Carol Forsloff questions why Christians are skeptical of Obama’s birth certificate, etc.
The claim used by Christians most to support their beliefs is that people should have faith and that faith will allow them to believe these exceptional ideas about Jesus. For centuries, however, many people continue to refuse to believe any account of Jesus, demanding more and more concrete evidence about the man.
These days Barack Obama, who is not considered by his supporters to be anyone other than a politician and ordinary man, is under scrutiny by some Christians for lacking, in their belief, reasonable and acceptable birth evidence.
If faith is an important value for people, and love to be the driving force of Christian ethics, there appears to be hypocrisy in refuting the arguments of agnostics and atheists about the birth and death of Jesus while claiming a birth certificate backed up by physical evidence of a contemporary man should not be trusted.
Leaving aside the inherent difference between Man and God, you could just as easily reverse that argument.
Shouldn’t every single one of the Godless be skeptical of Obama’s circumstances of birth w/o proof? After all, to them he’s far more important and more of a potential threat than Gods they don’t believe in.
The op-ed piece claims there is proof:
“people who are not, and have never been, Obama’s friends have actually seen the documentation in writing at the hospital where Obama is reported to have been born. These include people of real authority, voted by the majority of people in the place where Obama was born, yet individuals who have nothing to gain from the evidence produced. In other words, most of them, like former Republican Governor Linda Lingle, stood to gain nothing when she verified the authenticity of physical records related to the birth of the President of the United States.”
Sometimes “proof” won’t be enough for everyone. Some people just build facts in their own heads and only seek out those who agree with them. I think that’s a habit a lot of people have. People might claim to be skeptical, but only to a certain point, and it never seems to include everything they’ve internalized as a “fact” or “truth.”
What winds up interesting me about these kinds of issues is how people make everything so personal rather than looking at how he’s doing the job and whether or not he’s doing it well. They did the same with Clinton and the whole sex thing, too. Getting all uptight about one issue and ignoring everything else. Making sure this one issue gets in the way of everything else. Why does so much attention have to be put on this? What difference does it ultimately make?
That’s true; some people will never believe.
For myself, I neither believe nor disbelieve that he was born in the US. I’ve not had access to proof or evidence that is trustworthy.
I can also say that Obama’s behavior regarding this iisue is strong evidence that there’s something “wrong” with documentation surrounding his birth, although I’m guessing it’s a simple as his mother’s marital status being listed as “single” or his father being listed as “unknown.”
The first would be technically true since his parents’ marriage was illegal (Father was still married to someone else at the time). The second would not be unusual in a case such as his parents where the mother wanted to completely eliminate any reasonable chance of a custody battle.
As for the importance – The constitution trumps everything. Even if he was actually worthwhile as a POTUS, if he’s just a Usurper, it’s all invalidated.