So a poll came out today from Harris Interactive of who Americans view as heroes. I'll give you a hint, the title to this blog wasn't something I came up with...it's how America ranked 'em. True story.
As far as commentary is concerned, all I'll say regarding the order of the first two spots is this: I'm excited (honestly) about Barack Obama's presidency. This really is an historic moment for our nation. Do not read this post as a knock on this event for our country. This poll just underscores the increasing secularization of our society and the overwhelming need for gracious biblical proclamation and teaching to take place.
Here's the top 15:
1. Barack Obama 2. Jesus 3. Martin Luther King, Jr. 4. Ronald Reagan 5. George W. Bush 6. Abraham Lincoln 7. John McCain 8. John F. Kennedy 9. Chesley Sullenberger (pilot that landed the US Airways flight in the Hudson R.) 10. Mother Teresa 11. God 12. Hillary Clinton 13. Franklin Delano Roosevelt 13. Billy Graham 15. Mahatma Ghandi
A few observations:
-Interestingly, God made the list twice. God the Son came in at number 2 and God the Father (at least I'm assuming that's who they're referring to) came in at number 11. I'm trying to find the positives here, people.
-While John McCain lost to number 1, Barack Obama, in the elections, maybe it's comforting for him to know that he could've beaten John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and George Washington (who came in tied for number 16), three of America's most prolific and influential presidents.
-Somehow, America's least popular president ever (depending on which media source you listen to), George W. Bush, made the top 5. Maybe the guy wasn't viewed as so bad after all, ey?
One more thing:
As for reasons given to call someone a "hero", the number one answer given (89%) was this: "Doing what is right regardless of personal consequences."
Isn't this a funny answer coming from our relativistic, "what's right for you isn't right for me" society? Maybe there is an embedded sense of right and wrong after all...
Did you see the AP column about the Barack's choice for a VP? Take a gander at this title:
"Biden pick shows lack of confidence".
Here's what Ron Fournier had to say: (Here's a hint ... it wasn't a favorable column.)
"The candidate of change went with the status quo.
"In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions.
"He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate — the ultimate insider — rather than a candidate from outside Washington, such as Govs. Tim Kaine of Virginia or Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; or from outside his party, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; or from outside the mostly white male club of vice presidential candidates. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t even make his short list.
"The picks say something profound about Obama: For all his self-confidence, the 47-year-old Illinois senator worried that he couldn’t beat Republican John McCain without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack. The Biden pick is the next logistical step in an Obama campaign that has become more negative — a strategic decision that may be necessary but threatens to run counter to his image.
...
"So the question is whether Biden’s depth counters Obama’s inexperience — or highlights it? After all, Biden is anything but a change agent, having been in office longer than half of all Americans have been alive. Longer than McCain.
...
"And there’s the 2007 ABC interview in which Biden said he would stand by an earlier statement that Obama was not ready to serve as president.
"It seems Obama is worried that some voters are starting to agree."
I'm not going to do a whole Barack-bash here, but I will say this: The Senator's campaign has gotten more and more off-track, which could be because as he realizes that there really is no track when your only platform is "change".
And the Biden pick, while helping in one sense, as stated above really hurts in another sense. It's an illogical logical pick. In one move, Obama both strengthened and weakened his ticket. Not what you need when you dwindled to a one-point lead.
Barack's fading fast. And Biden won't be able to save him.
The first ten minutes is enough to see his perspective. In the clip he defends very passionately the "right" to choice, the freedom to choose abortion. He says "On this fundamental issue, I will not yield" and in discussing the recent gains that pro-life advocates have made in the Supreme Court, he says "This is what is at stake in this election" (the ability to reverse some of these recent trends, and the fear that if not, pro-lifers will win out).
Keep in mind also that Mr. Obama is not just discussing abortion. He is defending partial-birth abortion as a legitimate option for women. In his condemnation of the Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, he is arguing for partial-birth abortion, the bringing of the child out of the womb before taking it's life.
Barack's view is that Abortion is all about the opportunity for the woman to have the same life as the man, that the fundamental issue is opportunity for her. While I believe in the right for women to live that kind of life, and agree wholeheartedly that the woman's life is just as valuable, just as meaningful, just as impactful as that of a male, it is a complete smokescreen to make that the central issue in abortion.
If two people, a male and a female, want their life to have the utmost opportunity for success, then they need to plan before sexual intercourse what will be the best path for that success, not make that plan as a reaction. Today, 50% of abortions are the couple's only means of birth-control. If we're talking about opportunity for success, our society, male and female, needs to be responsible, not careless. And let me be clear, the onus for this falls on both the male and the female. When they fail at this, the government and our society does not need to pat them on the back and tell them all will be well after this "procedure," we need to love them and care for them and help them make the best decisions to care for this new life while building their own lives as well.
This is what is at stake in this election. Not the right to choice, but the right to life. How can we consciously place the emphasis on choice? How can we in good conscious say that this is not about a new life, but about a mere preference for the mother? To borrow from Mark Driscoll, how can some in our society call for the end of a war because they don't want terrorists to die, but be agreeable with the killing thousands of children here in our own nation? How can some make the conservation of nature their battleground while agreeing with the murder of children?
This is not about choice. It is about life. This election is not about the kind of "change" America needs if Barack Obama is the author of that change. A man who stands so passionately for the murder of the unborn and so callously calls it mere choice is not the kind of man that America needs writing policy.
