshall and is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, guarantees rights to health, welfare and work. We have already seen what has happened in other countries (including Canada and the many members of the EU) who have included rights to health and seen it necessary to provide state-run health care systems in order to do so–and we see now what that looks like as Barack Obama tries to institute the same thing here. We have seen the economies of many European nations crumble as their debts have spiraled out of control, due in no small part to the right to work and absurd guarantees for workers. See, here’s the paradox of socialism: when it becomes essentially impossible to fire someone there is no longer any incentive for someone to work. Look at recent strikes in Spain and riots in Greece, among other examples.

How does any of this relate to her oath, by the way? Well, Supreme Court justices have to take two oaths of office, and if you want to read all of the particulars you can do so on the Supreme Court’s web site (supremecourt.gov). Part of the first oath, which is taken by all federal employees, reads, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” When a justice publicly (and in front of international audience, at that) says that she would not refer the U.S. Constitution if she were drafting a constitution today, it stretches the imagination to think how that can be consistent with supporting or defending the Constitution, or bearing allegiance to it.

Am I suggesting that Justice Ginsburg should be impeached? Not necessarily. But I think her comments are troubling, and I think they point to two very important demands that “we the people” must make of our senators: (1) the responsibility of approving nominations to the Supreme Court must be taken seriously, and we must demand that our justices be faithful to the Constitution; and (2) we have to have justices who see the Constitution as a living document, able to be changed when appropriate and within the prescribed channels, but who will interpret the Constitution with faithfulness to the intent of the Founders and the people. It’s time we say “enough” to those who want to remake our Constitution from the bench to have it more closely resemble those of other nations.

National Day of Prayer

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Today is the annual National Day of Prayer. Since 1952, when Congress mandated the event, there has been an annual day set aside to pray for our nation. In 1988 the law was amended, setting aside the first Thursday in May as the Day of Prayer. Long before it became a law, however, there were instances of national prayer, and presidential proclamations encouraging prayer. It is impossible to read the history of the United States or the original documents of the Founding Fathers are come to any conclusion other than the Founders’ belief that prayer is important and appropriate, and that national proclamations and days of prayer in no way violate any separation of church and state the Constitution may require.

The National Day of Prayer is most prominently observed by evangelical Christians, and the chair of the NDP has long been Shirley Dobson, the wife of Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. The day is not reserved for Christians, however, and it is not an exclusively Christian event. President Obama, in his proclamation for this year’s NDP, said “… I invite all citizens of our Nation, as their own faith directs them, to join me in giving thanks for the many blessings we enjoy, and I call upon individuals of all faiths to pray for guidance, grace, and protection for our great Nation as we address the challenges of our time.”

While my faith directs me in a very definite way, and while I am one of those “intolerant” people who believes that biblical Christian faith is the only true faith, I also happen to respect the right of every individual to exercise his or her own faith, and I agree with the President that each person should give thanks and pray in accordance with their faith tradition.

In today’s Faith and Reason column on USAToday.com, Cathy Grossman writes, “The very conservative evangelicals who control the privately-run celebration will do their thing. The coalition led by Shirley Dobson allows only people who agree with a specific Christian expression of prayer to take the microphone at their events although all are welcome to attend and say amen.” It is clear from her tone that she does not approve. I cannot help but ask why? If the “celebration” (and I question the use of that word for the event) is privately run, why should the organizers not be free to set their own guidelines and limit the public prayer to those whose faith is consistent with their own? I would not expect any private event to do otherwise. If the organizers of a private event want to have an ecumenical event, or an event that includes many faiths, that’s great. If they want to have an event that adheres strictly to their own faith, equally great. If there happens to be a NDP event organized by Muslims I would not expect them to invite Christians to pray at their event.

The oh-so-tolerant organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State has, of course, made their annual opposition known. Director Barry Lynn said, “Americans don’t need to be told when or whether to pray….” Agreed. Americans can and do pray all the time without being told or invited to do so. But there is also absolutely no problem with the President, the Congress, a governor or a mayor inviting and even encouraging people to pray. The only problem would come if any of those individuals were to mandate prayer, and no one is doing that.

Stephen Prothero, in his My Take blog on CNN.com, titled his entry today, “Dear God: How to Pray on National Day of Prayer?” He raises interesting points and questions in his blog. He seems to respect the right and desire of people of any faith to pray in a manner consistent with their faith, but he also asks questions about whether any one faith should become the “national voice” and whether we as a nation are guilty of using God rather than following Him. Good questions, and worthy of consideration and discussion.

Here’s where I come down. The theme selected by the NDP task force for this year is Psalm 33:12, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” I do not think the Lord is the God of the United States of America. By that I mean not that He is not sovereign over the U.S., because I believe that He is sovereign over everything. I mean that I do not believe that America, as a nation, has submitted itself to God, His ways and His will. As I have said here before, our nation is not a theocracy, and I am not sure that I think it should be. However, ours is a nation founded on religious freedom, and that freedom does, and should, include the right both of the President to call on the nation to pray, of the Congress to set aside a day to be known as the National Day of Prayer, and of the NDP Task Force to design its events for the day in ways consistent with its faith and belief, even when that includes disallowing those whose faiths and beliefs are not consistent with its own.

As for me, I put my faith in the God of the Bible. I believe that both the Old Testament and New Testament are the inspired, infallible Word of God, and I desire to be a follower of Christ. Accordingly, I will pray to the God of the Bible. Having accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on my behalf I have forgiveness of sins, and I have the right to go boldly before the throne of God and speak to Him directly (Hebrews 4:16). And that’s what I will do…today and everyday. I will continue to ask God to protect this nation, to give discernment to our leaders, to cause our nation to desire to turn to Him. And I will continue to thank God that I have that right.

The College Question

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

In recent days the political news cycle has been crackling with two sides of the question of how important college is in the United States. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum attracted attention–most of it negative–for saying in Michigan that President Obama is “a snob” for saying that he wants everybody in America to go to college. Eugene Robinson, writing in The Washington Post, went so far as to say that “[o]nly a fool or a liar is unaware that higher education is all but a prerequisite for success in the post-industrial economy,” and went on to call Santorum hypocritical because Santorum himself has both an MBA and a law degree, and two of his own children are in college.

Santorum’s comments in Michigan, however, included this further elaboration: “There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day, and put their skills to test, that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he (Obama) wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.” In other words, Santorum was espousing the position that a college education is not essential for success in America. He was, of course, also making the point that liberals may desire–abuse, even–the power of influence that comes with being a college professor, but I am not concerned here about the politics of this discussion. I am more concerned about the basic root issue of whether or not college really is important.

Marvin Olasky wrote an essay on this very subject that appeared in the January 14, 2012 issue of WORLD Magazine. Olasky asks several significant questions in the essay (i.e., “Do colleges help or hurt character formation?”) but he states, in his concluding paragraph: “I’m not at all suggesting that those called to be lawyers, doctors, professors, etc. should not go to college. I am suggesting that work as an electrician, landscaper, or X-ray technician, or in hundreds of other occupations that don’t require a four-year college degree, also glorifies God and should be honored by all of us.”

As someone who is a school superintendent, has three master’s degrees, and would gladly spend his life as a professional student if it were possible to do such a thing, one might (understandably) assume that I would come down on the side of urging students to go to college. It might surprise you, then, to know that that is not my position. On the contrary, I have seen more than enough evidence to know that college simply is not for everyone, and that pushing someone to go to college who either does not want to go or who does not know what he wants to do with his life is probably not a good idea–and is a potentially huge waste of money.

I am a firm believer that there are certain things that everyone needs to know in order to be, in the words of E.D. Hirsch, Jr., culturally literate. Beyond that, though, four (or more) additional years of education simply are not for everyone. Taking a year or two off to work and explore possible careers is not necessarily a bad idea for a high school graduate who is still unsure of the Lord’s calling for her future. Even if a student is certain he or she wants to get a college degree, starting in community college is not a bad idea, either. Classes are generally smaller, almost always are less expensive, and the credits will transfer to a 4-year school if a student does decide to go on for a bachelor’s degree.

It is also important to keep in mind that college is always going to be available. Perhaps now more than ever before it is easy for someone to take classes part-time, either in-person or through distance learning, and to get a college degree at any point. In other words, someone may get out of high school, work for a few years, and then decide that a college degree is essential in order to accomplish his or her career goals. I can just about guarantee you that that individual will be a much better student now that he has decided he wants to go get that degree than he would have been if he was forced/pressured to go to college when he was not ready or did not want to go.

I am certainly not anti-college, either. I think that if a young person knows what he or she wants to do, or at least has a strong idea, and is ready and desirous to go to college, then he or she should go, right out of high school if possible. I think college can be wonderful, both for the experiences and friendships as well as for the learning. The point is, we do not need to make this an absolute. Students who aren’t sure they’re ready for college should not be pressured to go. As Olasky suggests, there are plenty of positions in which someone can be very successful–and very happy–that will never require a college degree.

As an aside, I have not seen the full context of the remarks, but I don’t think President Obama was suggesting that everyone in America should have to go to college. More than likely he was simply suggesting that everyone in America who wants to be able to go should be able to do so. Just so happens, I agree with that, too.