toldailytopic: Will America survive Obama's presidency?

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for December 28th, 2009 11:33 AM

toldailytopic: Will America survive Obama's presidency?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[DocJohnson]

If we want to badly enough, yes. We'll just have a lot of work ahead undoing all the damage.

 

[Son of Jack]

Sure it will. It may look a little different, in some ways better and in some ways worse. But, I think Chicken Little might be getting a rather good chuckle out of some of the reaction I've seen around here and on the news.

Why is it that we have such a hard time applying Romans 13:1-7?

Honestly, I think this is a unique opportunity for Christians to provide, in some ways, a stark contrast to the surrounding culture.

 

[kmoney]

I don't know why it wouldn't. :idunno:

 

[DocJohnson]

Why is it that we have such a hard time applying Romans 13:1-7?

Might be because we the People are the government, not those idiots in Washington.

 

[Son of Jack]

Might be because we the People are the government, not those idiots in Washington.

Well, that might be the case if America was a pure democracy, but the point in fact is that it isn't. It is a democratic-republic, and as such, they represent the people. You may certainly argue that they are corrupt, but not that the people are represented and that they do not represent themselves.

If we think about Romans 13 in context, Paul made that statement when Nero was in power.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think it will survive but it wont be the same America we know now.

 

[DocJohnson]

Well, that might be the case if America was a pure democracy, but the point in fact is that it isn't. It is a democratic-republic, and as such, they represent the people. You may certainly argue that they are corrupt, but not that the people are represented and that they do not represent themselves.

No, my point is that the average American (plumber, construction worker, accountant, bank teller, etc.) should be able to represent us. Instead, we're convinced that only crooked lawyers can represent us, because those are the only people who ever get elected to office.

 

[Son of Jack]

No, my point is that the average American (plumber, construction worker, accountant, bank teller, etc.) should be able to represent us. Instead, we're convinced that only crooked lawyers can represent us, because those are the only people who ever get elected to office.

But, who is it that elects them?

 

[Ecumenicist]

I think it will survive but it wont be the same America we know now.

Lets hope it won't be the same America.

We're all struggling to survive the Bush legacy.

Obama's doing a great job.

Liberty and justice for all, not just a few right wing zealots.

 

[DocJohnson]

But, who is it that elects them?

The People who are convinced they have no other choice in the matter.

 

[Alate_One]

Of course it will "survive". It survived 8 years of Bush didn't it?

It survived Andrew Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court, it survived the Civil War, it survived Herbert Hoover, why on God's green earth would Obama destroy it? :kookoo:

To those of you that think this is even a valid question, what do you think Obama could do to "destroy" America?

 

[kmoney]

Of course it will "survive". It survived 8 years of Bush didn't it?

It survived Andrew Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court, it survived the Civil War, it survived Herbert Hoover, why on God's green earth would Obama destroy it? :kookoo:

To those of you that think this is even a valid question, what do you think Obama could do to "destroy" America?

I think what Knight meant is will American, as we know it now, survive.

 

[Son of Jack]

I think what Knight meant is will American, as we know it now, survive.

So, the question is what exactly does he and others like him mean by America as we know it?

 

[Alate_One]

I think what Knight meant is will American, as we know it now, survive.

What Son of a Jack just said . . . How exactly is it going to radically change in their view?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

If we want to badly enough, yes. We'll just have a lot of work ahead undoing all the damage.

What he said.

 

[nicholsmom]

Sure it will. It may look a little different, in some ways better and in some ways worse. But, I think Chicken Little might be getting a rather good chuckle out of some of the reaction I've seen around here and on the news.

Why is it that we have such a hard time applying Romans 13:1-7?

Honestly, I think this is a unique opportunity for Christians to provide, in some ways, a stark contrast to the surrounding culture.

Such an encouraging answer. Thanks SoJ!

I think that we need a slew of candidates running for both houses on a "repeal the nonsense" ticket. We need a quick and thorough repeal of three bills: the omni-spendibus, the cap&trade, and the soon-to-be "healthcare" bills. I think it would be much more positive than a "throw the bums out" ticket, and would be just what we need to begin the process of saving this great, Christian nation.

So my answer to the TOD: it all depends on 2010.

 

[nicholsmom]

No, my point is that the average American (plumber, construction worker, accountant, bank teller, etc.) should be able to represent us. Instead, we're convinced that only crooked lawyers can represent us, because those are the only people who ever get elected to office.

You are right, and I think that the reason lies in the campaigning - $$$. I think that if we removed the lucrative nature of serving in congress, we'd be better off. We must get rid of the outrageously expensive and totally unnecessary pension program for members of congress. I wonder why we can't run the government offices the same way as we do the military reserves - that people are expected to have jobs or businesses to which they will return when their service is complete. We need term limits on not only congressmen, but on aids as well. We need to get rid of the "career politician" altogether.

These few steps would help the situation. I also wonder if it would be possible, or even wise, to limit campaign spending to the amount raised by the least financially-supported candidate, or to allow only individual US citizens to donate funds for campaigns, or to require all campaign funds to be put into a common pot from which any and all candidates can draw equal amounts. Money is only one indicator - and not a good one at that - of a candidate's popularity, and it tends to raise to the front the sort of people we don't want running our government. Just a thought...

 

[Alate_One]

You are right, and I think that the reason lies in the campaigning - $$$.

And the only way to stop that is to say NO private funding of campaigns. Public funding only. Otherwise people will always be able to buy their seats. The problem is the Supreme court is still protecting campaign contributions and lobbying as protected "speech".

We need term limits on not only congressmen, but on aids as well. We need to get rid of the "career politician" altogether.

The problem with this is you get rid of the good as well as the bad, However, I had a friend propose mandatory one term limits. No re-election means you're not beholden to anyone.

 

[Town Heretic]

America? Sure...the status quo? That's a bit harder to answer. So far I keep hearing how close we are to change without actually noticing much of it beyond rhetoric on either side. But then, I think part of what went wrong with America over the years was the slow adoption of the notion of it as an experiment completed by our Founding Fathers instead of an ongoing, noble evolution of power as an aid to the individual instead of the individual as a servant to power.