Missed
The news all week, of course, was largely around the assassination attempt on Trump, so that occupies a big space in today's entry. One staffer for Democrat Bernie Thompson asked that the next gunman get some practice so he doesn't miss. (She was fired.) We still don't know the motive, but a popular suggestion is that Biden and the Dems brought this about with their "threat to democracy" and "becoming a dictator" and comparisons to Hitler rhetoric which may have just prompted a patriot to try to save America from Trump. Trump urged his followers on Jan 6, 2021, to "fight" and he was accused of insurrection. Biden said he wanted to put Trump "in the bull's-eye." Could that have been taken as a call for violence? Putin thinks so. On the other hand, former Biden press secretary, Jen Pasaki, suggested that Republican rhetoric was to blame. The Atlantic offered an opinion piece titled, "The Gunman and the Would-Be Dictator." Nice. On Monday, two days after the attempt, the New York Times published a piece on how a "megalomaniac who will happily destroy American democracy" is at the door. Helpful rhetoric that will surely not incite further violence, right? A veteran sniper suggested that the kid who took the shot could not have gotten where he was without help. Somebody on the inside. Maybe. There are questions about how a guy could be sighted on the roof with a gun, reported minutes before the shooting, and none of the protection team responded. It's a mess, but, while Trump took a literal hit, some are suggesting that it just won Trump the White House or, at least, vastly improved his position. Unfortunately, given the known unreliability of both the media and government, we shouldn't expect real answers anytime soon.
No Surprise Here
Oh ... and Trump got the GOP nomination. Like we didn't expect that. Perhaps something from the RNC that was news was the Sikh prayer offered to "Vaheguru, our one true God." Does not bode well for the RNC.
California ... Again
Good ol' reliable California Governor Newsom signed into law that schools cannot tell parents their kids are going transgender. Or, to put it another way, "You have no rights to your children; they're ours." California schools will be required to indulge the fantasies of children as if they were reasonable and expect to be trusted. Quite a leap. On the other hand, are parents so disconnected that they can't tell? Both sides are sad. (And at least one California school district is suing over it.)
Missing the Point
I had to give this one its own entry. It is on the Trump assassination attempt, but in a different direction. Robin Abcarian from the LA Times says the real issue is "We are a nation ravaged by gun violence because we make little effort to limit the availability of weapons of war." Standard ideology ... but thoroughly mistaken not because we shouldn't limit availability of weapons (not my point), but because it fails to identify the real problem -- our current culture of death. We show it on TV and in movies and call it "entertainment." We encourage it in the abortion clinics. Too many voices after the incident said, "Don't miss next time" because we have jettisoned God's values, substituted our own, and can't figure out why humans are killing humans. "Must be that we have the means to do it." Nonsense. Humans are the problem, not the tools they use. (Same principle for the death of Anne Fundner's son of fentanyl overdose. Illegal aliens are not the problem; human nature is.)
Threat to Democracy
It's interesting, isn't it? Trump is a "threat to democracy" (I'm no Trump fan, but I'm not exactly clear on why he's a "threat to democracy"), but Biden hopes to reform the Supreme Court and abolish presidential immunity. The idea is if he can get enough liberal justices in there, they can reverse the decisions made under the latest justices ... which is exactly what they're complaining about from the latest justices. To put it another way, "If we can manipulate the Judicial Branch to work as we in the Executive Branch want it without the vote of the people, we will have undercut the entire Constitution, but we'll be in charge, won't we?" Who is a "threat to democracy" now?
Viable Vaccine
President Joe is "vaccinated and boosted" ... and has COVID. No reflection on Joe, but when a "vaccination" goes from "You'll never get it again" to providing scant protection from getting, spreading, and even dying from what it's supposed to protect against, one has to wonder. Mind you, Joe is in the "worst" category because of his age and Scripture compels us to pray for all who are in authority (1 Tim 2:1-2), so you know what to do.
Target Rich Environment
The Bee, of course, had a slew of pieces with this target rich environment. Like the one about J.D. Vance donning helmet and body armor in preparation to run with Trump. May not be a joke. Or how Vance was horrified to learn he had to use Truth Social now. Ouch! Or the story of CNN doing a piece on famous assassinations throughout history with headlines like "Lincoln nods off at play" and "JFK startled by loud popping noises." Typical. I suppose if we didn't try to laugh at it all, we'd cry.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
5 comments:
They can't even bring themselves to be honest about their rhetoric. If Trump truly is the end of democracy and is the next Hitler, they should be applauding the would-be assassin. You can't on one hand warn that Trump is an existential threat to America, and on the other condemn any attempt to end that that. All those people that are mad that he missed are at least being honest about their vile hatred.
As usual, Stan, you gave us good insights on the current events.
The Sikh prayer was disheartening to learn about, as was a prayer to “Saint Michael the Archangel” that I read about elsewhere (I didn’t watch any of the convention). Trump might be “going religious” with all his (debatable) references to “Almighty God is on my side,” etc., but I’m still praying and watching for a real work of God in Trump’s heart and life (actually, I’ve been doing that ever since he purported to be a Christian eight years ago).
I heard this somewhere this past week: “We don’t know much about the shooter, but his pronouns are ‘was/were.’” It’s funny but also sad, of course.
I caught the pun in your “Target Rich Environment” heading for The Bee section. Once again, funny but also sad. In fact, you closed with, “I suppose if we didn't try to laugh at it all, we'd cry.” I can’t speak for others, but I manage to do both quite a lot lately.
The problem with the controversy over the Sikh prayer is that the RNC is purely a political event. It's not a worship service, it's not ecclesiastical in any way. Dhillon is a strong political conservative activist who has done much to move the political movement forward. As such it seems logical that she would speak. The more I think about it, I'm wondering if public prayer of any sort is really appropriate at a political convention. It seems that the very notion of an American political part convention is not particularly aligned with any religious faith. I guess I'm in the camp of thinking that if they are going to allow public prayers at a secular, political event, then why exclude certain faiths? It's certainly not like either party is following a particularly Christian path at this point.
From a political point of view, isn't a political convention intended to further the political goals of the political party? If so, then why would a political party, in a secular country, not want to appeal to people of all faiths who share their political views?
"the very notion of an American political party convention is not particularly aligned with any religious faith"
That would be true, of course, as long as you buy the "separation of church and state" line ... which is neither constitutional nor biblical. Since I don't, I'd like the political party with whom I align myself to have my concerns in view. My concerns are solely religious in nature. Perhaps the majority of folks would prefer religion out of political parties, but that simply leaves me taxed without representation, doesn't it? :)
Stan,
I'd argue that even if religious views do form the basis for individual candidates positions, the role of a political convention is not religious or not exclusively religious, the US constitution enshrines freedom of religion and does not specify one specific religion.
I understand that your preference is that the GOP would adopt Christian ideals as part of it's platform, I even agree with it, but the role of political parties is political not religious.
I don't see how allowing a politically conservative Sikh or Jew to pray at a convention automatically means that that party is ignoring the concerns of other religions, nor does inviting those political conservatives of other faiths diminish the representation of Christians in politics.
This might be one we disagree on.
From what I can see, any time Christianity has gotten too involved in politics and government Christianity always seems to be the loser in the bargain.
Post a Comment