Why We're Celebrating Inauguration Day by Candice Watters on 01/20/2009 at 10:52 AM

I didn't vote for the incoming president, but today, we'll watch him take the Oath of Office and celebrate.

Why?

Because we live in the greatest country on earth. For all the bombs lobbed against us -- figuratively and literally -- we will witness again the transfer of power from one ruling ideology to another, all without a single shot being fired. Our system of government makes this possible, a system that derives its authority from the people. As long as our leaders swear allegiance to our Constitution, and are true to their oath, we value liberty and freedom enough to support our leaders, even when we interpret that Constitution differently.

Because we live in a country whose government is built on a Declaration that says,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Now, 233 years since Thomas Jefferson penned those words, and 148 years since President Lincoln went to war to prove them true, we will be inaugurating the first black president. I believe Presidents Jefferson and  Lincoln would rejoice over such progress.

Because I believe President Obama is God's man for the job at this time. Scripture says,

God "sets up kings and deposes them" (Daniel 2:20-22)

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
He directs it like a watercourse wherever He pleases. (Proverbs 21:1-3)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (Romans 13:1-7)

And so we will pray that our new president will ask of us only what is rightly due Him. And that he will heed the warning of Psalm 2:

Therefore, you kings, be wise;
       be warned, you rulers of the earth.

Serve the LORD with fear
       and rejoice with trembling.

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
       and you be destroyed in your way,
       for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
       Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

And we will rest in the sovereignty of our heavenly King. The King over all kings. The one of whom the Psalmist said,

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
       he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Grant us O Lord your favor. May this incoming "king's" heart be directed toward righteousness.

Why We're Celebrating Inauguration Day by Candice Watters on 01/20/2009 at 10:52 AM

I didn't vote for the incoming president, but today, we'll watch him take the Oath of Office and celebrate.

Why?

Because we live in the greatest country on earth. For all the bombs lobbed against us -- figuratively and literally -- we will witness again the transfer of power from one ruling ideology to another, all without a single shot being fired. Our system of government makes this possible, a system that derives its authority from the people. As long as our leaders swear allegiance to our Constitution, and are true to their oath, we value liberty and freedom enough to support our leaders, even when we interpret that Constitution differently.

Because we live in a country whose government is built on a Declaration that says,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Now, 233 years since Thomas Jefferson penned those words, and 148 years since President Lincoln went to war to prove them true, we will be inaugurating the first black president. I believe Presidents Jefferson and  Lincoln would rejoice over such progress.

Because I believe President Obama is God's man for the job at this time. Scripture says,

God "sets up kings and deposes them" (Daniel 2:20-22)

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
He directs it like a watercourse wherever He pleases. (Proverbs 21:1-3)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (Romans 13:1-7)

And so we will pray that our new president will ask of us only what is rightly due Him. And that he will heed the warning of Psalm 2:

Therefore, you kings, be wise;
       be warned, you rulers of the earth.

Serve the LORD with fear
       and rejoice with trembling.

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
       and you be destroyed in your way,
       for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
       Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

And we will rest in the sovereignty of our heavenly King. The King over all kings. The one of whom the Psalmist said,

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
       he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Grant us O Lord your favor. May this incoming "king's" heart be directed toward righteousness.

Comments

[1. John said the following at 11:02 AM on Jan 20:]

1

Lincoln actually violated the constitution by what he and the republicans did.

Good show by stating he is the first "black" president, NOT "african-american".

Stupidest phrase in the English language.

If his father were a dutch south african, would we be calling him "african-american"?

Either way it's too bad he's not conservative.

Bottom line, our country is the greatest and today's inauguration demonstrates that.

[2. Susan said the following at 11:30 AM on Jan 20:]

2

Thanks for focusing our gaze on God's sovereignty and reminding us of our duty to pray for leaders.

[3. farmer Tom said the following at 11:44 AM on Jan 20:]

3

On numerous occasions, I have been accosted on this blog for my assertion that the Constitution of the United States of America is the preeminent law upon which our system of government is based. I have even suggested that those who claim to Love God, followers of Jesus Christ, should treat the Constitution in a manner similar to how we treat the written Law of God. (Again, I'm not saying they are the same, rather, the Law of God should be our guide for faith and practice, and in the secular realm, the Constitution should be our standard for how we relate to our government.)

So today Barak Hussein Obama stood on the podium in front of not only the nation but the world, and said the following,

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Seems to me that the oath of office suggests that the overarching/mandatory requirement for the President of the United States is very simple. Follow the Constitution as it is written.

Adam and Eve were given one simple command in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 2:

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

One simple command, just one, and they failed.

As BHO takes office, he has one simple task. To follow the Constitution of the United States of America. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

And to those of you who are offended by this comment, why? Is it that you also want to do things which the Constitution does not allow? Are you wanting change which is unlawful, because you do not want to obey the law?

[4. Saidahwk said the following at 12:02 PM on Jan 20:]

4

God bless America and God help our new President.

[5. Dan Real Name said the following at 12:19 PM on Jan 20:]

5

Thanks Candice for not taking a partisan stance. I do not believe the Obama is the Messiah, nor do I believe that he is the anti-Christ. He is where the Lord wants him to be.

[6. Jenny said the following at 12:25 PM on Jan 20:]

6

Thank you, Candice, for taking us back to Scripture today. This morning was rather solemn, if not sorrowful, for me as I watched the inauguration, because I am concerned that our new president may not be as wise and God-honoring as he needs to be. Your words, and the words of our Heavenly Father, were just what I needed--a reminder that God is in control and has brought this man to power for His good purposes. It's our job now to obey him and pray for him and let the Lord take care of everything else!

[7. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:30 PM on Jan 20:]

7

Farmer Tom says:

And to those of you who are offended by this comment, why? Is it that you also want to do things which the Constitution does not allow? Are you wanting change which is unlawful, because you do not want to obey the law?

They believe the Constitution should be flexible, so we can interpret as we see fit, for the needs of modern society. It's like the Pharisees: they engaged in creative exposition of Scripture to manufacture the right to circumvent God's Law, all under the guise of obedience via tradition.

Never mind that the Founders had a process for change: a Constitutional Amendment process. That process is necessarily difficult, because the Founders understood that a change in the Constitution would be monumental in its impact on current and future generations.

That means they were not open to flexible interpretations that allowed the expansion of government powers beyond their specified role.

Sadly, people often forget that the Founders wrote the Constitution to limit government, not the people.

[8. Jami said the following at 1:00 PM on Jan 20:]

8

I agree entirely with Candice, but even so, come, Lord Jesus.

[9. Simon said the following at 1:01 PM on Jan 20:]

9

Farmer Tom (2), don't expect his oath of office to mean much. He apparently swore on the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln swore on. And Lincoln repeatedly acted in defiance of the Constitution. See Myth #4 here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html

[10. Laura said the following at 1:01 PM on Jan 20:]

10

Thanks for this. I definitely welled up watching the inauguration, realizing that, without the blood and sacrifice of those whose convictions compelled them to march undaunted despite snapping dogs and firehoses and police beatings and lynchings, all the way to the Capitol, Obama could not have stood on the Mall today and spoken to us -- even those of us who disagree with many of his policies.

I, for one, thank God that I am alive to see this day, and that I am free to oppose Obama's policy decisions while praising God for his grace to this nation.

[11. (The Canadian) Andrew R said the following at 1:03 PM on Jan 20:]

11

That ceremony was one of the most beautiful things I have ever witnessed.

[12. Liln said the following at 1:17 PM on Jan 20:]

12

Thank you for this reminder. I watched Mr. Obama take his oath and make his speech. Although I also did not vote for this ticket, I am praying that President Obama leads this country in a manner which, at the least, does minimal damage and much good.

Do I agree with him? No.

Can I pray for him and all involved in his administration? Absolutely.

And that's all I have to say about this. The Lord's will be done.

[13. Adam said the following at 1:18 PM on Jan 20:]

13

Thank you. This is the first positive blog out of Boundlessline that I've seen concerning our new President.

[14. Carrie (the original) said the following at 1:42 PM on Jan 20:]

14

Dan #5 - if you don't want to believe he is the anti-Christ, can I??

(let the comments fire at-will)

[15. Jethro said the following at 1:47 PM on Jan 20:]

15

The US is the 'greatest country on earth' hey? Seems pretty insulting to all your overseas readers...

That sort of statement reminds me of the kind of things 5 year old boys say to each other in the playground 'my daddy is stronger than your daddy'.

[16. kevin hartman said the following at 1:55 PM on Jan 20:]

16

I voted for Ralph Nader (gasp!!), and still I think the inauguration was a very humbling--yet inspiring--ceremony. I was glad to watch it and be a part of this country.

[17. Louise from Chicago said the following at 2:03 PM on Jan 20:]

17

Comment 14, you may believe that my pet cat is my anti-Christ, it doesn't mean that he actually is!

Believe whatever you want, ma'am.

I for one couldn't possibly care less.

[18. farmer Tom said the following at 2:15 PM on Jan 20:]

18

9. Simon,

Agreed.

[19. Nicole said the following at 2:18 PM on Jan 20:]

19

This might be off topic but it's something I've wondered about for a while.
Why is it that whenever I've watched the nightly news our previous president was almost always referred to as, "Mr." Bush instead of "President" Bush? Is that common for a man who currently holds this office to be called "Mr."? ( well, unless he's being called "Mr. President") For some reason it always seemed a little disrespectful to me, and I can't help but wonder how the media will refer to our new president. Just curious...

[20. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:36 PM on Jan 20:]

20

For some reason it always seemed a little disrespectful to me, and I can't help but wonder how the media will refer to our new president. Just curious...

I had that issue during the debate between Obama and McCain before the elections.

Obama would address McCain as "John".

McCain would address Obama as "Senator Obama".

It bothered me.

[21. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:38 PM on Jan 20:]

21

But then again, Nicole...

On Ted's most recent post (Good Luck, Mr. President), P&P is hitting on a good point...

That its ok for us to have bashed our president for the last 8 years, but heaven forbid anyone criticize the president now...

[22. TINA said the following at 2:44 PM on Jan 20:]

22

This article clearly represents GODS heart..awesome.....As a body of believers we are to except and pray for our leaders regardless..thank you for pointing out the "respect" some disagreed with me about that on a different post...To all who think he is the antichrist... point? Are you ready if he is? time will tell but to go round and round about it will not change whats to come whether it is in our time or not....God tells us no one knows the day of Jesus return not even Jesus...so what that says to me, dont waste time trying to figure it out....we know it is a absolute we just dont know the appointed time.....and yes there are many scriptures that warn us and prepare us for the years of destruction before Christ returns and after..Could it possibly be we will see this in our time??? I know one thing i dont want to be left in the field.....while there is breath in a man there is hope..Go out and preach the Gospel...We are ambassadors of Christ...Pray for discernment so you wont be casting pearls before swine and keep pressing towards the mark....

[23. Tami said the following at 2:59 PM on Jan 20:]

23

"Mister" is the proper title, since George Washington's time. The term used to be quite formal, actually.

[24. Paul said the following at 3:34 PM on Jan 20:]

24

Yes, congratulations. Your election was even reasonably democratic this time :P

[25. Dan Real Name said the following at 3:36 PM on Jan 20:]

25

Carrie the Original post #14:

You are welcome to believe Obama is the anti-christ, but I and the rest of us would appreciate if you could post here a detailed scriptural defense as to why you think he is the anti-christ.

BTW, notice I said scriptural defense. Your arguments will be ignored if you reference any tribulation or end times movie, the Constitution, or any reference to any political party.

Lastly, my comments should not be taken as an endorsement of Obama.

[26. daydream11 said the following at 4:24 PM on Jan 20:]

26

Um, we do not live in the greatest country on Earth. I love this country to pieces, even when it's horrible, but though it is great, it's not the greatest. Such a country does not exist here on Earth.

Anyway, I totally agree with Farmer Tom (#3). As far as I'm concerned, my faith has nothing to do with my government, and I don't apologize for keeping that stance and belief. In fact, I believe that it's completely dangerous to mix faith and government, because faith is not government and government is not faith, and therefore they do not belong together. America is not a theocracy, nor was it ever, nor was it ever intended to be, and we need to keep it that way. If you have issues with the country's morality, keep it out of the Capitol, please.

[27. Carrie said the following at 4:39 PM on Jan 20:]

27

2 Cor 11:4-15

[28. mrs.spit said the following at 4:51 PM on Jan 20:]

28

Ahem,

some of us in Canada like to believe that we live in the best country on earth.

Just saying. . .

[29. Don said the following at 5:03 PM on Jan 20:]

29

I did not watch the inauguration; but if it makes a difference, I've never watched any inauguration. I always seem to have better things to do than watch that on television.

On a related note, I heard a story from a principal about a boy from Estonia who, several weeks after the U.S. election, asked if Mr. Obama was getting his army together. Slightly confused, the principal asked why he would have an army. The boy explained that he would need an army to kill the other president so that he could take over.

Thankfully, that never happens in the United States.

[30. Christina (in green) said the following at 5:21 PM on Jan 20:]

30

Dan Real Name (#25),

Those tribulation books...

Obama is already out cuz he's not from the heart of Europe.

He hasn't won the support of the world (yet...lol).

When he starts working with Israel and Hamas to rebuild the temple and gets them BOTH to agree to worship there...with CHRISTIANS, then I'll know something is fishy ;)

Until then, he is just a man with some screwed up ideal of what is best for his daughters (abortion) who seems to be quite in earnest about what he wants to do. He has high ideals that I find commendable with some policy plans I find deplorable.

Though I do think he'll win in not being your typical politician.

[31. Dan Real Name said the following at 6:00 PM on Jan 20:]

31

Carrie post#27:

You still haven't explained why Obama is the anti-christ. Here is 2 Cor 11:4-15 STRAIGTH from Biblegateway.com (I highlighted the verse and did an CTRL-C to copy, and then CTRL-V to paste, just so you know that I didn't edit the verse in any way):

"4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.
7Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. 9And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. 10As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! 12And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."

Carrie, this verse is Paul discussion false apostles who preach a different gospel. Context!

How does this say Obama is the anti-christ? This verse could be used to say MOST people are the anti-christ. Oprah is the anti-christ. Phil Donahue is the a/c. Any of your or my unsaved relatives are the a/c. Remember, the anti-christ is a distinct individual. There is the "spirit of the anti-christ" but Obama cannot be THE anti-christ.

[32. Dan Real Name said the following at 6:14 PM on Jan 20:]

32

Christina (in green) #30:

Here is where this issue gets my goat. There seems to be this almost knee-jerk reaction that us Christians engage in: Anything political that happens here in the USA is usually forced into some end-times scenario, especially when it has to do with a democrat being in office. I do understand that all of history is leading up to Christ's second return, but I think we need to make sure we are not using our feelings about democrats and our political leanings to influence sound thinking (i.e., taking bible verses out of context and inserting our pet theories into them).

I was discussing this with a co-worker (who really has done alot of study on end-times prophecy), and we both see how the world's reaction to Obama can be a type of forshadowing of how the world will react to the anti-christ, but that this doesn't make him THE anti-christ.

Again, my standard disclaimer: My above statements do NOT reflect an endorsement of Obama.

[33. dana111 said the following at 6:50 PM on Jan 20:]

33

Thanks for the post, Candice. It was balanced and thoughtful. Though I did vote for Obama, I am never looked at him as anything more than a politician. He will not can cannot solve anything, really.

And neither could Bush.

[34. Kelly said the following at 7:10 PM on Jan 20:]

34

"Because we live in the greatest country on earth."

What?!?

And that, my friends, is one of the classic reasons why many nations resent America.

If I had to pick a country that I'd call the greatest, I wouldn't even know where to start!

[35. Chris said the following at 7:12 PM on Jan 20:]

35

The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

We rebelled against England and things seemed to turn out OK.

I agree this is the best country on Earth and we've got one of the better systems of government. But when said government fails to serve the purpose for which it was established and we cannot change it through our democratic process, we have the right, nay the duty, to rebel, tear it down, and replace it with a government we deem best fit to serve our purposes.

(I'm not saying it will ever happen, but if it does, we have the moral authority to rebel. Every freedom loving people does.)

[36. Noelle said the following at 7:36 PM on Jan 20:]

36

Well, I did vote for President Obama and I'll be watching the inauguration because it is proof that God gives even when we don't deserve. I praise God for his grace and mercy on this nation. I'm not sure why so many Christians are obsessed with Republicans and their pitifully empty anti-abortion platforms but there is no doubt in my mind that Obama is a God-fearing man. Note: I am fiercely anti-abortion but I am not blind- no Republican has done anything about abortion after running on an anti-abortion platform. I have been praying for him ever since the night he won the election and I will continue to pray for him and his family. I will continue to pray for their safety and for God to give him the wisdom he needs to guide this nation over the next 4 (8!?!) years.

[37. Brent1776 said the following at 8:05 PM on Jan 20:]

37

Here is a different interpretation.

Pray Obama Fails

Cliff Notes: We are called to obey God and not submit to laws God deems wicked.

According to the interpretation Candice relates, the American Revolution was a defiance of God's choice of the English King to rule over the colonies.

Dan Barton writes that it was this interpretation that resulted in the "“Divine Right of Kings” philosophy.
Was the American Revolution a Biblically Justified Act?

Thoughts?

[38. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:18 PM on Jan 20:]

38

Here's something sensible from the UK to balance the Obamessiah worship that comes from what passes for objective journalism these days.

Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears
by Gerald Warner
The Telegraph (UK),
20 Jan 2009

This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence — la trahison des clercs — in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.

...

To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union.

It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.

Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).

...

It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.

These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.

[39. Amelia said the following at 8:38 PM on Jan 20:]

39

The claim that the US is the greatest country on earth is probably the cause of much of that bomb lobbing.

[40. TINA said the following at 8:46 PM on Jan 20:]

40

#27 Carrie- 1John2:18,1John2:22,2John:7-refer to the Antichrist..Corinthians11:4-15 Paul was speaking out of concern for their faithfulness 1-4,5-15 he was speaking of false apostles...now if you are calling our now President a false apostles this scripture would fit...If you are calling him "THE ANTICHRIST",as in the "one" it does not...

[41. TINA said the following at 9:11 PM on Jan 20:]

41

I am just wondering if any have thought about this....I personally think Martin Luther King was a great visionary,A man ahead of his time to pave a day such as today.....Do you think people back then thought he was the Antichrist???hmm i wonder....I did not vote for our now President for my political reasons....I wish Powell would run he would definitely get my vote....in any event it was a record breaking day for the black community something Martin Luther King would have been very proud of...He most assuredly set the race to break the barriers for his heritage. Me being of Italian descent growing up was a bit confusing on this subject matter thank God that does not stand true today...

[42. Keith said the following at 9:22 PM on Jan 20:]

42

Two thoughts:

1. America is NOT the greatest country in the world. It is a great country. Like other nations, it has its share of strengths and weaknesses.

2. Obama is not "black." He is biracial, of Caucasion and African descent. He spent much of his childhood in Indonesia, and then Hawaii, before living in Chicago - It is unclear how you could define him. Defining him by just one of his multiple ethic origins would be inaccurate. His race and experiences are nothing to the real struggles of many African Americans who grew up in mainland America.

[43. Kate (who is applying to law school!) said the following at 9:58 PM on Jan 20:]

43

Ok, I *love* Inauguration Day. I love the pomp, the ceremony, the reminder of how lucky I am to live in a country where power is transferred peacefully . . . My name is Kate and I am an enthusiastic government dork. It was so exciting! I watched the entire ceremony, went to work and than watched clips of the inaugural balls. Whatever your politics are, you could not watch the first dance of the President and First Lady without tearing up. Michelle Obama was so beautiful and they both looked so much in love. I can't wait to get a closer look at the gown when it's placed in the First Lady exhibit in the Smithsonian. Did I mention I'm a total dork?

daydream11- I totally agree. Government getting involved in religion makes me queasy. It's one thing to just broadly state: I want a Christian county. But what domination of Christianity? Do we require people to demonstrate belief for rights and services? What about those who believe otherwise?

.You're opening a huge can of worms with that. I like my Church and State like my salad and salad dressing, separate.

PS- As a single young woman, I have decided to hint to future suitors that I would adore to be escorted to the next Inaugural Ball in four years . . . I'll start saving for my Carolina Herrera gown now. :)

[44. beatrice81 said the following at 10:07 PM on Jan 20:]

44

I don't know anybody who -- to quote the strange phrase in the headline -- is "celebrating Inauguration Day". Nobody travelled in caravans across the country to celebrate a day. Millions of citizens didn't swarm into the capital to celebrate a day. Networks didn't provide nonstop coverage to celebrate a day.

The worldwide attention, excitement, and hope were to celebrate the inauguration of a new President -- someone who can put an end to the eight-year reign of war, incompetence, torture, economic failure, etc.

"The greatest country on earth?" Welll, aside from sounding like the silly boast of a schoolboy, the claim is dubious, especially in light of Gitmo, Katrina, Abu Ghraib. Perhaps once. Perhaps again, but not without a lot of time and repair work.

[45. Byron Holmes said the following at 11:03 PM on Jan 20:]

45

I am amazed at all of the post-modern
behavior in these blogs by professing Christians.

It is time for Christians to stand for something other than the popular culture.

Who is going to call sin, sin?

We don't need compromise in the Church.

How anyone can say that the Barack Obama is the one that God has for our nation is beyond my comprehension.

Authority is established by God as the Scripture says but it is our responsibility in our country to vote for leaders who align themselves on the great moral issues with the Word of God.

This man, who supports the destruction of unborn children, in the most heinous way inside the mother's womb
and then votes multiple-times against the Infant Born Alive Act which allows a baby which survived an abortion to live outside the womb to be destroyed is not God's choice.

No great surprise: the divorce rate in the Church is equal to the cultures and the "emerging church" is more concerned about pseudo-science regarding global-warming and the environment more than concerned about the our our fallen, spiritual environment that exists in our country today.

There is nothing to celebrate in the election of a president with the views held by Barack Obama on numerous issues from abortion, to stem-cell research to affirmation of the tragic lifestyle of many practicing homosexuals and lesbians.

I am happy that our country is willing to put race aside in electing the president of the United States.

My wife comes from a different ethnicity than I do.

However, the election of a person of any ethnic identity should not preclude moral clarity and Judeo-Christian values.

Does our new president need prayer? Yes, absolutely he does and we will do so, but we MUST to continue to fight the good fight for Christian principles that affect our families, our culture and our world.

It is our responsibility to be light unto the world, not to be fodder for the world.

We must occupy what God has given us in this great land until the return of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Pray for forgiveness for our nation and salvation and guidance for our leaders.

[46. Elizabeth H. said the following at 11:05 PM on Jan 20:]

46

I, too, was struck by the peaceful transfer of power that we enjoy in this country. Although things sometimes get nasty on the campaign trail, I'm always thankful for the gracious welcoming of the new president and sending off of the former.

I have to agree with others though that I'm uncomfortable by your comment about the U.S.A. being the "greatest"...not because I'm afraid of insulting anyone, but because I do not think it is true. President Obama also made comments to that effect in his speech. The U.S. needs to take a lesson in humility.

[47. Reno Panther said the following at 12:11 AM on Jan 21:]

47

The bible calls on us to rejoice with those who rejoice and there are many, in the spirit of Rev. MLK rejoicing today. And then to pray for our leaders. I think that both are in order.

[48. Mike Theemling said the following at 1:31 AM on Jan 21:]

48

It was a very good inaugeration ceremony. I'm glad that it was peaceful, and liked how Pres Obama mentioned both the realties of our situation and the hope for our country's future.

Still, as some political pundits have commented (even those that supported him), there's style and charisma, and then there's substance and getting things done.

The reality is that most Presidents do not do enact many of their campaign promises until their second term, as the first term is used to build alliances and gain political capital. And depending how things play out, Pres Obama might not have a second term. But who knows what the future will bring.

[49. Miriam (expat) said the following at 5:53 AM on Jan 21:]

49

Thanks Candice, for reminding of us of why we need to honour our rulers and authorities. It's not something that we focus on much these days, I think, but God does talk to us specifically about it, so we should listen and obey. It's good to be reminded.

[50. Kiwi Bloke said the following at 6:40 AM on Jan 21:]

50

Candice, and Commenter #1,
Please be aware that statements claiming that the United States is the "greatest country on earth" are considered quite offensive to those of us from other countries. Such statements are one of the reasons non-Americans often think of Americans as being arrogant. I know that's an unfair stereotype, one that is unfitting of the many lovely Americans I personally call friends, but it's nevertheless a stereotype that many people around the world hold, and such statements as yours don't do much to help the matter.

It may be true that the United States is a *great* country - I don't deny that - but the United States certainly does not hold a monopoly on greatness. There are many other nations that are equally great. Candice gives the reasons for her claim as being her system of government, "a system that derives its authority from the people". Do you really believe, Candice, that the United States is the only democratic nation on earth? Or the only nation founded on biblical principals, such as those found in your Constitution? I certainly hope not; that would be quite naive!

Indeed, if one were to truly attempt to determine the greatness of nations, one would have to consider many other factors, such as quality of life, cost of living, nature & scenery, crime rates, employment, and so on. Taking such things into account, the United States would not be at the top of the list (in fact surveys have already been done in the past to determine the best city or country to live in, taking into account many factors, and the results usually place the United States outside of even the top 10 - see here for example). In any case, it would be inappropriate and arrogant to label a country as "greatest" even based on such a survey.

Let's take such a statement to it's logical conclusion: if the United States really is the greatest nation on earth, that means ALL other nations on earth are inferior to the United States. Which, by extension, implies that the citizens of all other nations are also inferior to the citizens of the United States. Right? That's really what you're saying. And that sounds awfully racist if you ask me. If the United States is the greatest because of its people (as Candice implies in her post), then other nations must be less great because of their people. So their people are inferior. Hmm - how far could we take that argument?

Where I come from, in NZ, equality is one of the fundamental aspects of our culture - it's a core part of the Kiwi mindset (one of the reasons why we were the first nation on earth to give women the right to vote, for example). However I think your Thomas Jefferson had something to say about equality too, when he penned the Declaration of Independence...

[51. Priscilla said the following at 6:58 AM on Jan 21:]

51

Like many of you, I watched Barack Obama take the Oath of Office last night, and like many of you, I prayed for him and his family, recalling those verses from Psalms 2 and and Proverbs 21, and committing him to the hands of the God who is the ultimate ruler of the universe, to whom belongs all power. So Candace, I think your post on Inauguration Day is apt -- mostly.

Here's the part that makes me roll my eyes: "Because we live in the greatest country on earth."

Where do Americans get this kind of massive ego from? Are you all born with it in your genes or something? :)

I'm kidding with the trash talk, but honestly, what do you base that statement on? (No Biblical support for that one, I notice!)

If it's just some national pride on a big day for you, fine. Most people, of most nations, would swell up with pride and emotion on such an occasion. But the problem seems to be that many Americans actually seem to believe that their country is in fact, the world's greatest. And unfortunately, they act on that mistaken belief. And when your government acts on that kind of belief, it's not good for the rest of the world.

So I'm honestly curious. In your post, you follow up that statement with some justifiably proud words about a peaceful transfer of power, a democratic government and a commitment to liberty and freedom. So...do you honestly not know that there are a number of countries around the globe who also conduct regular, democratic elections, peacably transfer power and are committed to freedom? Americans didn't invent the concepts, nor are you the best implementors of them, as all the world has seen.

You're right that America is a great country, and the values of your founding fathers as well as your economic prosperity has attracted many from around the world over the years. But the 'greatest country on earth'? That's merely unfounded egomania. You might do well to re-read Proverbs 16:18. I pray that you will take it to heart.

[52. Eliza said the following at 7:14 AM on Jan 21:]

52

I just heard this morning that out of the 2 million people gathered at the National Mall yesterday, there were zero arrests. That's pretty amazing!

[53. Sarah said the following at 8:04 AM on Jan 21:]

53

If that authority doesn't realize God placed em there and if the authority goes against our principles, that is when we don't have to listen to them. For example, how about when the anti-Christ comes are we going to submit to his will when he is forcing us Christians to take the mark of the beast?! NO!

Come on Christians! Obama is already planning on signing the Freedom of Choice Act where abortion will be completely legal to the point where they are going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Bishops are already saying that they will close down those hospitals if the bill gets passed. That is more than 30% of all hospitals.

Obama has an agenda, he wants to end culture wars by shutting us pro-lifers up by signing FOCA. When he was senator of Illinois, he was one of the few that voted against keeping the babies that survived abortions.

If that doesn't get your blood boiling, if that doesn't cause your heart to break for what breaks God's heart (which is suppose to be part of our prayer) than heaven help you. I personally believe, there is no point to living the Christian life if you can't even fight against the most obvious of evils.

[54. TINA said the following at 10:24 AM on Jan 21:]

54

#42Keith-his heritage may consist of multiple nationalities black is one of them so it is part of who he is ethnic wise....and to some who like to use Adolph Hitler as a example...Germany is not set up the same way as America..in America we have a little word that speaks great volume"freedom"...and when Hitler reigned Germany was controlled by the governments sadistic views on Jewish people,and how to run a country theY did not have the option to "fight" for what is ethnically, morally, politically, biblically correct at capitol hill...Hitler i believe biblical reefers to those little Antichrist that will one day undoubtedly lead to the big one...only Gods appoint time will tell if this is the time at hand...

[55. dundurn said the following at 10:47 AM on Jan 21:]

55

A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest", but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is. -Sydney J. Harris, journalist and author (1917-1986)
excerpted from Wordsmith.org

[56. Jason said the following at 11:00 AM on Jan 21:]

56

I agree entirely with this post. But one small quibble: We're so used to partisan fighting that we assume incorrectly that a change in party means a strident change in ideology. [Omitting libertarian rant here.] [Omitting other libertarian rant against other libertarians.] But I'm content to say that former President Bush was correct when he said a "good man" became president yesterday.

[57. Jo said the following at 11:04 AM on Jan 21:]

57

Christina:
"He has high ideals that I find commendable with some policy plans I find deplorable."

That perfectly sums up my opinion of Obama too.

Interesting article from the Telegraph in #38. All the more interesting because it identifies abortion as 'slaughter of the innocents'. I'm genuinely surprised and overjoyed that someone would write that in a respected UK newspaper. I though the abortion fight was lost long ago over here.

And yeah, I cringed at the 'greatest country in the world' bit too. I just would never dream of making that kind of statement. Maybe I'd see it differently if I was American. :/

[58. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:14 AM on Jan 21:]

58

RE: my Scripture reference.

I didn't have time to expand, just post quickly.

After some consideration, I have realized that calling Obama the anti-Christ is a little . . . dramatic.

However, taking into consideration 2 Cor 11 - the warnings of false teachings and it's statement that Satan masquerades himself as an angel of light - I can't help but wonder at the similarities.

Obama has puffed himself up into this great servant of the people and has not shunned the Messiah mentality that has helped usher him into the most powerful office on earth.
Yet, he is not giving credit where credit is due.
All the pro-lifers are trembling because of his promise to the pro-choice movement of signing into existence the Freedom of Choice Act that will ensure the repeal of every bit of legislative progress the pro-life movement has made.
Teenagers would require less parental involvement in the decision of an abortion than if they were to take an asprin in school.
Like Herod, another former anti-Christ candidate, Obama has advocated nothing for those who truly need our help.

[59. A.M.C. said the following at 11:38 AM on Jan 21:]

59

Re: Sarah (#53)

Obama is already planning on signing the Freedom of Choice Act where abortion will be completely legal to the point where they are going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Bishops are already saying that they will close down those hospitals if the bill gets passed. That is more than 30% of all hospitals.

Obama has an agenda, he wants to end culture wars by shutting us pro-lifers up by signing FOCA. When he was senator of Illinois, he was one of the few that voted against keeping the babies that survived abortions.

No, the culture war would not be over simply because a legislation is passed. If Obama does sign the FOCA, it would be time for us pro-lifers to seriously consider defending the lives of the unborn with our very own lives. In the case of the hospitals, for example, forcing the issue by practicing civil disobedience (i.e. intentionally breaking the law that would require hospitals to provide abortions) might be necessary.

[60. Candice Watters said the following at 2:41 PM on Jan 21:]

60

Kiwi Bloke, what I meant by my "greatest" comment was that our system of government is the best of all known systems. It doesn't always produce the greatest results, and there are certainly many flaws in every country this side of heaven, but I stand by my love of my nation. I do think it's the best. Hopefully you feel that way about your country, too!

[61. Darren said the following at 2:42 PM on Jan 21:]

61

Though I strongly disagree with some stances taken by our new President, I wish him well and success. While I can appreciate the historical proportions of yesterday, regarding equality in race, I am discouraged by the historical proportions of yesterday, regarding the potential increase of a moral decline in our nation.

But with all due respect for the position of our commander and chief, I will pray for President Obama and his family, and at the same time I will become more involved than ever.

Let's remember - the President is not a King. He is a public servant whose job is to defend the Constitution and it is our job to hold him accountable to that. The best thing we can do for him and for our country is to stay informed and to react as led by the Spirit of God - not by emotional hysteria.

[62. Sara said the following at 4:17 PM on Jan 21:]

62

"I just heard this morning that out of the 2 million people gathered at the National Mall yesterday, there were zero arrests. That's pretty amazing!"

It's maybe kind of funny, and maybe my standards are low, but that brought tears to my eyes! :)

Also, I have to say, that as an atheist, I was glad that when he listed off Hindus, Christians, Muslims, he included 'non-believers'. I've never heard us recognized in public like that by a governor, even though there are so many of us who vote.

[63. Leah said the following at 4:53 PM on Jan 21:]

63

I'm curious as to why Carrie (14)'s comment was allowed to be published.

What does it add to the discussion? It appears to me that it adds nothing but rather is trying to light the flame of debate for the sake of it. Not necessary.

Mike THeemling said there's style and charisma, and then there's substance and getting things done.
Oh, how true. Our Prime Minister is full of the first two and seriously lacks the second two.

I also have to laugh at the claim that the US is the greatest country on earth and the subsequent comments. What do you mean by "greatest"? Coz if you mean "best", I think you're in for a surprise. My husband is an immigrant from South Africa and I have a LOT of other south-african-immigrant friends, and from what I can gather, most migrants from South Africa would rather go to Australia or New Zealand than the US.

[64. Jeremy said the following at 5:12 PM on Jan 21:]

64

#53, #59 --

The Freedom of Choice Act "issue" is little more than a way to whip up a frenzy on either side of the abortion debate. The bill was introduced in 2004 and has never gone anywhere but to committee. There is nowhere near enough support to get it passed.

Obama said he would sign it as a way to endear himself to the rabidly pro-choice crowd, and a number of religious organizations keep bringing it up as a way to stir up the passions of the rabidly pro-life crowd. It is a little ridiculous on both sides, and CERTAINLY not justification for breaking the law.

[65. Kiwi Bloke said the following at 5:27 PM on Jan 21:]

65

Candice (#60),
That still doesn't make sense. While I certainly agree that your/our general system of government - democracy - is the best known system, that doesn't justify saying that your country is the greatest. The word "greatest" is a superlative, meaning that it excludes all others. It would have been more accurate for you to say that you live in "one of" the greatest nations on earth, or that you live in "a great" nation. (It could even be debatable whether or not the United States' implementation of democracy is the best - there are several ways of doing democracy, and other democratic countries, such as my own, do it in different ways to the States, and it's of course only a matter of opinion as to which way is the best or most effective - but it's certainly not a fact that US democracy is the *best* flavour of democracy - it's merely *one* flavour out of many. But I digress).

So, now you're also saying that you think your country is the best! That's the same thing as saying it's the greatest. If the United States is the "best" country in the world, then all other countries by definition must be less-than-best, ie. inferior in comparison.

I certainly don't consider NZ to be the best country in the world. NZ is a lovely country, and I'm a proud and patriotic Kiwi, but for me to consider her the best country in the world would be rather arrogant of me. In any case, it's logically impossible for both NZ and the US to be the best countries. If I think NZ is the best country, and you think the US is the best country, then one of us must be wrong.

Anyway, the key point that I'm wanting to make - and a number of other posters here have also made - is that when Americans make such statements as "we're the greatest nation on earth", it makes them look arrogant and inappropriately prideful in the eyes of the rest of the world, and it only serves to fuel anti-American sentiments. I even heard President Bush make this statement once. I doubt that helped his international popularity.

[66. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:37 PM on Jan 21:]

66

The cult of the Obamessiah should be great cause for concern. After all, he was merely the junior senator of Illinois with no executive experience, sat under the preaching of a racist and heretical pastor for 20 years, launched his career in the home of unrepentant domestic terrorists Ayers and Dohrn, opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act making him more pro-abortion even than NARAL, promised to sign the radically pro-abortion "Freedom of Choice Act", and wants to spread other people's wealth around (not his own) ... yet instead of objective journalism, we had Chris Matthews exulting that Obama speaking made a thrill go up his leg and such extreme pro-Obama bias that even the Washington Post ombudsman admitted it.

[67. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:38 PM on Jan 21:]

67

Candice Watters: "Because we live in the greatest country on earth."

Not so. Australia is superior for the following reasons:

* Our laws are still made by our elected representatives, not by unelected philosopher-kings sometimes called "activist judges".

* America's backward plurality voting (aka "first past the post) is inferior to Australia's preferential voting system. That is, People list all the candidates they want in order of preference, with 1 the best, 2 the second and so on. If no candidate wins an absolute majority (50% + 1 of valid votes cast) of primary votes, look at the second preferences, and distribute them, until a candidate is preferred by a majority.

In America, the will of the people is thwarted by "spoilers" who actually hurt the candidates closest to them. I.e. in CA, a majority of voters might prefer a liberal candidate, but if an extra one stands, he draws votes from the Democrat, and a Republican might win even though voters would prefer a liberal candidate. Also, in primaries, a popular position attracts a large number of candidates, splitting the vote, allowing a candidate for an unpopular position to win even though he is not preferred by the majority. [See, I've given a politically neutral, balanced examples of the problems].

* Australia's government partly funds private schools. This is not as good as a voucher or tax rebate system, but goes at least part of the way to parental choice.

* Religious education is allowed in schools. Activist judges who hallucinate the phrase "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution although it's not there have abolished even prayer.

* We have personal retirement accounts, where we can invest the way we choose. GWB tried to reform America's retirement system part-way towards something similar to Australia's model, but the gutless Republican (aka Dem-Lite) majority wouldn't back him. So Americans are stuck with the fraudulent "social security" Ponzi scheme, which doesn't even give them any right to their SS "contributions" and will soon be insolvent.

* America has an unjust double taxation system on stock dividends. That is, an owner of a stock is a part owner of a company. A dividend may be paid out of the company's earnings, which are therefore the shareholder's earnings. Under the American system, the shareholder's dividend has already been diminished by the tax the company has paid, then the shareholder is taxed again for the dividend.

Under Australia's just dividend imputation, the tax that has already been paid by the company is imputed, i.e. credited, to the shareholder's account as tax already paid, so is not taxed twice. If America adopted Australia's system, it would make investment more attractive and do far more to stimulate the economy than Congress throwing trillions of dollars of pork around.

* Finally: Australians don't see the need to tell everyone that they live in the best country in the world :P

PS: I have an American wife and daughter, so don't take this as anti-American :)

[68. BDB said the following at 7:09 PM on Jan 21:]

68

OK, apparently #1 and #14 were offensive comments, which have now been replaced by copies of the comments complaining about them...I'm so confused...

Yesterday morning someone did ask me how many countries had democratic transitions of power. I guessed 30, but maybe it's more.

By that I mean peaceful transitions where one party loses an election, and transfers power to the other party. the first time that happened in the U.S. was the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800. The other side was NOT happy about this.

The reason this works is that the President actually is very limited in power. There are more than 89,000 elected offices in the U.S., each of which has a little slice of Soveiegnty. If the President's dog is running around loose and the elected dog catcher picks it up, he legally has to go through the process of paying for the license/fine and get the dog back out.

I find it amusing that Obama keeps getting compared to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President during WWII. FDR is the guy who imprisoned all the American citizens of Japanese descent without trial - a breach of civil liberties vastly worse than anything done by the outgoing Bush administration. Last night I was watching a thing on the History Channel on FDR and how he was corresponding secretly with Winston Churchill promising U.S. involvement in WWII, while publically promising the public (during the 1940 election) that he would never bring the country into that war. And yet today, President Obama has the audacity to talk about government transparency as if the Bush administration was the secretive one! Hello dude, look at your role model!

But I do note that the U.S. is the most liberal when it comes to freedom of th press; U.S. commentators keep getting convicted in Australian, Canadian and U.K. courts for libel, when the statements were made in the U.S. in U.S. media and are protected speech in the U.S. Some countries are of course much worse. If I have something political to say, the U.S. is definitely the best place in the world to be.

I had some Swedes come visit me a year ago. They went to the beach, and were amazed that someone had a flag out on the beach. They took pictures and put them on facebook - in Sweden they could never get away with that. And Sweden has been a Christian country for 1000 years!

There are lots of complaints that can be levelled about the way the U.S. has used its military power. While every great power has created enemies by the use of that power, America has made enough enemies that Canadians are clearly safer when travelling in some parts of the world. Some people even recommend that Americans sew Canadian flags on their luggage to make them less of a target.

So, I'm thanking God for separation-of-powers today. I know that the U.S. Constitution will protect me from too much change!

[69. Chris Ashton said the following at 9:36 PM on Jan 21:]

69

If greatness was measured by the number of unborn (and possibly soon, partially-born) babies killed, then the USA would certainly be the greatest nation on earth. However, abortion volume is not usually the litmus test for greatness.

But your assertion of American greatness is quite instructive. While you would probably not explicitly attribute to Mr Obama the messiah-like qualities that many seem to claim for him (salvation, deliverance, renewal), your claim to American greatness suggests your faith in at least some sort of American uniqueness in God's plan.

And for someone who quotes, and -judging by your previous posts - understands, the Bible, this is an arrogant, indeed heretical stance to take.

[70. Alison said the following at 9:59 PM on Jan 21:]

70

Re: "The best country in the world" comment

As a Canadian, I have learned to not take this personally from my American friends. Though some people ignorantly mean what they say, it's mostly a cultural difference that for some reason does not transfer outside of America very well.
Non-Americans think, "why would I be so pompous to think that about my country--that's like ranking people in terms of quality! Every good person is equal!" While Americans just play by different norms, sort of like how some people engage in friendly back-and-forth one-upmanship banter.

[71. Byron Holmes said the following at 10:27 PM on Jan 21:]

71

I agree with Candace that the United States of America is the "greatest nation on earth."

No other nation in the history of mankind has fought more wars to free other people from tyranny and oppression than we have, without expectation of ruling those who we have freed.

As Colin Powell said the only ground that American soldiers have taken is to bury their dead on behalf of others.

I hope that readers of this blog will educate themselves in something else other than political correctness to omit the patently clear exceptionalism which this nation has been given by God.

This exceptionalism exists because of the organic laws of this nation, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States which value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The generosity of the American people is unmatched anywhere on the globe.

These organic laws directly address the freedoms and dignity which God Almighty allows in His Word.

This is not to say that we, as a nation have not had our failures .

However, we as a nation have sought to make rights wrong.

People in this country need to appreciate with humble gratitude the Divine Blessings of God on this nation.

Please name another country which has demonstrated its greatness without trying to build an empire or subjugating those whom we have delivered from oppression.

The exceptionalism is God-given, not pompous rhetoric.

However, if Mr. Obama's radical social agenda is pushed through and individuals blindly follow a man, not God, our exceptionalism will disappear and God's Judgment will rest with us as a people and a nation.

[72. BDB said the following at 11:09 PM on Jan 21:]

72

#67 wrote:

>>* America's backward plurality voting (aka "first past the post) is inferior to Australia's preferential voting system. <<

Nope. Preferential voting is far inferior, because individual factions can take power too easily and use the power of government to destroy other factions, whether through taxation or other means.

In The Federalist Papers, it was pointed out that urban merchants as a faction could easily vote to harm farmers because their interests are so different. This just happened in California, where the voters passed a proposition based on the size of cages chickens can live in. The people vote for it, it is law. The result will be to wipe out all the chicken-raising jobs in California and move them to Mexico; or other states which don't have these laws. It will raise the price of chicken and eggs for everyone in California - and all because urban voters haven't a clue about agriculture.

The vast superiority of plurality-based-geographical areas is that it makes a Congressman responsible for that area - everything in that area, not just his buddies. If jobs are bad in his or her district, it becomes an issue, regardless of whether the unemployed are in his party.

You're going to see a dramatic example of this play out on Global Warming. Some Democrats want to destroy the automobile industry in favor of the climate models. This will wipe out the districts of other Democrats in union areas such as Michigan. Because it's based on geography, the Democrats, within their own party, now must face the reality of how many jobs will be lost due to their policies

In preferential voting, when one faction (such as the climate-change single issue voter) takes power, they can destroy the livelihood of the other factions.

The main reason the U.S. has such a high standard of living is that things don't change much from administration to administration. Geographic-based representation goes a long ways to ensure a certain amount of economic stability.

[73. BDB said the following at 11:51 PM on Jan 21:]

73

Wow - all the input from various countries got me digging around the internet. I learned of a new country I didn't know existed - Nauru.

It seems that up until last year, their primary economic activity was serving as a processing center for refugees trying to get into Australia.

[74. TINA said the following at 4:43 AM on Jan 22:]

74

To all the best countries in the world!!!they all have good systems and ones that would need to be revised...A lot of countries call us "dumb" Americans..well that's because we keep letting you in...to make millions off our people..be able to let you go to school for free,or start a business and not have to pay tax for five years and then let you turn it over to a family member so your tax free can continue, to give less fortunate people a better life at education and for some they come to us "dumb" Americans for safety..We in America need to revise the goodness of our hearts and not let foreigners take advantage of us,or tell us what to do in our country concerning laws and what is said in schools about God because your religion does not fit ours...what made me laugh is when Bush wanted to give us all stimulus cheeks the foreign exchange was mad,Bush had to fight with them to be able to give us that money..so i guess we have become dumb..we over extend ourselves at the cost of the people..hopefully that will change and we will become stricture in letting foreigners on our soil......If we do though we would not be such a "actives" any more for promoting to make the "world" a better place... in the goodness of doing that it caused us grave expense..we should mind our own business then and let each country blow its self up if it wants??...and lets not forget how many foreigners want to marry an American so they can get in here because they know "THIS IS THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITTY"...yes our laws need to change alright...

[75. TINA said the following at 5:15 AM on Jan 22:]

75

...Just in case my opinion of America gets posted I want to say to any who is married to a American and not from this country not all of your marriage are based on that true statement....some really married for love i know that..it is a generalize comment not to be taken in offense...i would like to further ad how did Candice's beautiful heartfelt article turn into a debate about which country is the best? Did anyone look past what she was trying to accomplish in the article?or maybe some took one part of it got offended and turned it into a downward spiral which then took the focus away from her intent?...know wonders God teaches us not to take offense for this very reason it gives the enemy a foot hold.....

[76. Renata said the following at 10:56 AM on Jan 22:]

76

As someone who just returned from the Inauguration, thank you for the prayers for President Obama instead of the recent uncalled for posts by your colleague. I didn't vote for President Bush, but prayed for him and backed him in the few areas that I agreed with him (abortion, stem cell research, solutions to illegal immigration, support for HIV/AIDS monies). As a follower of Jesus, I "amen" your call for us to pray for our leaders and expect all believers, Republicans, Democrats, Independents etc to do the same. I again ask us to especially be grateful to God and pray for the example he and his family will be to American families, especially African-Americans.

[77. Candice Watters said the following at 12:04 PM on Jan 22:]

77

Let me clarify. In the words of President Lincoln, America is "the last best hope of earth."

I highly recommend Bill Bennett's books for an easy-to-read, comprehensive history of America. Get the facts, not the PC perspective. Then decide.

As Bennett writes:

An abiding sense of American greatness, of American purpose, of American exceptionalism has long characterized many of our leaders and tens of millions of the rest of us as well. We have long had hope.

I believe America is still that hope, but I also believe that our conviction about American greatness and purpose is not as strong today. Newspaper columns and television reports [and blog comments] are full of cynicism. Many express doubts about American motives on the world stage. Some Americans seem ready to believe the worst about our leaders and our country. Thinking and believing the worst certainly is not hopeful. It is my humble wish that those who read this book will find reason to reclaim some of the hope and conviction we have lost.

[78. TINA said the following at 1:19 PM on Jan 22:]

78

One nation under God for liberty and justice for all.....that's another reason people like to come to our great country..for the latter part they work really hard at trying to remove the first and most important "UNDER GOD" meaning WE THIS COUNTRY PUT OUR TRUST....The earth after all is his foot stool...

[79. TINA said the following at 1:31 PM on Jan 22:]

79

#76Renata-How great and fortunate you were to witness live what Martin Luther King fought so hard for...I so agree with you....no matter who we vote for we need to pray for them all AMEN....

[80. Jethro said the following at 4:11 PM on Jan 22:]

80

Candice (#77),

So your clarification is that America is indeed the greatest country on earth?

American exceptionalism is as stupid as German, British or Argentinian exceptionalism.

[81. John said the following at 4:40 PM on Jan 22:]

81

"Americans didn't invent the concepts, nor are you the best implementors of them, as all the world has seen."

Ah, yes, yes we did. And, yes, yes we are.

You're wrong twice.

You should take the time to study the greatest nation that's ever graced the planet before you make unsubstantiated claims.

Saying America is the greatest is an objective statement, not subjective. It's based on freedom, opportunity, standard of living, etc.

Name one country that has all those areas covered like we do.

Which country is the greatest if not US?

Can't wait to hear this.

[82. Byron Holmes said the following at 5:43 PM on Jan 22:]

82

News Flash: American exceptionalism is given by God based upon the Judeo/Christian values which are present in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Last time I looked the British, the Germans and the Argentinians in their quest for some type of hegemony in their immediate worlds did not base their exceptionalism on Christianity and Judeo/Christian values.

The exceptionalism unique to the United States is our VALUE SYSTEM, not some cosmetic appeal about any secular advantage we have.

I hope that those of you from outside the United States who have benefited from the blood our solider's have shed to make your world safe or those of you who have benefited from the financial generosity our nation has provided to the world will get over your envy and vitriol and thank God that one nation, the United States of America, has always been willing to assist in the struggle for human freedom and individual dignity.

[83. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:31 PM on Jan 22:]

83

BDB seems to have confused preferential voting with proportional representation, which the Founders rightly opposed. Please study what PV actually means (I did explain it). It would still make a "Congressman responsible for that area".

But we saw the problem of plurality voting when the moderate McCain was selected in the GOP Primaries, because the conservative vote was split.

BDB also claims, "But I do note that the U.S. is the most liberal when it comes to freedom of the press". Yet America has the freedom-oppressing McCain–Feingold incumbent protection law, which GWB signed in a dereliction of his oath to defend the Constitution. Pro-life groups had to fight this, while the supposedly pro-life McCain favoured prosecuting them

As for "land of the free", America has more trade barriers than Australia. Why do you think Americans pay exorbitant prices for lamb meat? Because ineffient sheep farmers successfully lobbied Congress for protection against lamb imports from Australia and New Zealand. Why have companies like Lifesavers moved to other countries, taking their jobs with them? Because wealthy sugar barons donate to both parties and make sure that sugar tariffs remain, so Americans pay three times the world price for sugar.

BDB, who is astute enough to see through the adulation of FDR, would undoubtedly recognize the above as the democratic flaw of concentrated benefits v diffused costs.

[84. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:42 PM on Jan 22:]

84

KiwiBloke (#65):

America was NOT meant to be a democracy but a Republic. The Founders explicitly rejected democracy as the tyranny of the majority. They wanted to restict any sort of absolute power with a system of checks and balances. It may have been the best country if its rulers and people still followed their Constitution. As most don't, the claim is highly questionable (see Jefferson and Madison: Could They Be Elected Today? by economics professor Walter Williams.

But instead, we saw an ostensibly Republican president like GWB would spruik on about bringing "democracy" to the middle east. Hamas was one result of that. See Dr Williams' better solution in Conflict: The Battle Hymn of the Democracy.

[85. Jethro said the following at 7:34 PM on Jan 22:]

85

John (#81),

Australia? New Zealand? Canada?

[86. Alison said the following at 8:28 PM on Jan 22:]

86

Um, wow, John. (#81)

Have you studied any other nation besides your own?

Sweden, Denmark, France, etc. etc. etc. all outrank you guys in terms of *the most individuals within their population* to have the criteria you list. America has that heavily weighted to some and *unavailable to many*. Many other countries do it better according to your criteria than yours does.

[87. Alison said the following at 8:33 PM on Jan 22:]

87

Okay. I retract my previous statement saying that it's a mainly cultural difference. Some of you Americans are extraordinarily ignorant of the world beyond your borders.

Have any of the posters that assert America is the greatest visited any other nation while *not* on a missions trip to a disadvantaged country? (Serious question.)

[88. BDB said the following at 9:09 PM on Jan 22:]

88

Hmmm...it seems that the Netherlands is now prosecuting one if its Members of Parliament for telling the truth.

It seems that the Dutch are experiencing some violence due to political speech.. The U.S. has struggled with this in the past. Indeed, the civil rights movement of 50 years ago in the U.S. was marked by violence. We've moved past that - that's part of the reason for the celebration of President Obama.

In the U.S., this kind of political speech is protected for everyone, and it's actually unconstitutional to arrest a member of Congress. Anything a Member of Congress says on the floore of Congress (or the Senate) automatically is read into the record, and absolutely no one, including the President, can do anything to them.

[89. BDB said the following at 9:47 PM on Jan 22:]

89

>>But we saw the problem of plurality voting when the moderate McCain was selected in the GOP Primaries, because the conservative vote was split.<<

The winner-takes-all method definitely helps the Republican party make a decision faster. I supported McCain, so I thought the process was fine. But this is because the winner was based on the full state vote.

The Democrats, on the other hand, took months to pick a nominee. They still use a plurality as winner, but it is based on congressional district. This shows a more accurate geographic description of which candidate has the most support. It also showed Barak Obama's skills at organizing states that Democrats usually ignored. Politics favors the organized.

The main reason that the plurality method is superior to all other methods is the certainty of authority when governing. The winner is the winner, and it's over. The genius of America's founders is recognizing that the purpose of government is governing, NOT representing all the various factions with an elected official. It is expected that everyone who is elected will balance ALL the factions.

Some do this better than others. We've actually seen some good examples from President Obama. His selection of Rick Warren was important not only because he is reaching out to someone in a different political faction (religious conservatives), but because Rev. Warren handed Obama the first setback of the campaign: Obama stumbled badly in the Saddleback debate. Warren asked hard questions of importance to people of faith. Obama's message is not just that he intends to be a President for all the people, but that asking him hard questions will not be punished.

The reality is that many religious conservatives do not have a party in the U.S. Many of us, like Warren, are both pro-life and care about the poor. Warren gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal where he related that when people heard he cared about the poor,they automatically assumed that he was pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage. Not at all. In this election, BOTH major parties ignored the poor. It is people like Warren (and Bono) who are bringing it up. But like Bono did with a Republican President Bush, actually getting things done requires treating people with respect and making the case for the policy.

You see something similar in U.S. Senators, who are selected state-wide. They must balance all the issues of their state, not just the factions that elected them. For the U.S., it often comes down to jobs, jobs, jobs. Senators must balance all the factions, not just stay locked into their position. Governing is much better when the person who wins has the most people behind them; plurality voting forces Senators and Presidents to campaign in the center to get that plurality. Much better for governing. Plurality elections are the best.

Splitting up elected power based merely on faction leads to paralysis, not good government. Other voting systems designed to recognize a specifc minority faction merely make a governing mess. I watch how parlimentary systems have far-left Greens or far-right nationalists peel off enough members of parliament to keep any other party from forming a government. The foolishness of this system is so blatant I can't believe any modern democracy still practices it. I watch Israel for "national unity" governments in times of war because their parliamentary system doesn't have the unitary executive embodied in a President like the U.S. has. The U.S. always has ONE president, who can always ACT immediately when a threat to national security is presented. Parliamentary systems are weak and indecisive in comparison.

Frankly, I don't think they would last without the protection umbrella of the U.S. to deter any major conflict. The run-up to WWII demonstrated how European democracies just twiddled their thumbs while Germany re-armed in violation of the treaty of Versailles. We saw the complete failure of the Europeans to be able to take action in Serbia/Kosovo without U.S. support. Parliamentary democracies are too indecisive to protect themselves from tyrants like Serbia had at the time.

Keep in mind that Australia's 20 Million inhabitants are roughly equivalent to Los Angeles. While I applaud the decision of countries like South Africa to end their nuclar weapons program, I have no doubt that if the U.S. was not guaranteeing the security of countries like Japan, we'd see a lot more countries seeking to join the nuclear club. Seriously, how long do you think it would take the Japanese to build one? If they don't have one already?

[90. Amelia said the following at 9:49 PM on Jan 22:]

90

Byron Holmes (#82):

You state that America's exceptionalism is based on the fact that America's constitution is based on Judeo-Christian values, while other countries do not have their exceptionalism based on such values.

The problem with this is that other countries don't have this same notion of exceptionalism at all, or certainly not to the same degree as Americans. This exceptionalism, or greatness, call it what you will, is perceived on the part of the American people, and does not exist in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Besides, I would argue that Australia's constitution is most certainly based on Judeo-Christian values, as is Britain's equivalent. Their exceptionalism, however, is not based on these values, as there is no such inherent notion.

You cannot objectively argue for your own country to be the greatest. A great country, for sure, but the greatest? That is a subjective opinion that the rest of the world is never going to support.

I also take exception with your last paragraph. It exemplifies the problem that those of us from outside the United States have with the claim of American greatness: arrogance, pride and the inference that we are inferior. Do you really think we are envious of you? That genuinely is not the basis of our argument. Do you really think that no soldiers from other countries have had a role in protecting the freedom that you enjoy? Or that no other country has shown financial generosity to another?

[91. BDB said the following at 9:55 PM on Jan 22:]

91

Oh, there's a shorter reason why plurality voting works fine in the U.S.: the initiative process.

If elected legislators ignore a faction, such as the faction in favor of traditional marriage, individual citizens can go out, gather signatures, and get the issue put on the ballot. In the case of Proposition 8 in California, there were not a majority of legislators in favor of it. But it doesn't matter, a majority of Californians got it passed anyway.

They also banned chicken cages that weren't comfortable enough, and I'm quite certain that the comfortable-chicken faction does't have a majority of legislators, either.

If the options were available, the people would vote a 50% increase in education spending, a 50% increase in environmental spending, and a 50% decrease in taxes, all in the same election. The same crazy mess would happen using a voting system different than the plurality-winner-takes all.

[92. BDB said the following at 10:40 PM on Jan 22:]

92

Oh dear, I neglected to respond to the "spoiler candidate" part. Let's talk about the Perotnistas.

When Ross Perot ran for the U.S. Presidency, he had one main issue: balance the budget. About 20% of the country (at the time) thought this was the #1 issue. Both the Democrats and Republicans ignored deficit spending. (My, how history repeats itself!)

The result was that Bill Clinton got elected.

Being completely out of power tends to focus the minds of the Loyal Opposition. In their shock, the Republican party incorporated Perot's spending-control ideas into their Contract with America as point #1. This simple, focused set of campaign promises swept Republicans into control of Congress in 1994 - the first time in 44 years they had a majority of Congress.

And as Perot voters told me for several years: they voted for Perot to balance the budget. And look, the budget is balanced! Spoiler candidates force their single-issue to the surface of the debate, but most of those personalities are too radical to successfully govern.

You saw a smaller version of this in 2008. The spoiler in 2000 and 2004 was Ralph Nader, the green-party dude. His main issue was that the two major parties were controlled by lobbyists.

And who were the two nominees in 2008? Two guys that tried to solve that lobbyist problem Nader was so concerned about. McCain did it by pushing through the McCain-Feingold legislation, the very legislation that makes 501(c)3 organizations concerned about mentioning candidates for public office in the 60 days before the election (though the Supreme Court has ruled against this-they can identify the issues that each candidate supports, they just can't say "vote for this one." Political speech is the highest human right.) Obama did it by promising to close the "revolving door" of lobbying and working in the administration. And he followed through with his executive orders yesterday.

But what's important is that BOTH McCain and Obama took up Nader's issue and made it an important part of their campaign. But if Nader hadn't spoiled 2000 and 2004 for the Democrats, I down Obama would have focused so carefully on picking up those Nader voters by speaking so clearly to their issues.

Obama reminds me of Newt Gingrich! They are both visionaries who watched the spoiler and adopted the spoiler's ideas - and both won because of it.

[93. BDB said the following at 10:45 PM on Jan 22:]

93

Did I mention I have two degrees in this?

Here's an interesting

[94. xeres said the following at 11:43 PM on Jan 22:]

94

wow, while "the greatest nation on earth" is not the most appropriate, it saddens me on how many of the poster here including the posters from overseas are spoiling the spirit of this post. It is not a good witness at all. I know one's culture heritage is a personal thing, and people should not be ashamed of their heritage. However, more diplomacy would be need

[95. Fergus from Malaysia said the following at 12:33 AM on Jan 23:]

95

Re all the comments on America being the greatest nation fueling anti-American sentiment... I remember hearing Obama say that "America is still the last great hope of the world".

And I remember thinking, really? Because I sincerely thought it was Jesus.

[96. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 1:29 AM on Jan 23:]

96

Once again, BDB points out problems with proportional representation, which are not news to me. I saw it in New Zealand with the radical Green loonies, and I agree about Israel.

Preferential voting has all the advantages of winner-takes-all that BDB mentions. A Presidential election under preferential voting would fulfil the Founders' criteria, since it would not take away the Electoral College, just prevent spoilers distorting the vote.

[97. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 1:47 AM on Jan 23:]

97

BDB (#89)

You mention WW2 and appeasement. But I doubt that the America of today would have won the war. Those who insist on Israel responding "proportionately" to the Hamas terrorists would have demanded that America stopped after bombing one Japanese harbor in return for Pearl Harbor. Those who spruik the "Islam is a religion of peace" delusion would insist that most Japanese and Germans are peaceful people (cf. Walter Williams on the irrelevance of the peaceful majority).

And there is no way America would have won if the media then was like the media now, in the way they gloat over American losses in Vietnam and Iraq. Imagine today's media on D-Day: "Thousands of Allied troops lost on just the first day, and the remainder are pinned down by crack German troops. Yet warmonger Roosevelt refuses peace with Hitler, and sends more kids to die." Or a report on one of America's greatest victories in the Pacific war, "the great Marianas turkey shoot", where American fighter pilots shot down more than 340 Japanese planes while losing just 30 American planes: "Today eighteen American pilots were killed and five more severely wounded, as the Japanese blasted more than two dozen American planes out of the sky."

One more thing: please don't presume that "caring about the poor" requires belief in massive government welfare bureaucracies which perpetuate dependency, or foreign "aid" programs which prop up corrupt despots. Note also, conservatives are much more generous than liberals with their own money as Prof. Arthur Brooks documented in Who Really Cares?

[98. H.A.P said the following at 5:02 AM on Jan 23:]

98

As an American living outside the United States, I found the "greatest nation" in the post to be over the top as well. I used to say people who made this statement had never lived anywhere else, but I've changed my mind. They just haven't lived anywhere better.
I appreciate America's freedoms and the good they do in the rest of the world. I'm happy to be an American, but I'm looking forward to a heavenly country. It will be the greatest I'm sure!

[99. TINA said the following at 7:17 AM on Jan 23:]

99

The U.S. Military remains the larges fighting force in Iraq. I believe that has always been true for any war we were in?Non-U.S. forces 10%....According to the Global Security there were 21 Non-U.S. that made up the 10%...I think if you look in history we are definitely the strongest with the most man power??and i might ad America has always fought in just about every war i can think of even if it had nothing to do with our country?well it usually does some other country trying to take us over... just to throw one out there Germany twice...WHY?.............BEACUSE WE BELIEVE ONE NATION MEANS JUST THAT....UNDER GOD......nation as in many together as one fighting for the people of not just our own country the entire WORLD.and of coarse FREEDOM....Some of the countries mentioned here dont even really have a military AS HUGE as ours?? not as powerful as ours anyway....The united states keeps bailing out the united nation financially???hmmm as i said before maybe its time for our laws to change???????GOD made the land therefore it is all GREAT people ruined it......

[100. Laurel said the following at 7:27 AM on Jan 23:]

100

Getting back to the main points in this post -- rather than focusing on one sentence which I'm sure was not stated in order to cause such debate -- I want to thank you, Candice, for your thoughts and your Scripture references. I, like Jenny (#6) felt quite solemn on Tuesday. Though I heartily agree on what a great thing it is that we have a non-Caucasian (to agree with Keith #42) in office, I have been very disheartened since the election. I've been disheartened that we now have someone in the highest political office in the country who upholds so many policies that I do not agree with. Many policies that do not align with my faith. I haven't been able to help feeling that he got into office because so many people were won over by his charisma and promises of hope and change, and that many of his supporters did not really look at the issues for which he stands. Some of those people may really be in for a surprise in the upcoming years. I hope, however -- no, I PRAY -- that that will not be the case. That, in spite of his inexperience and highly liberal policies, his election will prove not to have been based purely on his "popularity." That Obama will be the leader that we need through the current times, as Candice so poignantly noted.

So, thank you again for bringing me back to Scripture and God's call to us to honor and respect our leaders.

[1. John said the following at 11:02 AM on Jan 20:]

1

Lincoln actually violated the constitution by what he and the republicans did.

Good show by stating he is the first "black" president, NOT "african-american".

Stupidest phrase in the English language.

If his father were a dutch south african, would we be calling him "african-american"?

Either way it's too bad he's not conservative.

Bottom line, our country is the greatest and today's inauguration demonstrates that.

[2. Susan said the following at 11:30 AM on Jan 20:]

2

Thanks for focusing our gaze on God's sovereignty and reminding us of our duty to pray for leaders.

[3. farmer Tom said the following at 11:44 AM on Jan 20:]

3

On numerous occasions, I have been accosted on this blog for my assertion that the Constitution of the United States of America is the preeminent law upon which our system of government is based. I have even suggested that those who claim to Love God, followers of Jesus Christ, should treat the Constitution in a manner similar to how we treat the written Law of God. (Again, I'm not saying they are the same, rather, the Law of God should be our guide for faith and practice, and in the secular realm, the Constitution should be our standard for how we relate to our government.)

So today Barak Hussein Obama stood on the podium in front of not only the nation but the world, and said the following,

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Seems to me that the oath of office suggests that the overarching/mandatory requirement for the President of the United States is very simple. Follow the Constitution as it is written.

Adam and Eve were given one simple command in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 2:

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

One simple command, just one, and they failed.

As BHO takes office, he has one simple task. To follow the Constitution of the United States of America. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

And to those of you who are offended by this comment, why? Is it that you also want to do things which the Constitution does not allow? Are you wanting change which is unlawful, because you do not want to obey the law?

[4. Saidahwk said the following at 12:02 PM on Jan 20:]

4

God bless America and God help our new President.

[5. Dan Real Name said the following at 12:19 PM on Jan 20:]

5

Thanks Candice for not taking a partisan stance. I do not believe the Obama is the Messiah, nor do I believe that he is the anti-Christ. He is where the Lord wants him to be.

[6. Jenny said the following at 12:25 PM on Jan 20:]

6

Thank you, Candice, for taking us back to Scripture today. This morning was rather solemn, if not sorrowful, for me as I watched the inauguration, because I am concerned that our new president may not be as wise and God-honoring as he needs to be. Your words, and the words of our Heavenly Father, were just what I needed--a reminder that God is in control and has brought this man to power for His good purposes. It's our job now to obey him and pray for him and let the Lord take care of everything else!

[7. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:30 PM on Jan 20:]

7

Farmer Tom says:

And to those of you who are offended by this comment, why? Is it that you also want to do things which the Constitution does not allow? Are you wanting change which is unlawful, because you do not want to obey the law?

They believe the Constitution should be flexible, so we can interpret as we see fit, for the needs of modern society. It's like the Pharisees: they engaged in creative exposition of Scripture to manufacture the right to circumvent God's Law, all under the guise of obedience via tradition.

Never mind that the Founders had a process for change: a Constitutional Amendment process. That process is necessarily difficult, because the Founders understood that a change in the Constitution would be monumental in its impact on current and future generations.

That means they were not open to flexible interpretations that allowed the expansion of government powers beyond their specified role.

Sadly, people often forget that the Founders wrote the Constitution to limit government, not the people.

[8. Jami said the following at 1:00 PM on Jan 20:]

8

I agree entirely with Candice, but even so, come, Lord Jesus.

[9. Simon said the following at 1:01 PM on Jan 20:]

9

Farmer Tom (2), don't expect his oath of office to mean much. He apparently swore on the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln swore on. And Lincoln repeatedly acted in defiance of the Constitution. See Myth #4 here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html

[10. Laura said the following at 1:01 PM on Jan 20:]

10

Thanks for this. I definitely welled up watching the inauguration, realizing that, without the blood and sacrifice of those whose convictions compelled them to march undaunted despite snapping dogs and firehoses and police beatings and lynchings, all the way to the Capitol, Obama could not have stood on the Mall today and spoken to us -- even those of us who disagree with many of his policies.

I, for one, thank God that I am alive to see this day, and that I am free to oppose Obama's policy decisions while praising God for his grace to this nation.

[11. (The Canadian) Andrew R said the following at 1:03 PM on Jan 20:]

11

That ceremony was one of the most beautiful things I have ever witnessed.

[12. Liln said the following at 1:17 PM on Jan 20:]

12

Thank you for this reminder. I watched Mr. Obama take his oath and make his speech. Although I also did not vote for this ticket, I am praying that President Obama leads this country in a manner which, at the least, does minimal damage and much good.

Do I agree with him? No.

Can I pray for him and all involved in his administration? Absolutely.

And that's all I have to say about this. The Lord's will be done.

[13. Adam said the following at 1:18 PM on Jan 20:]

13

Thank you. This is the first positive blog out of Boundlessline that I've seen concerning our new President.

[14. Carrie (the original) said the following at 1:42 PM on Jan 20:]

14

Dan #5 - if you don't want to believe he is the anti-Christ, can I??

(let the comments fire at-will)

[15. Jethro said the following at 1:47 PM on Jan 20:]

15

The US is the 'greatest country on earth' hey? Seems pretty insulting to all your overseas readers...

That sort of statement reminds me of the kind of things 5 year old boys say to each other in the playground 'my daddy is stronger than your daddy'.

[16. kevin hartman said the following at 1:55 PM on Jan 20:]

16

I voted for Ralph Nader (gasp!!), and still I think the inauguration was a very humbling--yet inspiring--ceremony. I was glad to watch it and be a part of this country.

[17. Louise from Chicago said the following at 2:03 PM on Jan 20:]

17

Comment 14, you may believe that my pet cat is my anti-Christ, it doesn't mean that he actually is!

Believe whatever you want, ma'am.

I for one couldn't possibly care less.

[18. farmer Tom said the following at 2:15 PM on Jan 20:]

18

9. Simon,

Agreed.

[19. Nicole said the following at 2:18 PM on Jan 20:]

19

This might be off topic but it's something I've wondered about for a while.
Why is it that whenever I've watched the nightly news our previous president was almost always referred to as, "Mr." Bush instead of "President" Bush? Is that common for a man who currently holds this office to be called "Mr."? ( well, unless he's being called "Mr. President") For some reason it always seemed a little disrespectful to me, and I can't help but wonder how the media will refer to our new president. Just curious...

[20. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:36 PM on Jan 20:]

20

For some reason it always seemed a little disrespectful to me, and I can't help but wonder how the media will refer to our new president. Just curious...

I had that issue during the debate between Obama and McCain before the elections.

Obama would address McCain as "John".

McCain would address Obama as "Senator Obama".

It bothered me.

[21. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:38 PM on Jan 20:]

21

But then again, Nicole...

On Ted's most recent post (Good Luck, Mr. President), P&P is hitting on a good point...

That its ok for us to have bashed our president for the last 8 years, but heaven forbid anyone criticize the president now...

[22. TINA said the following at 2:44 PM on Jan 20:]

22

This article clearly represents GODS heart..awesome.....As a body of believers we are to except and pray for our leaders regardless..thank you for pointing out the "respect" some disagreed with me about that on a different post...To all who think he is the antichrist... point? Are you ready if he is? time will tell but to go round and round about it will not change whats to come whether it is in our time or not....God tells us no one knows the day of Jesus return not even Jesus...so what that says to me, dont waste time trying to figure it out....we know it is a absolute we just dont know the appointed time.....and yes there are many scriptures that warn us and prepare us for the years of destruction before Christ returns and after..Could it possibly be we will see this in our time??? I know one thing i dont want to be left in the field.....while there is breath in a man there is hope..Go out and preach the Gospel...We are ambassadors of Christ...Pray for discernment so you wont be casting pearls before swine and keep pressing towards the mark....

[23. Tami said the following at 2:59 PM on Jan 20:]

23

"Mister" is the proper title, since George Washington's time. The term used to be quite formal, actually.

[24. Paul said the following at 3:34 PM on Jan 20:]

24

Yes, congratulations. Your election was even reasonably democratic this time :P

[25. Dan Real Name said the following at 3:36 PM on Jan 20:]

25

Carrie the Original post #14:

You are welcome to believe Obama is the anti-christ, but I and the rest of us would appreciate if you could post here a detailed scriptural defense as to why you think he is the anti-christ.

BTW, notice I said scriptural defense. Your arguments will be ignored if you reference any tribulation or end times movie, the Constitution, or any reference to any political party.

Lastly, my comments should not be taken as an endorsement of Obama.

[26. daydream11 said the following at 4:24 PM on Jan 20:]

26

Um, we do not live in the greatest country on Earth. I love this country to pieces, even when it's horrible, but though it is great, it's not the greatest. Such a country does not exist here on Earth.

Anyway, I totally agree with Farmer Tom (#3). As far as I'm concerned, my faith has nothing to do with my government, and I don't apologize for keeping that stance and belief. In fact, I believe that it's completely dangerous to mix faith and government, because faith is not government and government is not faith, and therefore they do not belong together. America is not a theocracy, nor was it ever, nor was it ever intended to be, and we need to keep it that way. If you have issues with the country's morality, keep it out of the Capitol, please.

[27. Carrie said the following at 4:39 PM on Jan 20:]

27

2 Cor 11:4-15

[28. mrs.spit said the following at 4:51 PM on Jan 20:]

28

Ahem,

some of us in Canada like to believe that we live in the best country on earth.

Just saying. . .

[29. Don said the following at 5:03 PM on Jan 20:]

29

I did not watch the inauguration; but if it makes a difference, I've never watched any inauguration. I always seem to have better things to do than watch that on television.

On a related note, I heard a story from a principal about a boy from Estonia who, several weeks after the U.S. election, asked if Mr. Obama was getting his army together. Slightly confused, the principal asked why he would have an army. The boy explained that he would need an army to kill the other president so that he could take over.

Thankfully, that never happens in the United States.

[30. Christina (in green) said the following at 5:21 PM on Jan 20:]

30

Dan Real Name (#25),

Those tribulation books...

Obama is already out cuz he's not from the heart of Europe.

He hasn't won the support of the world (yet...lol).

When he starts working with Israel and Hamas to rebuild the temple and gets them BOTH to agree to worship there...with CHRISTIANS, then I'll know something is fishy ;)

Until then, he is just a man with some screwed up ideal of what is best for his daughters (abortion) who seems to be quite in earnest about what he wants to do. He has high ideals that I find commendable with some policy plans I find deplorable.

Though I do think he'll win in not being your typical politician.

[31. Dan Real Name said the following at 6:00 PM on Jan 20:]

31

Carrie post#27:

You still haven't explained why Obama is the anti-christ. Here is 2 Cor 11:4-15 STRAIGTH from Biblegateway.com (I highlighted the verse and did an CTRL-C to copy, and then CTRL-V to paste, just so you know that I didn't edit the verse in any way):

"4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.
7Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. 9And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. 10As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! 12And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."

Carrie, this verse is Paul discussion false apostles who preach a different gospel. Context!

How does this say Obama is the anti-christ? This verse could be used to say MOST people are the anti-christ. Oprah is the anti-christ. Phil Donahue is the a/c. Any of your or my unsaved relatives are the a/c. Remember, the anti-christ is a distinct individual. There is the "spirit of the anti-christ" but Obama cannot be THE anti-christ.

[32. Dan Real Name said the following at 6:14 PM on Jan 20:]

32

Christina (in green) #30:

Here is where this issue gets my goat. There seems to be this almost knee-jerk reaction that us Christians engage in: Anything political that happens here in the USA is usually forced into some end-times scenario, especially when it has to do with a democrat being in office. I do understand that all of history is leading up to Christ's second return, but I think we need to make sure we are not using our feelings about democrats and our political leanings to influence sound thinking (i.e., taking bible verses out of context and inserting our pet theories into them).

I was discussing this with a co-worker (who really has done alot of study on end-times prophecy), and we both see how the world's reaction to Obama can be a type of forshadowing of how the world will react to the anti-christ, but that this doesn't make him THE anti-christ.

Again, my standard disclaimer: My above statements do NOT reflect an endorsement of Obama.

[33. dana111 said the following at 6:50 PM on Jan 20:]

33

Thanks for the post, Candice. It was balanced and thoughtful. Though I did vote for Obama, I am never looked at him as anything more than a politician. He will not can cannot solve anything, really.

And neither could Bush.

[34. Kelly said the following at 7:10 PM on Jan 20:]

34

"Because we live in the greatest country on earth."

What?!?

And that, my friends, is one of the classic reasons why many nations resent America.

If I had to pick a country that I'd call the greatest, I wouldn't even know where to start!

[35. Chris said the following at 7:12 PM on Jan 20:]

35

The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

We rebelled against England and things seemed to turn out OK.

I agree this is the best country on Earth and we've got one of the better systems of government. But when said government fails to serve the purpose for which it was established and we cannot change it through our democratic process, we have the right, nay the duty, to rebel, tear it down, and replace it with a government we deem best fit to serve our purposes.

(I'm not saying it will ever happen, but if it does, we have the moral authority to rebel. Every freedom loving people does.)

[36. Noelle said the following at 7:36 PM on Jan 20:]

36

Well, I did vote for President Obama and I'll be watching the inauguration because it is proof that God gives even when we don't deserve. I praise God for his grace and mercy on this nation. I'm not sure why so many Christians are obsessed with Republicans and their pitifully empty anti-abortion platforms but there is no doubt in my mind that Obama is a God-fearing man. Note: I am fiercely anti-abortion but I am not blind- no Republican has done anything about abortion after running on an anti-abortion platform. I have been praying for him ever since the night he won the election and I will continue to pray for him and his family. I will continue to pray for their safety and for God to give him the wisdom he needs to guide this nation over the next 4 (8!?!) years.

[37. Brent1776 said the following at 8:05 PM on Jan 20:]

37

Here is a different interpretation.

Pray Obama Fails

Cliff Notes: We are called to obey God and not submit to laws God deems wicked.

According to the interpretation Candice relates, the American Revolution was a defiance of God's choice of the English King to rule over the colonies.

Dan Barton writes that it was this interpretation that resulted in the "“Divine Right of Kings” philosophy.
Was the American Revolution a Biblically Justified Act?

Thoughts?

[38. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:18 PM on Jan 20:]

38

Here's something sensible from the UK to balance the Obamessiah worship that comes from what passes for objective journalism these days.

Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears
by Gerald Warner
The Telegraph (UK),
20 Jan 2009

This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence — la trahison des clercs — in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.

...

To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union.

It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.

Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).

...

It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.

These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.

[39. Amelia said the following at 8:38 PM on Jan 20:]

39

The claim that the US is the greatest country on earth is probably the cause of much of that bomb lobbing.

[40. TINA said the following at 8:46 PM on Jan 20:]

40

#27 Carrie- 1John2:18,1John2:22,2John:7-refer to the Antichrist..Corinthians11:4-15 Paul was speaking out of concern for their faithfulness 1-4,5-15 he was speaking of false apostles...now if you are calling our now President a false apostles this scripture would fit...If you are calling him "THE ANTICHRIST",as in the "one" it does not...

[41. TINA said the following at 9:11 PM on Jan 20:]

41

I am just wondering if any have thought about this....I personally think Martin Luther King was a great visionary,A man ahead of his time to pave a day such as today.....Do you think people back then thought he was the Antichrist???hmm i wonder....I did not vote for our now President for my political reasons....I wish Powell would run he would definitely get my vote....in any event it was a record breaking day for the black community something Martin Luther King would have been very proud of...He most assuredly set the race to break the barriers for his heritage. Me being of Italian descent growing up was a bit confusing on this subject matter thank God that does not stand true today...

[42. Keith said the following at 9:22 PM on Jan 20:]

42

Two thoughts:

1. America is NOT the greatest country in the world. It is a great country. Like other nations, it has its share of strengths and weaknesses.

2. Obama is not "black." He is biracial, of Caucasion and African descent. He spent much of his childhood in Indonesia, and then Hawaii, before living in Chicago - It is unclear how you could define him. Defining him by just one of his multiple ethic origins would be inaccurate. His race and experiences are nothing to the real struggles of many African Americans who grew up in mainland America.

[43. Kate (who is applying to law school!) said the following at 9:58 PM on Jan 20:]

43

Ok, I *love* Inauguration Day. I love the pomp, the ceremony, the reminder of how lucky I am to live in a country where power is transferred peacefully . . . My name is Kate and I am an enthusiastic government dork. It was so exciting! I watched the entire ceremony, went to work and than watched clips of the inaugural balls. Whatever your politics are, you could not watch the first dance of the President and First Lady without tearing up. Michelle Obama was so beautiful and they both looked so much in love. I can't wait to get a closer look at the gown when it's placed in the First Lady exhibit in the Smithsonian. Did I mention I'm a total dork?

daydream11- I totally agree. Government getting involved in religion makes me queasy. It's one thing to just broadly state: I want a Christian county. But what domination of Christianity? Do we require people to demonstrate belief for rights and services? What about those who believe otherwise?

.You're opening a huge can of worms with that. I like my Church and State like my salad and salad dressing, separate.

PS- As a single young woman, I have decided to hint to future suitors that I would adore to be escorted to the next Inaugural Ball in four years . . . I'll start saving for my Carolina Herrera gown now. :)

[44. beatrice81 said the following at 10:07 PM on Jan 20:]

44

I don't know anybody who -- to quote the strange phrase in the headline -- is "celebrating Inauguration Day". Nobody travelled in caravans across the country to celebrate a day. Millions of citizens didn't swarm into the capital to celebrate a day. Networks didn't provide nonstop coverage to celebrate a day.

The worldwide attention, excitement, and hope were to celebrate the inauguration of a new President -- someone who can put an end to the eight-year reign of war, incompetence, torture, economic failure, etc.

"The greatest country on earth?" Welll, aside from sounding like the silly boast of a schoolboy, the claim is dubious, especially in light of Gitmo, Katrina, Abu Ghraib. Perhaps once. Perhaps again, but not without a lot of time and repair work.

[45. Byron Holmes said the following at 11:03 PM on Jan 20:]

45

I am amazed at all of the post-modern
behavior in these blogs by professing Christians.

It is time for Christians to stand for something other than the popular culture.

Who is going to call sin, sin?

We don't need compromise in the Church.

How anyone can say that the Barack Obama is the one that God has for our nation is beyond my comprehension.

Authority is established by God as the Scripture says but it is our responsibility in our country to vote for leaders who align themselves on the great moral issues with the Word of God.

This man, who supports the destruction of unborn children, in the most heinous way inside the mother's womb
and then votes multiple-times against the Infant Born Alive Act which allows a baby which survived an abortion to live outside the womb to be destroyed is not God's choice.

No great surprise: the divorce rate in the Church is equal to the cultures and the "emerging church" is more concerned about pseudo-science regarding global-warming and the environment more than concerned about the our our fallen, spiritual environment that exists in our country today.

There is nothing to celebrate in the election of a president with the views held by Barack Obama on numerous issues from abortion, to stem-cell research to affirmation of the tragic lifestyle of many practicing homosexuals and lesbians.

I am happy that our country is willing to put race aside in electing the president of the United States.

My wife comes from a different ethnicity than I do.

However, the election of a person of any ethnic identity should not preclude moral clarity and Judeo-Christian values.

Does our new president need prayer? Yes, absolutely he does and we will do so, but we MUST to continue to fight the good fight for Christian principles that affect our families, our culture and our world.

It is our responsibility to be light unto the world, not to be fodder for the world.

We must occupy what God has given us in this great land until the return of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Pray for forgiveness for our nation and salvation and guidance for our leaders.

[46. Elizabeth H. said the following at 11:05 PM on Jan 20:]

46

I, too, was struck by the peaceful transfer of power that we enjoy in this country. Although things sometimes get nasty on the campaign trail, I'm always thankful for the gracious welcoming of the new president and sending off of the former.

I have to agree with others though that I'm uncomfortable by your comment about the U.S.A. being the "greatest"...not because I'm afraid of insulting anyone, but because I do not think it is true. President Obama also made comments to that effect in his speech. The U.S. needs to take a lesson in humility.

[47. Reno Panther said the following at 12:11 AM on Jan 21:]

47

The bible calls on us to rejoice with those who rejoice and there are many, in the spirit of Rev. MLK rejoicing today. And then to pray for our leaders. I think that both are in order.

[48. Mike Theemling said the following at 1:31 AM on Jan 21:]

48

It was a very good inaugeration ceremony. I'm glad that it was peaceful, and liked how Pres Obama mentioned both the realties of our situation and the hope for our country's future.

Still, as some political pundits have commented (even those that supported him), there's style and charisma, and then there's substance and getting things done.

The reality is that most Presidents do not do enact many of their campaign promises until their second term, as the first term is used to build alliances and gain political capital. And depending how things play out, Pres Obama might not have a second term. But who knows what the future will bring.

[49. Miriam (expat) said the following at 5:53 AM on Jan 21:]

49

Thanks Candice, for reminding of us of why we need to honour our rulers and authorities. It's not something that we focus on much these days, I think, but God does talk to us specifically about it, so we should listen and obey. It's good to be reminded.

[50. Kiwi Bloke said the following at 6:40 AM on Jan 21:]

50

Candice, and Commenter #1,
Please be aware that statements claiming that the United States is the "greatest country on earth" are considered quite offensive to those of us from other countries. Such statements are one of the reasons non-Americans often think of Americans as being arrogant. I know that's an unfair stereotype, one that is unfitting of the many lovely Americans I personally call friends, but it's nevertheless a stereotype that many people around the world hold, and such statements as yours don't do much to help the matter.

It may be true that the United States is a *great* country - I don't deny that - but the United States certainly does not hold a monopoly on greatness. There are many other nations that are equally great. Candice gives the reasons for her claim as being her system of government, "a system that derives its authority from the people". Do you really believe, Candice, that the United States is the only democratic nation on earth? Or the only nation founded on biblical principals, such as those found in your Constitution? I certainly hope not; that would be quite naive!

Indeed, if one were to truly attempt to determine the greatness of nations, one would have to consider many other factors, such as quality of life, cost of living, nature & scenery, crime rates, employment, and so on. Taking such things into account, the United States would not be at the top of the list (in fact surveys have already been done in the past to determine the best city or country to live in, taking into account many factors, and the results usually place the United States outside of even the top 10 - see here for example). In any case, it would be inappropriate and arrogant to label a country as "greatest" even based on such a survey.

Let's take such a statement to it's logical conclusion: if the United States really is the greatest nation on earth, that means ALL other nations on earth are inferior to the United States. Which, by extension, implies that the citizens of all other nations are also inferior to the citizens of the United States. Right? That's really what you're saying. And that sounds awfully racist if you ask me. If the United States is the greatest because of its people (as Candice implies in her post), then other nations must be less great because of their people. So their people are inferior. Hmm - how far could we take that argument?

Where I come from, in NZ, equality is one of the fundamental aspects of our culture - it's a core part of the Kiwi mindset (one of the reasons why we were the first nation on earth to give women the right to vote, for example). However I think your Thomas Jefferson had something to say about equality too, when he penned the Declaration of Independence...

[51. Priscilla said the following at 6:58 AM on Jan 21:]

51

Like many of you, I watched Barack Obama take the Oath of Office last night, and like many of you, I prayed for him and his family, recalling those verses from Psalms 2 and and Proverbs 21, and committing him to the hands of the God who is the ultimate ruler of the universe, to whom belongs all power. So Candace, I think your post on Inauguration Day is apt -- mostly.

Here's the part that makes me roll my eyes: "Because we live in the greatest country on earth."

Where do Americans get this kind of massive ego from? Are you all born with it in your genes or something? :)

I'm kidding with the trash talk, but honestly, what do you base that statement on? (No Biblical support for that one, I notice!)

If it's just some national pride on a big day for you, fine. Most people, of most nations, would swell up with pride and emotion on such an occasion. But the problem seems to be that many Americans actually seem to believe that their country is in fact, the world's greatest. And unfortunately, they act on that mistaken belief. And when your government acts on that kind of belief, it's not good for the rest of the world.

So I'm honestly curious. In your post, you follow up that statement with some justifiably proud words about a peaceful transfer of power, a democratic government and a commitment to liberty and freedom. So...do you honestly not know that there are a number of countries around the globe who also conduct regular, democratic elections, peacably transfer power and are committed to freedom? Americans didn't invent the concepts, nor are you the best implementors of them, as all the world has seen.

You're right that America is a great country, and the values of your founding fathers as well as your economic prosperity has attracted many from around the world over the years. But the 'greatest country on earth'? That's merely unfounded egomania. You might do well to re-read Proverbs 16:18. I pray that you will take it to heart.

[52. Eliza said the following at 7:14 AM on Jan 21:]

52

I just heard this morning that out of the 2 million people gathered at the National Mall yesterday, there were zero arrests. That's pretty amazing!

[53. Sarah said the following at 8:04 AM on Jan 21:]

53

If that authority doesn't realize God placed em there and if the authority goes against our principles, that is when we don't have to listen to them. For example, how about when the anti-Christ comes are we going to submit to his will when he is forcing us Christians to take the mark of the beast?! NO!

Come on Christians! Obama is already planning on signing the Freedom of Choice Act where abortion will be completely legal to the point where they are going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Bishops are already saying that they will close down those hospitals if the bill gets passed. That is more than 30% of all hospitals.

Obama has an agenda, he wants to end culture wars by shutting us pro-lifers up by signing FOCA. When he was senator of Illinois, he was one of the few that voted against keeping the babies that survived abortions.

If that doesn't get your blood boiling, if that doesn't cause your heart to break for what breaks God's heart (which is suppose to be part of our prayer) than heaven help you. I personally believe, there is no point to living the Christian life if you can't even fight against the most obvious of evils.

[54. TINA said the following at 10:24 AM on Jan 21:]

54

#42Keith-his heritage may consist of multiple nationalities black is one of them so it is part of who he is ethnic wise....and to some who like to use Adolph Hitler as a example...Germany is not set up the same way as America..in America we have a little word that speaks great volume"freedom"...and when Hitler reigned Germany was controlled by the governments sadistic views on Jewish people,and how to run a country theY did not have the option to "fight" for what is ethnically, morally, politically, biblically correct at capitol hill...Hitler i believe biblical reefers to those little Antichrist that will one day undoubtedly lead to the big one...only Gods appoint time will tell if this is the time at hand...

[55. dundurn said the following at 10:47 AM on Jan 21:]

55

A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest", but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is. -Sydney J. Harris, journalist and author (1917-1986)
excerpted from Wordsmith.org

[56. Jason said the following at 11:00 AM on Jan 21:]

56

I agree entirely with this post. But one small quibble: We're so used to partisan fighting that we assume incorrectly that a change in party means a strident change in ideology. [Omitting libertarian rant here.] [Omitting other libertarian rant against other libertarians.] But I'm content to say that former President Bush was correct when he said a "good man" became president yesterday.

[57. Jo said the following at 11:04 AM on Jan 21:]

57

Christina:
"He has high ideals that I find commendable with some policy plans I find deplorable."

That perfectly sums up my opinion of Obama too.

Interesting article from the Telegraph in #38. All the more interesting because it identifies abortion as 'slaughter of the innocents'. I'm genuinely surprised and overjoyed that someone would write that in a respected UK newspaper. I though the abortion fight was lost long ago over here.

And yeah, I cringed at the 'greatest country in the world' bit too. I just would never dream of making that kind of statement. Maybe I'd see it differently if I was American. :/

[58. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:14 AM on Jan 21:]

58

RE: my Scripture reference.

I didn't have time to expand, just post quickly.

After some consideration, I have realized that calling Obama the anti-Christ is a little . . . dramatic.

However, taking into consideration 2 Cor 11 - the warnings of false teachings and it's statement that Satan masquerades himself as an angel of light - I can't help but wonder at the similarities.

Obama has puffed himself up into this great servant of the people and has not shunned the Messiah mentality that has helped usher him into the most powerful office on earth.
Yet, he is not giving credit where credit is due.
All the pro-lifers are trembling because of his promise to the pro-choice movement of signing into existence the Freedom of Choice Act that will ensure the repeal of every bit of legislative progress the pro-life movement has made.
Teenagers would require less parental involvement in the decision of an abortion than if they were to take an asprin in school.
Like Herod, another former anti-Christ candidate, Obama has advocated nothing for those who truly need our help.

[59. A.M.C. said the following at 11:38 AM on Jan 21:]

59

Re: Sarah (#53)

Obama is already planning on signing the Freedom of Choice Act where abortion will be completely legal to the point where they are going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Bishops are already saying that they will close down those hospitals if the bill gets passed. That is more than 30% of all hospitals.

Obama has an agenda, he wants to end culture wars by shutting us pro-lifers up by signing FOCA. When he was senator of Illinois, he was one of the few that voted against keeping the babies that survived abortions.

No, the culture war would not be over simply because a legislation is passed. If Obama does sign the FOCA, it would be time for us pro-lifers to seriously consider defending the lives of the unborn with our very own lives. In the case of the hospitals, for example, forcing the issue by practicing civil disobedience (i.e. intentionally breaking the law that would require hospitals to provide abortions) might be necessary.

[60. Candice Watters said the following at 2:41 PM on Jan 21:]

60

Kiwi Bloke, what I meant by my "greatest" comment was that our system of government is the best of all known systems. It doesn't always produce the greatest results, and there are certainly many flaws in every country this side of heaven, but I stand by my love of my nation. I do think it's the best. Hopefully you feel that way about your country, too!

[61. Darren said the following at 2:42 PM on Jan 21:]

61

Though I strongly disagree with some stances taken by our new President, I wish him well and success. While I can appreciate the historical proportions of yesterday, regarding equality in race, I am discouraged by the historical proportions of yesterday, regarding the potential increase of a moral decline in our nation.

But with all due respect for the position of our commander and chief, I will pray for President Obama and his family, and at the same time I will become more involved than ever.

Let's remember - the President is not a King. He is a public servant whose job is to defend the Constitution and it is our job to hold him accountable to that. The best thing we can do for him and for our country is to stay informed and to react as led by the Spirit of God - not by emotional hysteria.

[62. Sara said the following at 4:17 PM on Jan 21:]

62

"I just heard this morning that out of the 2 million people gathered at the National Mall yesterday, there were zero arrests. That's pretty amazing!"

It's maybe kind of funny, and maybe my standards are low, but that brought tears to my eyes! :)

Also, I have to say, that as an atheist, I was glad that when he listed off Hindus, Christians, Muslims, he included 'non-believers'. I've never heard us recognized in public like that by a governor, even though there are so many of us who vote.

[63. Leah said the following at 4:53 PM on Jan 21:]

63

I'm curious as to why Carrie (14)'s comment was allowed to be published.

What does it add to the discussion? It appears to me that it adds nothing but rather is trying to light the flame of debate for the sake of it. Not necessary.

Mike THeemling said there's style and charisma, and then there's substance and getting things done.
Oh, how true. Our Prime Minister is full of the first two and seriously lacks the second two.

I also have to laugh at the claim that the US is the greatest country on earth and the subsequent comments. What do you mean by "greatest"? Coz if you mean "best", I think you're in for a surprise. My husband is an immigrant from South Africa and I have a LOT of other south-african-immigrant friends, and from what I can gather, most migrants from South Africa would rather go to Australia or New Zealand than the US.

[64. Jeremy said the following at 5:12 PM on Jan 21:]

64

#53, #59 --

The Freedom of Choice Act "issue" is little more than a way to whip up a frenzy on either side of the abortion debate. The bill was introduced in 2004 and has never gone anywhere but to committee. There is nowhere near enough support to get it passed.

Obama said he would sign it as a way to endear himself to the rabidly pro-choice crowd, and a number of religious organizations keep bringing it up as a way to stir up the passions of the rabidly pro-life crowd. It is a little ridiculous on both sides, and CERTAINLY not justification for breaking the law.

[65. Kiwi Bloke said the following at 5:27 PM on Jan 21:]

65

Candice (#60),
That still doesn't make sense. While I certainly agree that your/our general system of government - democracy - is the best known system, that doesn't justify saying that your country is the greatest. The word "greatest" is a superlative, meaning that it excludes all others. It would have been more accurate for you to say that you live in "one of" the greatest nations on earth, or that you live in "a great" nation. (It could even be debatable whether or not the United States' implementation of democracy is the best - there are several ways of doing democracy, and other democratic countries, such as my own, do it in different ways to the States, and it's of course only a matter of opinion as to which way is the best or most effective - but it's certainly not a fact that US democracy is the *best* flavour of democracy - it's merely *one* flavour out of many. But I digress).

So, now you're also saying that you think your country is the best! That's the same thing as saying it's the greatest. If the United States is the "best" country in the world, then all other countries by definition must be less-than-best, ie. inferior in comparison.

I certainly don't consider NZ to be the best country in the world. NZ is a lovely country, and I'm a proud and patriotic Kiwi, but for me to consider her the best country in the world would be rather arrogant of me. In any case, it's logically impossible for both NZ and the US to be the best countries. If I think NZ is the best country, and you think the US is the best country, then one of us must be wrong.

Anyway, the key point that I'm wanting to make - and a number of other posters here have also made - is that when Americans make such statements as "we're the greatest nation on earth", it makes them look arrogant and inappropriately prideful in the eyes of the rest of the world, and it only serves to fuel anti-American sentiments. I even heard President Bush make this statement once. I doubt that helped his international popularity.

[66. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:37 PM on Jan 21:]

66

The cult of the Obamessiah should be great cause for concern. After all, he was merely the junior senator of Illinois with no executive experience, sat under the preaching of a racist and heretical pastor for 20 years, launched his career in the home of unrepentant domestic terrorists Ayers and Dohrn, opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act making him more pro-abortion even than NARAL, promised to sign the radically pro-abortion "Freedom of Choice Act", and wants to spread other people's wealth around (not his own) ... yet instead of objective journalism, we had Chris Matthews exulting that Obama speaking made a thrill go up his leg and such extreme pro-Obama bias that even the Washington Post ombudsman admitted it.

[67. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:38 PM on Jan 21:]

67

Candice Watters: "Because we live in the greatest country on earth."

Not so. Australia is superior for the following reasons:

* Our laws are still made by our elected representatives, not by unelected philosopher-kings sometimes called "activist judges".

* America's backward plurality voting (aka "first past the post) is inferior to Australia's preferential voting system. That is, People list all the candidates they want in order of preference, with 1 the best, 2 the second and so on. If no candidate wins an absolute majority (50% + 1 of valid votes cast) of primary votes, look at the second preferences, and distribute them, until a candidate is preferred by a majority.

In America, the will of the people is thwarted by "spoilers" who actually hurt the candidates closest to them. I.e. in CA, a majority of voters might prefer a liberal candidate, but if an extra one stands, he draws votes from the Democrat, and a Republican might win even though voters would prefer a liberal candidate. Also, in primaries, a popular position attracts a large number of candidates, splitting the vote, allowing a candidate for an unpopular position to win even though he is not preferred by the majority. [See, I've given a politically neutral, balanced examples of the problems].

* Australia's government partly funds private schools. This is not as good as a voucher or tax rebate system, but goes at least part of the way to parental choice.

* Religious education is allowed in schools. Activist judges who hallucinate the phrase "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution although it's not there have abolished even prayer.

* We have personal retirement accounts, where we can invest the way we choose. GWB tried to reform America's retirement system part-way towards something similar to Australia's model, but the gutless Republican (aka Dem-Lite) majority wouldn't back him. So Americans are stuck with the fraudulent "social security" Ponzi scheme, which doesn't even give them any right to their SS "contributions" and will soon be insolvent.

* America has an unjust double taxation system on stock dividends. That is, an owner of a stock is a part owner of a company. A dividend may be paid out of the company's earnings, which are therefore the shareholder's earnings. Under the American system, the shareholder's dividend has already been diminished by the tax the company has paid, then the shareholder is taxed again for the dividend.

Under Australia's just dividend imputation, the tax that has already been paid by the company is imputed, i.e. credited, to the shareholder's account as tax already paid, so is not taxed twice. If America adopted Australia's system, it would make investment more attractive and do far more to stimulate the economy than Congress throwing trillions of dollars of pork around.

* Finally: Australians don't see the need to tell everyone that they live in the best country in the world :P

PS: I have an American wife and daughter, so don't take this as anti-American :)

[68. BDB said the following at 7:09 PM on Jan 21:]

68

OK, apparently #1 and #14 were offensive comments, which have now been replaced by copies of the comments complaining about them...I'm so confused...

Yesterday morning someone did ask me how many countries had democratic transitions of power. I guessed 30, but maybe it's more.

By that I mean peaceful transitions where one party loses an election, and transfers power to the other party. the first time that happened in the U.S. was the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800. The other side was NOT happy about this.

The reason this works is that the President actually is very limited in power. There are more than 89,000 elected offices in the U.S., each of which has a little slice of Soveiegnty. If the President's dog is running around loose and the elected dog catcher picks it up, he legally has to go through the process of paying for the license/fine and get the dog back out.

I find it amusing that Obama keeps getting compared to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President during WWII. FDR is the guy who imprisoned all the American citizens of Japanese descent without trial - a breach of civil liberties vastly worse than anything done by the outgoing Bush administration. Last night I was watching a thing on the History Channel on FDR and how he was corresponding secretly with Winston Churchill promising U.S. involvement in WWII, while publically promising the public (during the 1940 election) that he would never bring the country into that war. And yet today, President Obama has the audacity to talk about government transparency as if the Bush administration was the secretive one! Hello dude, look at your role model!

But I do note that the U.S. is the most liberal when it comes to freedom of th press; U.S. commentators keep getting convicted in Australian, Canadian and U.K. courts for libel, when the statements were made in the U.S. in U.S. media and are protected speech in the U.S. Some countries are of course much worse. If I have something political to say, the U.S. is definitely the best place in the world to be.

I had some Swedes come visit me a year ago. They went to the beach, and were amazed that someone had a flag out on the beach. They took pictures and put them on facebook - in Sweden they could never get away with that. And Sweden has been a Christian country for 1000 years!

There are lots of complaints that can be levelled about the way the U.S. has used its military power. While every great power has created enemies by the use of that power, America has made enough enemies that Canadians are clearly safer when travelling in some parts of the world. Some people even recommend that Americans sew Canadian flags on their luggage to make them less of a target.

So, I'm thanking God for separation-of-powers today. I know that the U.S. Constitution will protect me from too much change!

[69. Chris Ashton said the following at 9:36 PM on Jan 21:]

69

If greatness was measured by the number of unborn (and possibly soon, partially-born) babies killed, then the USA would certainly be the greatest nation on earth. However, abortion volume is not usually the litmus test for greatness.

But your assertion of American greatness is quite instructive. While you would probably not explicitly attribute to Mr Obama the messiah-like qualities that many seem to claim for him (salvation, deliverance, renewal), your claim to American greatness suggests your faith in at least some sort of American uniqueness in God's plan.

And for someone who quotes, and -judging by your previous posts - understands, the Bible, this is an arrogant, indeed heretical stance to take.

[70. Alison said the following at 9:59 PM on Jan 21:]

70

Re: "The best country in the world" comment

As a Canadian, I have learned to not take this personally from my American friends. Though some people ignorantly mean what they say, it's mostly a cultural difference that for some reason does not transfer outside of America very well.
Non-Americans think, "why would I be so pompous to think that about my country--that's like ranking people in terms of quality! Every good person is equal!" While Americans just play by different norms, sort of like how some people engage in friendly back-and-forth one-upmanship banter.

[71. Byron Holmes said the following at 10:27 PM on Jan 21:]

71

I agree with Candace that the United States of America is the "greatest nation on earth."

No other nation in the history of mankind has fought more wars to free other people from tyranny and oppression than we have, without expectation of ruling those who we have freed.

As Colin Powell said the only ground that American soldiers have taken is to bury their dead on behalf of others.

I hope that readers of this blog will educate themselves in something else other than political correctness to omit the patently clear exceptionalism which this nation has been given by God.

This exceptionalism exists because of the organic laws of this nation, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States which value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The generosity of the American people is unmatched anywhere on the globe.

These organic laws directly address the freedoms and dignity which God Almighty allows in His Word.

This is not to say that we, as a nation have not had our failures .

However, we as a nation have sought to make rights wrong.

People in this country need to appreciate with humble gratitude the Divine Blessings of God on this nation.

Please name another country which has demonstrated its greatness without trying to build an empire or subjugating those whom we have delivered from oppression.

The exceptionalism is God-given, not pompous rhetoric.

However, if Mr. Obama's radical social agenda is pushed through and individuals blindly follow a man, not God, our exceptionalism will disappear and God's Judgment will rest with us as a people and a nation.

[72. BDB said the following at 11:09 PM on Jan 21:]

72

#67 wrote:

>>* America's backward plurality voting (aka "first past the post) is inferior to Australia's preferential voting system. <<

Nope. Preferential voting is far inferior, because individual factions can take power too easily and use the power of government to destroy other factions, whether through taxation or other means.

In The Federalist Papers, it was pointed out that urban merchants as a faction could easily vote to harm farmers because their interests are so different. This just happened in California, where the voters passed a proposition based on the size of cages chickens can live in. The people vote for it, it is law. The result will be to wipe out all the chicken-raising jobs in California and move them to Mexico; or other states which don't have these laws. It will raise the price of chicken and eggs for everyone in California - and all because urban voters haven't a clue about agriculture.

The vast superiority of plurality-based-geographical areas is that it makes a Congressman responsible for that area - everything in that area, not just his buddies. If jobs are bad in his or her district, it becomes an issue, regardless of whether the unemployed are in his party.

You're going to see a dramatic example of this play out on Global Warming. Some Democrats want to destroy the automobile industry in favor of the climate models. This will wipe out the districts of other Democrats in union areas such as Michigan. Because it's based on geography, the Democrats, within their own party, now must face the reality of how many jobs will be lost due to their policies

In preferential voting, when one faction (such as the climate-change single issue voter) takes power, they can destroy the livelihood of the other factions.

The main reason the U.S. has such a high standard of living is that things don't change much from administration to administration. Geographic-based representation goes a long ways to ensure a certain amount of economic stability.

[73. BDB said the following at 11:51 PM on Jan 21:]

73

Wow - all the input from various countries got me digging around the internet. I learned of a new country I didn't know existed - Nauru.

It seems that up until last year, their primary economic activity was serving as a processing center for refugees trying to get into Australia.

[74. TINA said the following at 4:43 AM on Jan 22:]

74

To all the best countries in the world!!!they all have good systems and ones that would need to be revised...A lot of countries call us "dumb" Americans..well that's because we keep letting you in...to make millions off our people..be able to let you go to school for free,or start a business and not have to pay tax for five years and then let you turn it over to a family member so your tax free can continue, to give less fortunate people a better life at education and for some they come to us "dumb" Americans for safety..We in America need to revise the goodness of our hearts and not let foreigners take advantage of us,or tell us what to do in our country concerning laws and what is said in schools about God because your religion does not fit ours...what made me laugh is when Bush wanted to give us all stimulus cheeks the foreign exchange was mad,Bush had to fight with them to be able to give us that money..so i guess we have become dumb..we over extend ourselves at the cost of the people..hopefully that will change and we will become stricture in letting foreigners on our soil......If we do though we would not be such a "actives" any more for promoting to make the "world" a better place... in the goodness of doing that it caused us grave expense..we should mind our own business then and let each country blow its self up if it wants??...and lets not forget how many foreigners want to marry an American so they can get in here because they know "THIS IS THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITTY"...yes our laws need to change alright...

[75. TINA said the following at 5:15 AM on Jan 22:]

75

...Just in case my opinion of America gets posted I want to say to any who is married to a American and not from this country not all of your marriage are based on that true statement....some really married for love i know that..it is a generalize comment not to be taken in offense...i would like to further ad how did Candice's beautiful heartfelt article turn into a debate about which country is the best? Did anyone look past what she was trying to accomplish in the article?or maybe some took one part of it got offended and turned it into a downward spiral which then took the focus away from her intent?...know wonders God teaches us not to take offense for this very reason it gives the enemy a foot hold.....

[76. Renata said the following at 10:56 AM on Jan 22:]

76

As someone who just returned from the Inauguration, thank you for the prayers for President Obama instead of the recent uncalled for posts by your colleague. I didn't vote for President Bush, but prayed for him and backed him in the few areas that I agreed with him (abortion, stem cell research, solutions to illegal immigration, support for HIV/AIDS monies). As a follower of Jesus, I "amen" your call for us to pray for our leaders and expect all believers, Republicans, Democrats, Independents etc to do the same. I again ask us to especially be grateful to God and pray for the example he and his family will be to American families, especially African-Americans.

[77. Candice Watters said the following at 12:04 PM on Jan 22:]

77

Let me clarify. In the words of President Lincoln, America is "the last best hope of earth."

I highly recommend Bill Bennett's books for an easy-to-read, comprehensive history of America. Get the facts, not the PC perspective. Then decide.

As Bennett writes:

An abiding sense of American greatness, of American purpose, of American exceptionalism has long characterized many of our leaders and tens of millions of the rest of us as well. We have long had hope.

I believe America is still that hope, but I also believe that our conviction about American greatness and purpose is not as strong today. Newspaper columns and television reports [and blog comments] are full of cynicism. Many express doubts about American motives on the world stage. Some Americans seem ready to believe the worst about our leaders and our country. Thinking and believing the worst certainly is not hopeful. It is my humble wish that those who read this book will find reason to reclaim some of the hope and conviction we have lost.

[78. TINA said the following at 1:19 PM on Jan 22:]

78

One nation under God for liberty and justice for all.....that's another reason people like to come to our great country..for the latter part they work really hard at trying to remove the first and most important "UNDER GOD" meaning WE THIS COUNTRY PUT OUR TRUST....The earth after all is his foot stool...

[79. TINA said the following at 1:31 PM on Jan 22:]

79

#76Renata-How great and fortunate you were to witness live what Martin Luther King fought so hard for...I so agree with you....no matter who we vote for we need to pray for them all AMEN....

[80. Jethro said the following at 4:11 PM on Jan 22:]

80

Candice (#77),

So your clarification is that America is indeed the greatest country on earth?

American exceptionalism is as stupid as German, British or Argentinian exceptionalism.

[81. John said the following at 4:40 PM on Jan 22:]

81

"Americans didn't invent the concepts, nor are you the best implementors of them, as all the world has seen."

Ah, yes, yes we did. And, yes, yes we are.

You're wrong twice.

You should take the time to study the greatest nation that's ever graced the planet before you make unsubstantiated claims.

Saying America is the greatest is an objective statement, not subjective. It's based on freedom, opportunity, standard of living, etc.

Name one country that has all those areas covered like we do.

Which country is the greatest if not US?

Can't wait to hear this.

[82. Byron Holmes said the following at 5:43 PM on Jan 22:]

82

News Flash: American exceptionalism is given by God based upon the Judeo/Christian values which are present in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Last time I looked the British, the Germans and the Argentinians in their quest for some type of hegemony in their immediate worlds did not base their exceptionalism on Christianity and Judeo/Christian values.

The exceptionalism unique to the United States is our VALUE SYSTEM, not some cosmetic appeal about any secular advantage we have.

I hope that those of you from outside the United States who have benefited from the blood our solider's have shed to make your world safe or those of you who have benefited from the financial generosity our nation has provided to the world will get over your envy and vitriol and thank God that one nation, the United States of America, has always been willing to assist in the struggle for human freedom and individual dignity.

[83. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:31 PM on Jan 22:]

83

BDB seems to have confused preferential voting with proportional representation, which the Founders rightly opposed. Please study what PV actually means (I did explain it). It would still make a "Congressman responsible for that area".

But we saw the problem of plurality voting when the moderate McCain was selected in the GOP Primaries, because the conservative vote was split.

BDB also claims, "But I do note that the U.S. is the most liberal when it comes to freedom of the press". Yet America has the freedom-oppressing McCain–Feingold incumbent protection law, which GWB signed in a dereliction of his oath to defend the Constitution. Pro-life groups had to fight this, while the supposedly pro-life McCain favoured prosecuting them

As for "land of the free", America has more trade barriers than Australia. Why do you think Americans pay exorbitant prices for lamb meat? Because ineffient sheep farmers successfully lobbied Congress for protection against lamb imports from Australia and New Zealand. Why have companies like Lifesavers moved to other countries, taking their jobs with them? Because wealthy sugar barons donate to both parties and make sure that sugar tariffs remain, so Americans pay three times the world price for sugar.

BDB, who is astute enough to see through the adulation of FDR, would undoubtedly recognize the above as the democratic flaw of concentrated benefits v diffused costs.

[84. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:42 PM on Jan 22:]

84

KiwiBloke (#65):

America was NOT meant to be a democracy but a Republic. The Founders explicitly rejected democracy as the tyranny of the majority. They wanted to restict any sort of absolute power with a system of checks and balances. It may have been the best country if its rulers and people still followed their Constitution. As most don't, the claim is highly questionable (see Jefferson and Madison: Could They Be Elected Today? by economics professor Walter Williams.

But instead, we saw an ostensibly Republican president like GWB would spruik on about bringing "democracy" to the middle east. Hamas was one result of that. See Dr Williams' better solution in Conflict: The Battle Hymn of the Democracy.

[85. Jethro said the following at 7:34 PM on Jan 22:]

85

John (#81),

Australia? New Zealand? Canada?

[86. Alison said the following at 8:28 PM on Jan 22:]

86

Um, wow, John. (#81)

Have you studied any other nation besides your own?

Sweden, Denmark, France, etc. etc. etc. all outrank you guys in terms of *the most individuals within their population* to have the criteria you list. America has that heavily weighted to some and *unavailable to many*. Many other countries do it better according to your criteria than yours does.

[87. Alison said the following at 8:33 PM on Jan 22:]

87

Okay. I retract my previous statement saying that it's a mainly cultural difference. Some of you Americans are extraordinarily ignorant of the world beyond your borders.

Have any of the posters that assert America is the greatest visited any other nation while *not* on a missions trip to a disadvantaged country? (Serious question.)

[88. BDB said the following at 9:09 PM on Jan 22:]

88

Hmmm...it seems that the Netherlands is now prosecuting one if its Members of Parliament for telling the truth.

It seems that the Dutch are experiencing some violence due to political speech.. The U.S. has struggled with this in the past. Indeed, the civil rights movement of 50 years ago in the U.S. was marked by violence. We've moved past that - that's part of the reason for the celebration of President Obama.

In the U.S., this kind of political speech is protected for everyone, and it's actually unconstitutional to arrest a member of Congress. Anything a Member of Congress says on the floore of Congress (or the Senate) automatically is read into the record, and absolutely no one, including the President, can do anything to them.

[89. BDB said the following at 9:47 PM on Jan 22:]

89

>>But we saw the problem of plurality voting when the moderate McCain was selected in the GOP Primaries, because the conservative vote was split.<<

The winner-takes-all method definitely helps the Republican party make a decision faster. I supported McCain, so I thought the process was fine. But this is because the winner was based on the full state vote.

The Democrats, on the other hand, took months to pick a nominee. They still use a plurality as winner, but it is based on congressional district. This shows a more accurate geographic description of which candidate has the most support. It also showed Barak Obama's skills at organizing states that Democrats usually ignored. Politics favors the organized.

The main reason that the plurality method is superior to all other methods is the certainty of authority when governing. The winner is the winner, and it's over. The genius of America's founders is recognizing that the purpose of government is governing, NOT representing all the various factions with an elected official. It is expected that everyone who is elected will balance ALL the factions.

Some do this better than others. We've actually seen some good examples from President Obama. His selection of Rick Warren was important not only because he is reaching out to someone in a different political faction (religious conservatives), but because Rev. Warren handed Obama the first setback of the campaign: Obama stumbled badly in the Saddleback debate. Warren asked hard questions of importance to people of faith. Obama's message is not just that he intends to be a President for all the people, but that asking him hard questions will not be punished.

The reality is that many religious conservatives do not have a party in the U.S. Many of us, like Warren, are both pro-life and care about the poor. Warren gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal where he related that when people heard he cared about the poor,they automatically assumed that he was pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage. Not at all. In this election, BOTH major parties ignored the poor. It is people like Warren (and Bono) who are bringing it up. But like Bono did with a Republican President Bush, actually getting things done requires treating people with respect and making the case for the policy.

You see something similar in U.S. Senators, who are selected state-wide. They must balance all the issues of their state, not just the factions that elected them. For the U.S., it often comes down to jobs, jobs, jobs. Senators must balance all the factions, not just stay locked into their position. Governing is much better when the person who wins has the most people behind them; plurality voting forces Senators and Presidents to campaign in the center to get that plurality. Much better for governing. Plurality elections are the best.

Splitting up elected power based merely on faction leads to paralysis, not good government. Other voting systems designed to recognize a specifc minority faction merely make a governing mess. I watch how parlimentary systems have far-left Greens or far-right nationalists peel off enough members of parliament to keep any other party from forming a government. The foolishness of this system is so blatant I can't believe any modern democracy still practices it. I watch Israel for "national unity" governments in times of war because their parliamentary system doesn't have the unitary executive embodied in a President like the U.S. has. The U.S. always has ONE president, who can always ACT immediately when a threat to national security is presented. Parliamentary systems are weak and indecisive in comparison.

Frankly, I don't think they would last without the protection umbrella of the U.S. to deter any major conflict. The run-up to WWII demonstrated how European democracies just twiddled their thumbs while Germany re-armed in violation of the treaty of Versailles. We saw the complete failure of the Europeans to be able to take action in Serbia/Kosovo without U.S. support. Parliamentary democracies are too indecisive to protect themselves from tyrants like Serbia had at the time.

Keep in mind that Australia's 20 Million inhabitants are roughly equivalent to Los Angeles. While I applaud the decision of countries like South Africa to end their nuclar weapons program, I have no doubt that if the U.S. was not guaranteeing the security of countries like Japan, we'd see a lot more countries seeking to join the nuclear club. Seriously, how long do you think it would take the Japanese to build one? If they don't have one already?

[90. Amelia said the following at 9:49 PM on Jan 22:]

90

Byron Holmes (#82):

You state that America's exceptionalism is based on the fact that America's constitution is based on Judeo-Christian values, while other countries do not have their exceptionalism based on such values.

The problem with this is that other countries don't have this same notion of exceptionalism at all, or certainly not to the same degree as Americans. This exceptionalism, or greatness, call it what you will, is perceived on the part of the American people, and does not exist in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Besides, I would argue that Australia's constitution is most certainly based on Judeo-Christian values, as is Britain's equivalent. Their exceptionalism, however, is not based on these values, as there is no such inherent notion.

You cannot objectively argue for your own country to be the greatest. A great country, for sure, but the greatest? That is a subjective opinion that the rest of the world is never going to support.

I also take exception with your last paragraph. It exemplifies the problem that those of us from outside the United States have with the claim of American greatness: arrogance, pride and the inference that we are inferior. Do you really think we are envious of you? That genuinely is not the basis of our argument. Do you really think that no soldiers from other countries have had a role in protecting the freedom that you enjoy? Or that no other country has shown financial generosity to another?

[91. BDB said the following at 9:55 PM on Jan 22:]

91

Oh, there's a shorter reason why plurality voting works fine in the U.S.: the initiative process.

If elected legislators ignore a faction, such as the faction in favor of traditional marriage, individual citizens can go out, gather signatures, and get the issue put on the ballot. In the case of Proposition 8 in California, there were not a majority of legislators in favor of it. But it doesn't matter, a majority of Californians got it passed anyway.

They also banned chicken cages that weren't comfortable enough, and I'm quite certain that the comfortable-chicken faction does't have a majority of legislators, either.

If the options were available, the people would vote a 50% increase in education spending, a 50% increase in environmental spending, and a 50% decrease in taxes, all in the same election. The same crazy mess would happen using a voting system different than the plurality-winner-takes all.

[92. BDB said the following at 10:40 PM on Jan 22:]

92

Oh dear, I neglected to respond to the "spoiler candidate" part. Let's talk about the Perotnistas.

When Ross Perot ran for the U.S. Presidency, he had one main issue: balance the budget. About 20% of the country (at the time) thought this was the #1 issue. Both the Democrats and Republicans ignored deficit spending. (My, how history repeats itself!)

The result was that Bill Clinton got elected.

Being completely out of power tends to focus the minds of the Loyal Opposition. In their shock, the Republican party incorporated Perot's spending-control ideas into their Contract with America as point #1. This simple, focused set of campaign promises swept Republicans into control of Congress in 1994 - the first time in 44 years they had a majority of Congress.

And as Perot voters told me for several years: they voted for Perot to balance the budget. And look, the budget is balanced! Spoiler candidates force their single-issue to the surface of the debate, but most of those personalities are too radical to successfully govern.

You saw a smaller version of this in 2008. The spoiler in 2000 and 2004 was Ralph Nader, the green-party dude. His main issue was that the two major parties were controlled by lobbyists.

And who were the two nominees in 2008? Two guys that tried to solve that lobbyist problem Nader was so concerned about. McCain did it by pushing through the McCain-Feingold legislation, the very legislation that makes 501(c)3 organizations concerned about mentioning candidates for public office in the 60 days before the election (though the Supreme Court has ruled against this-they can identify the issues that each candidate supports, they just can't say "vote for this one." Political speech is the highest human right.) Obama did it by promising to close the "revolving door" of lobbying and working in the administration. And he followed through with his executive orders yesterday.

But what's important is that BOTH McCain and Obama took up Nader's issue and made it an important part of their campaign. But if Nader hadn't spoiled 2000 and 2004 for the Democrats, I down Obama would have focused so carefully on picking up those Nader voters by speaking so clearly to their issues.

Obama reminds me of Newt Gingrich! They are both visionaries who watched the spoiler and adopted the spoiler's ideas - and both won because of it.

[93. BDB said the following at 10:45 PM on Jan 22:]

93

Did I mention I have two degrees in this?

Here's an interesting

[94. xeres said the following at 11:43 PM on Jan 22:]

94

wow, while "the greatest nation on earth" is not the most appropriate, it saddens me on how many of the poster here including the posters from overseas are spoiling the spirit of this post. It is not a good witness at all. I know one's culture heritage is a personal thing, and people should not be ashamed of their heritage. However, more diplomacy would be need

[95. Fergus from Malaysia said the following at 12:33 AM on Jan 23:]

95

Re all the comments on America being the greatest nation fueling anti-American sentiment... I remember hearing Obama say that "America is still the last great hope of the world".

And I remember thinking, really? Because I sincerely thought it was Jesus.

[96. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 1:29 AM on Jan 23:]

96

Once again, BDB points out problems with proportional representation, which are not news to me. I saw it in New Zealand with the radical Green loonies, and I agree about Israel.

Preferential voting has all the advantages of winner-takes-all that BDB mentions. A Presidential election under preferential voting would fulfil the Founders' criteria, since it would not take away the Electoral College, just prevent spoilers distorting the vote.

[97. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 1:47 AM on Jan 23:]

97

BDB (#89)

You mention WW2 and appeasement. But I doubt that the America of today would have won the war. Those who insist on Israel responding "proportionately" to the Hamas terrorists would have demanded that America stopped after bombing one Japanese harbor in return for Pearl Harbor. Those who spruik the "Islam is a religion of peace" delusion would insist that most Japanese and Germans are peaceful people (cf. Walter Williams on the irrelevance of the peaceful majority).

And there is no way America would have won if the media then was like the media now, in the way they gloat over American losses in Vietnam and Iraq. Imagine today's media on D-Day: "Thousands of Allied troops lost on just the first day, and the remainder are pinned down by crack German troops. Yet warmonger Roosevelt refuses peace with Hitler, and sends more kids to die." Or a report on one of America's greatest victories in the Pacific war, "the great Marianas turkey shoot", where American fighter pilots shot down more than 340 Japanese planes while losing just 30 American planes: "Today eighteen American pilots were killed and five more severely wounded, as the Japanese blasted more than two dozen American planes out of the sky."

One more thing: please don't presume that "caring about the poor" requires belief in massive government welfare bureaucracies which perpetuate dependency, or foreign "aid" programs which prop up corrupt despots. Note also, conservatives are much more generous than liberals with their own money as Prof. Arthur Brooks documented in Who Really Cares?

[98. H.A.P said the following at 5:02 AM on Jan 23:]

98

As an American living outside the United States, I found the "greatest nation" in the post to be over the top as well. I used to say people who made this statement had never lived anywhere else, but I've changed my mind. They just haven't lived anywhere better.
I appreciate America's freedoms and the good they do in the rest of the world. I'm happy to be an American, but I'm looking forward to a heavenly country. It will be the greatest I'm sure!

[99. TINA said the following at 7:17 AM on Jan 23:]

99

The U.S. Military remains the larges fighting force in Iraq. I believe that has always been true for any war we were in?Non-U.S. forces 10%....According to the Global Security there were 21 Non-U.S. that made up the 10%...I think if you look in history we are definitely the strongest with the most man power??and i might ad America has always fought in just about every war i can think of even if it had nothing to do with our country?well it usually does some other country trying to take us over... just to throw one out there Germany twice...WHY?.............BEACUSE WE BELIEVE ONE NATION MEANS JUST THAT....UNDER GOD......nation as in many together as one fighting for the people of not just our own country the entire WORLD.and of coarse FREEDOM....Some of the countries mentioned here dont even really have a military AS HUGE as ours?? not as powerful as ours anyway....The united states keeps bailing out the united nation financially???hmmm as i said before maybe its time for our laws to change???????GOD made the land therefore it is all GREAT people ruined it......

[100. Laurel said the following at 7:27 AM on Jan 23:]

100

Getting back to the main points in this post -- rather than focusing on one sentence which I'm sure was not stated in order to cause such debate -- I want to thank you, Candice, for your thoughts and your Scripture references. I, like Jenny (#6) felt quite solemn on Tuesday. Though I heartily agree on what a great thing it is that we have a non-Caucasian (to agree with Keith #42) in office, I have been very disheartened since the election. I've been disheartened that we now have someone in the highest political office in the country who upholds so many policies that I do not agree with. Many policies that do not align with my faith. I haven't been able to help feeling that he got into office because so many people were won over by his charisma and promises of hope and change, and that many of his supporters did not really look at the issues for which he stands. Some of those people may really be in for a surprise in the upcoming years. I hope, however -- no, I PRAY -- that that will not be the case. That, in spite of his inexperience and highly liberal policies, his election will prove not to have been based purely on his "popularity." That Obama will be the leader that we need through the current times, as Candice so poignantly noted.

So, thank you again for bringing me back to Scripture and God's call to us to honor and respect our leaders.