The first week in our brave, new world

I must confess that my genuine intent was to take a cautiously wary approach to our new president, and to at least give him some time to get settled before addressing my grievances. But he has not allowed for such generosity. In a feverish attempt to begin solidifying his legacy (remember the artificial deadline of "the first 100 days"?), he is issuing orders and pursuing legislation at a dizzying pace.

And so far, it has confirmed the initial suspicions I had about him back in this presidential campaign. For those of us share a more conservative worldview, there is understandable cause for concern. Here are just a few highlights from week 1 of the Obama presidency:

1. The War on Terror: To his credit, President Obama offered some very strong words for our enemies in his inaugural speech a week ago. He affirmed,

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

And yet, just 24 hours later it seems as though the resolve of such rhetoric is crumbling, causing many to legitimately question where he actually stands on the issue of terrorists' rights. One of the very first orders that he signed was to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (where 245 enemy combatants have been housed while awaiting trial). He also signed an order ending the ability of our military forces, and other covert agencies, to use "waterboarding" to extract critical information from the enemy. These actions on the part of President Obama were done based on his particular philosophy about war, human rights, tolerance, etc. Fair enough. Regardless of what one may believe about those two particular issues specifically, however, the strong case can be made that these new measures don't take a harder stand on confronting terrorism than the previous administration's position. On the contrary, these are steps toward a more softer approach to how we treat our enemies. I wonder at what point the rights of the terrorists supersede those of us Americans? (Furthermore, where do we put the terrorists from Guatanamo Bay? In a detention facility in the States? "Coming to neighborhood near you...!")

2. Advancement of an aggressive homosexual agenda: The Obama administration just published their "Civil Rights Agenda" on the official White House website. As Kevin McCullough points out, this agenda includes extensive goals for advancing homosexual rights. Now, I've commented frequently about the need for Christians and the Church to reevaluate our approach to homosexuals, and I wholeheartedly believe that. The difficulty arises, however, when the current calls for unity and tolerance expect those of us with different moral beliefs on such issues to essentially abandon those convictions for the sake of the larger goal of unity. In this particular case, it is interesting that the "Civil Rights Agenda" on the White House's official website has equated the civil rights struggle of ethnic minorities in this country with the current struggle of homosexuals. (The underlying assumption that does not always invite scrutiny is the belief that homosexuality is a product of one's genetic makeup, as opposed to their formative environment. Thus, the homosexual has every right to march alongside those ethnic minorities who have struggled as a result of the color of their skin. This "homosexuality is genetic" argument tends to get tripped up when the evidence is revealed that there are many who have actually made it out of the homosexual lifestyle. After all, no matter how hard an African-American may try, they can't get away from the color of their skin.) As much as people want to say that such battles in the culture war are going away (and being replaced by more important issues like the economy), this aggressive nature of Obama's homosexual rights agenda should have conservatives, and other Christians, taking a fresh look at this issue. The ability to promote "compassion without compromise" continues to be a challenge for those who stand on the moral foundation of Scripture.

3. Federal funding for international abortions: Also, this past week President Obama signed an executive order lifting the ban put in place by former President George W. Bush which didn't allow NGOs to use federal funding for abortion services overseas. The difficulty with this issue, as with all controversial issues, is the use of tax dollars (including my own tax dollars) to finance things to which I am diametrically opposed. The same can be said for those of the liberal bent, concerning their tax money going to those things with which they disagree. Though I can't speak for the issues that are dear to the liberals' heart, I can say categorically, I don't want President Obama employing any means of taking the lives of innocent babies. And I certainly don't want him using my money to do it.

4. The federal stimulus behemoth: Obama's administration has been working frantically with congressional leaders to put together a stimulus package that they can roll out ASAP. (In fact, his transition team presumptively attempted to have the pieces in place so that Obama could sign it into law on the very first day of his inauguration.) If this administration gets its way, the dark cloud of debt that we are currently living under will become darker still. Not to mention the various entities in this country who the politicians have determined are deserving of our federal dollars. (There is a belief, for example, that groups like ACORN, the scandal-plagued voter registration organization which provided much of the infrastructure for Obama's presidential campaign, will benefit from the economic stimulus package.) In reflecting on this attempt by the government to print our way out of this mess, I heard a caller this week make a very astute observation. He asked why people get so up in arms when it comes out that a company, or CEO, is mispending money (to buy a corporate office, or redecorate an office, etc.), and yet, we trust the government to spend our money appropriately? Great question! Just another one of the many ironies of our plight which seem to escape us.

And so, we find ourselves, as ESPN's Chris "back...back...back...back" Berman has said, rumbling and stumbling our way into this brave new world of Obama's making. And this is just the first week. I can only hope and pray that someone will be willing and courageous enough to throw up a speed bump, lest we head too far down a path from which we cannot turn back.

One final thought: Having talked with many of you who read The Daily Detour, I know there are those of you who are not as interested in the political commentary here as you might be in some of the other offerings. I understand that, which is why I attempt to bring some variety to the posts. That said, as we all know, politics affects virtually every aspect of our lives. And with increasing government intrusion, the government's tenacles are reaching further still. For as John Adams wrote in 1765, "The jaws of power are always open to devour." It is because of this inevitable tendency that we must continue to protect our liberty with the "eternal vigilance" that Wendell Phillips spoke of. And vigilance comes through education and action. We slumber at our peril.

(I will be posting much more on these critical issues very soon, including the implications of Obama's "Peace on Terror". In the meantime,TyKef's blog raises some compelling questions and contrasts that warrant our attention.)

UPDATE: Dennis Miller captured the American's dilemma under Obama when he said, "Just because we're not terrorists doesn't mean we're bad people." :) It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Comments

[Tim]

The Democrat's stimulus bill just passed the House a few minutes ago. It is amazing to me that they don't understand fundamental free enterprise economics. Whenever the government hires businesses to handle projects that are funded by the government, either the business hires people to work for them for a few months to complete the project and then lays them off so they are out of work again, or the business has to depend on the government funding another project so those employees can continue to work. Otherwise, they will become unemployed again. In either case, the government has to tax the American people to pay for the initial and any followup projects. The government becomes this huge "consumer" who doesn't work to have the money to "buy the projects". They just tax the rest of us.

A far better alternative is to lower the taxes on businesses so they can hire more workers along with lowering the taxes on the individuals who can then buy more of the goods and services the businesses provide. That way, long term employment and business growth are established that aren't funded by increasing taxes which take money from the real consumers.

It seems wise to me that the government should never "go into business" but simply provide the tax incentives for the marketplace of businesses and workers to function. The growth of the United States into the economic super-power it is was built on that philosphy. The government has a role limited to making necessary laws, enforcing those laws, providing for financial, educational and internal stability for the country and maintaining a strong defense.

The Democrat's philosophy can only be justified by those who have an elitist view of national life, i.e., that the smart politicians know better how to spend our money than we do, and therefore, that we need to give our money to them and wait to be served when they get around to it. The success of such an approach is still waiting to be demonstrated by any strong historical example. To now, there hasn't been one. I doubt that the new leaders in Washington will be the first. All that will happen is a prolonged recession.

[Resident Atheist]

I hardly think that the small fraction of homosexuals that have been guilted or abused into acting against their happiness and natural tendencies without later recanting pokes holes in the 'genetic' theory. They still have the feelings. They are just abstaining from acting upon those desires.

What's more, it really doesn't matter. Whether an individual chooses the lifestyle or has it thrust upon them only really matters in the eyes of those who wish to discriminate. Somehow it is deemed more palatable if the person has placed themselves in the predicament. I argue that it shouldn't matter. As long as no one is being hurt, couples should have the right to be happy and awarded the same protection under the law.

[John]

RA, you've raised some of the fundamental issues related to homosexuality. But it seems you have also made a couple of assumptions in your assessment.

First of all, as we got into a while back, there are differing opinions about whether or not homosexuals can actually change their orientation. There are many homosexuals who have come out of the lifestyle not based merely on guilt or coercion from others. Have there been some who have experience guilt and abuse from Christians and the Church? Without a doubt. And as I've suggested repeatedly the Church has a lot to answer for in that regard. But there are also those who have made a decision of their own volition to come out of homosexuality. And it could be argued that it is for their own happiness and fulfillment, which clouds the issue further.

The second assumption concerns the idea that people have a right to be happy as long as no one gets hurt. That assumes, for example, that children who grow up in same-sex environments are not adversely affected by it. Kerby Anderson has written on this subject, in which he says, "Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents."

Regardless of whether one agrees with the research, there is still the issue of where the couples' happiness ends and the happiness of others begins? After all, who defines what it means to be "happy"? A rather gruesome true life story highlights the tension. There was a story a few years ago of a man (a self-confessed cannibal) in Germany, if I recall, who placed a wanted ad looking for someone who he could have over for dinner (literally). The person had to voluntarily participate, and in the end, did so. However, the cannibal was prosecuted (as he should have been, in my opinion). This extreme example is based on the assumption that both people who made this arrangement did so because it brought them some kind of (perverse) fulfillment. And yet we roundly condemn the action of both.

At the end of the day, it comes back to the fundamental question, "Why do we draw moral boundaries where we do?" If happiness is the criteria for determing the answer, it can become a slippery business.

[Eric Page]

RA-

You're debating a straw man. You said that "Somehow it is deemed more palatable if the person has placed themselves in the predicament" and seemed to attribute that to "those who wish to discriminate". Who exactly made the statement that it's more palatable?