It’s mildly amusing and more annoying than anything else to watch people get so worked up about the “birther” conspiracy that is going around the United States. Of course those who believe such things can’t be reasoned with in any sort of logic at all, so it is probably best not to bother.
The conversations on Facebook of course are reaching epic proportions and yet, there is this funny little detail that everyone seems not to remember; that congress had to have a special ruling to allow John McCain to run.
John McCain was born in Panama to US Military parents. The complicating factor in this is what the phrase “natural-born citizen” means. The original phrasing said this:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Natural born or a citizen – because after all, George Washington and the others that followed after him were originally British citizens, so they had to state it that way.
Barack Obama follows in a long list of candidates whose opponents have argued their eligibility according to the “natural-born” clause.
“Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada to Irish parents. This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Arthur’s family history, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his presidency.”
Why does this matter? Interpretations abound. What it demonstrates is several things: 1) the founders put the clause in the constitution for a reason 2) people interpret it according to their own prejudices of what they think it should mean. It is not completely clear.
The people who wrote it are dead now as well, so we can’t ask them. What I am guessing they didn’t intend however was for that phrase to be a weapon against someone simply because people dislike their policies. The Democrats used it against John McCain and the Republicans against Barack Obama. Each interpreting it according to what they felt it should mean.
This is what we do with the Bible. On many issues, both sides are absolutely convinced their interpretation is the right one. We use the Bible as weapons against the people whose behavior we don’t like. But interpretations are never that easy. Sure there are things that are cut and dried, “Do not murder” is pretty clear. But there is debate over whether this then applies to warfare as well. Does it? Both sides are pretty sure they are right in their interpretation. I can only say “I don’t know.”
I have heard good arguments on both sides over many issues, and have reached a conclusion: far too often we fail to hear each other. We fail to be civil. We fail to go about convincing each other in the right way.
I used to read the Bible thinking it would give me all the answers. Instead, truthfully the I got more questions than answers.
But I learned that there is a way of interpreting and asking that follows in step with the command “act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.” One that involves listening and compassion and not jumping to conclusions and being “easily angered.”
As with the term “natural-born citizen,” sometimes there is more than one valid answer, even though we would like there not to be. In the end, having that right answer may just make us a “sounding gong or a tinkling cymbal,” because without listening with love, is for nothing.







