First, Valerie Elverton Dixon at Sojournersstruggles with being a Christian when it comes to what she feels is an appropriate response to Donald Trump’s obsession (read: media ploy) with Obama’s birth certificate.
It is the moments when I am most angry and most disappointed in particular people and circumstances that I find it very, very difficult to be a Christian….When commentators asked why the president had not [released his long-form birth certificate] sooner, I screamed back at my television: “Why should he have to do it at all?”
Hmm...interesting. For those who may not remember, here are some facts about this controversy.
One, back during the presidential campaign, it was the Republican candidate John McCain who had to defend his own citizenship from birth. He was born to military parents while they were stationed in Panama.
Second, it was supporters of Obama's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton who brought up the issue.
Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve.
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.
The third fact is that, whenever I've heard attempts to bring up the issue brought up on talk radio shows, they've almost always been treated as distractions, and not supported in any way. I remember when the Hawaiian governor promised to show the birth certificate, and then claimed he couldn't find it, that Rush was saying to be careful about this, and not to take it too far.
Of course, this issue should have been put to rest well before the election. For Dixon to go like she's being persecuted is silly.
Lastly, at TikkunMichael Hogue has some stronger words about Ryan’s “courageous” plan, calling it “revoltingly immoral and unjust” and “insidiously wicked.”
There is NO religious framework or lifeway that, except through disingenuous hermeneutical backflipping, could possibly justify these principles. And if that’s the case, and if these principles (which are usually dressed up a bit in public) undergird the Ryan proposal and most other Republic sensibilities about the deficit, then there is NO way that there should be any religious support for this budget proposal. Is there anything in Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Religious Humanism, or Religious Naturalism, or Unitarian Universalism that so brazenly endorses the accumulation and concentration of wealth among a very few at the expense of the very many, and especially at the expense of the vulnerable? Absolutely not.
This rather over-the-top rhetoric is suppose to pass for reasons the right is wrong? Really?
Actually, it's little more than class warfare rhetoric. We can't have a responsible budget because, well, rich people are rich? I suppose we need to tax them to death, and give what they have to people who don't have?
What religious framework supports that?