'Reverend' Mr. President?

OMG .. WHAT? 'Reverend" Mr. President? Really? According to this evangelical blog, that's exactly correct. I'm putting this in the political madness forum because that's what I think it is - political madness - AND because there are a large number of voting evangelicals who are out there so this is a valid discussion. Mods move if you wish ....

Evangelical Blog Here

Yet if we allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves, we are in fact choosing a minister when we select a president. No less than three times in Romans 13, Paul uses words that emphasize the sacredness of public service.

The one who serves in public office is “God’s servant” and the “servant of God” (v. 4), and statesmen are “ministers of God” (v. 6). The word translated “servant” in v. 4 is the Greek word “diakonos,” which elsewhere is translated “deacon,” referring to one of the divinely ordained offices in the church. Another form of this word, “diakonia,” is frequently translated “ministry.” So if in fact we allow the Scriptures to be our guide, then public service is a form of ministry. One who holds public office is serving in a divinely ordained role, just as much as a pastor in the pulpit. The role of a statesman is every bit as sacred as that of a clergyman.

The word translated “minister” in Romans 13:6 is the Greek word “leitourgos,” from which we get the English word “liturgy.” It is as if Paul is going out of his way to emphasize the sacredness of public service.

And clearly it is a sacred role, because, as Paul makes clear in v. 1, “[T]here is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Every politician, whether he knows it or not, is using delegated power, delegated authority, authority delegated to him by God himself.

Well ATS ... how does 'Reverend' Mr. President of the United States sound to you?
Frankly .. it scares the stuff'n out of me!!
Reminds me of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his imaginary 12th Imam/WWIII scenerio that he wants to 'fulfill'.
I say - thank God for secular rule of law in the USA.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I say - thank God for secular rule of law in the USA.

AMEN!

I have seen a BIG push to merge religion and law this election cycle. It's kinda scary. I don't know if you saw this chart or not...



But these religious groups are banning together to restrict people's freedoms based on religion and it's VERY concerning to me.

"Reverend Obama" kind of turns my stomach. (I know - he turns yours, too )

sounds like useful information for the devil to lead them astray. isnt the antichrist supposed to come out as a leader, and problem solver to the world problems before he destroys us all? sounds like the church is falling in line to bring about revelations.sounds right seeing how their is no separation of church and state the church is just a sheep herder for TPTB, follow blindly my friends there is nothing to see here.i just dont get church people. there is no god in politics if their was do you think we would continue to kill everybody? so the president is the voice of god, god says thou shall not kill, but then our "god" will be killing innocent people for no reason? thou shall not steal, but they rob us everyday? thou shall not take my name in vain, and then obama openly mocks him? we rape our land our creator gave us and destroy all the natural beauties of this world. bible says not to lie and they lie to us everyday, not to commit adultery, which politicians hasnt cheated on their significant other? this is making my brain hurt,guess thats why so many follow blindly, hurts to much to sort thru all their bs. so to recap president is god (even tho god says not to worship any man), we follow god, dont question god, how can anyone not see that the church lost its way long ago and is now just another string for TPTB to pull to make people fall in line. of course they dont want us to kill the babies they will need them for the new world after they remove us free thinkers form the planet.

What in the world are these idiots talking about in that blog? You know what it sounds like?

Some garbage to reinstate that whole junk about "divine right to rule".

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

But these religious groups are banning together to restrict people's freedoms based on religion and it's VERY concerning to me.

Yep. If we are going to tolerate the restrictions of freedom then by God let it be restrictions brought to us by the secularists!

Free speech zones? If they are secular free speech zones then they probably have a good reason for existing.

Limit broadcasting? If they are secular licensing schemes to broadcast then surely there is a good reason for that.

State licensing schemes for driving? Surely this is secular and while a restriction on freedom, not to mention a demand for contractual agreement that all who enter the driving licensing scheme agree to surrender all due process of law, it is really for everyone's own good...not that religious bunk and what they preach is for everyone's own good, I mean that clean wholesome secular oppression that really is for everyone's own good.

Massive regulation of the marketplace? Limiting? Sure! A gross intrusion on liberty? Perhaps, but the point is that all this regulation, federal, state, and local, is secular in its nature, so it is really that good and benign kind of oppression, not the ever scary religious tyranny.

Dang religion, they just can't oppress any where near as impressively as those secularists.

I think with the recent news on sharia law in America
Proposed ban on Sharia law is out of ignorance
temple-news.com...

It is only out of ignorance that we allow sharia law to be practiced.
I mean in sadia arabia and islamic countries women can't even drive.
If sharia law goes anywhere in America then it will be a huge double
standard. As long as they do not allow muslims to practice sharia
law in America, I will not have a problem.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


On the other hand, as much as it stinks to be living in the U.S., I'd still take the secularist approach over the religious one. The U.S. government just can't compete with some of those Middle Eastern countries.

Or the Catholic ones back during the Inquisition.

Seriously, if I have to choose, I'll take the secular variety any day of the week.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Free speech zones?
Limit broadcasting?
State licensing schemes for driving?
Massive regulation of the marketplace?

You may have the impression that I support any of the above. But you would be wrong. These are not the subject of the thread, however.

But like the Redneck, I'll take secular law over religious law every time.

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Seriously, if I have to choose, I'll take the secular variety any day of the week.

The secular laws protect Americans from different religions interfering and/or gaining power in government and they also protect the rights of the uber-religious to be that way if they want. It's kinda funny that way, but it works beautifully.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Would it be Rev. Obama?

Or

Imam Obama.




I think the ACLU would have kittens over this issue. Separation of church and state and all. . . . . .

reply to post by beezzer

Excellent point. The evangelical writing the blog wrote it from a Christian angle. What if the POTUS is muslim? Or Jewish? Or buddhist? Would the evangelical blogger still be telling his fellow evangelicals that the POTUS is a chosen reverend? What if it's a woman? Many evangelicals believe that women can't hold positions over men and can't 'teach' men or tell them what to do. (yes, it's true .. I know a few who say that ) Would the woman still be a reverend chosen by God to tell men what to do and tell men when to go to battle, etc etc?? The truth is said in jest, and you brought up a good point.

reply to post by FlyersFan
I've read stories of how certain portions of the populace had kittens when a catholic (JFK) became POTUS.

We might get a member of the LDS as POTUS next.

Although I do enjoy scaring the snot out of evangelicals.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You may have the impression that I support any of the above. But you would be wrong. These are not the subject of the thread, however. But like the Redneck, I'll take secular law over religious law every time.

Actually BH, I do not have that impression, nor did I mean to impose upon you the idea that you would advocate tyranny of any form. I only wanted to point out that secular zealots are no safer than religious zealots.

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

On the other hand, as much as it stinks to be living in the U.S., I'd still take the secularist approach over the religious one. The U.S. government just can't compete with some of those Middle Eastern countries.

Or the Catholic ones back during the Inquisition.

Seriously, if I have to choose, I'll take the secular variety any day of the week.

Even so, far, far, far, too many secularists insist that the only rights that exist are those of "civil rights" and are so dangerously zealous in their insistence that unalienable rights is a fairy tale that in the end it is the individual who exerts their unalienable rights who cannot compete with either the religiosity of cults or the secularism of other cults. The secularists loves to seek out minorities to extoll as victims that they fight for, yet the cold hard reality is that there is no greater minority than the individual. Secularists are as much a threat to individualism as are any religious group.