Skip to main content

An Open Letter to President Obama Regarding the Iranian "Ransom"

Dear President Obama,

You are the President of the United States of America, the "leader of the free world."  You are an authority figure who has been placed over this country by God, so I want to address you respectfully, yet frankly.  I'm not writing to air grievances or make accusations.  My goal here is simple.  I want to inform you that we (informed American citizens) don't believe in coincidences anymore.  You say that you gave Iran back their money and that it was not a ransom.  I guess we'll have to take your word for that.  You're technically correct, I guess, but it just seems a little too convenient.  Can you understand our suspicion?  It seems like one of those Washington cover stories that hide the back-door dealings of world leaders.  Some people may believe you.  After all, they'll believe anything you say!  There are plenty of others who simply don't pay any attention.  Those of us who pay attention, however, have officially stopped taking anything you say seriously.  We never really trusted you, of course, but you've hit a new low.  You've lost all credibility.  You claimed that you would be the President who ended the Washington politicking.  You promised that you would have the most transparent administration this country has ever seen.  You have fallen significantly short of your self-imposed expectations.  You had to have known that this would look bad.  You could have come out and hit this issue head-on, prefacing your decision with some sort of acknowledgment about how it would appear.  You could have been open and honest, but, instead, you fell back on a technicality after it blew up in your face. At this point, we wouldn't believe you even if you were telling the truth. No matter what you say, we're going to assume that you are warping the truth to fit your political agenda.  So, no, Mr. Obama, we don't believe in coincidences anymore.  We don't believe that we just happened to pay Iran back right when they released prisoners.  It's just too perfect.  It's too convenient.  It's just too much of a coincidence, and we don't believe in coincidences anymore.



Respectfully,
A Disillusioned Citizen                                                                                                                


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo
Post a Comment
Read more

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary
Post a Comment
Read more