Unclear on the Concept
Before you read this story, understand that "unclear on the concept" refers to me, not those involved in the story.
So, Trump has declared that in 6 months DACA will be rescinded. He gave Congress 6 months to replace the Obama program with a real one. The media is reporting that this puts "800,000 youth at risk of deportation", and my heart breaks. Except that it's not quite accurate. The average age of those in DACA is 26. That's not quite "youth" in the normal use of the word. And one has to wonder why none of these mostly adults have bothered to seek legal immigrant status.
Still, former president Obama has slammed Trump for rescinding his program. It is "cruel", "self-defeating", and "wrong." I have to wonder, given the former president's outrage, why he did it in the first place. No, not why he did it; why he did it temporarily. Right or wrong, good or bad, Trump has thrown this issue into the laps of those who should have taken care of it before -- Congress. If Obama considers it cruel and wrong to deport these kids, why didn't he take a more permanent approach than a temporary executive order. Is that less cruel and wrong than Trump's approach? DACA was already temporary, per Obama's edict. Whoever took over after him would have to deal with this. Trump is wrong for doing so? As I said, I'm unclear on the concept.
We Can Just Put THAT To Rest
Another one bites the dust. Two stained glass windows in the Washington National Cathedral are being removed. One depicted Robert E. Lee reading a Bible. The other was of "Stonewall" Jackson kneeling. Installed in 1953, they are no longer deemed "an appropriate part of the sacred fabric of a spiritual home for the nation." (I don't actually know in what possible sense the cathedral serves as "a spiritual home for the nation.") Docents who gave tours (up until now) would tell visitors that the inclusion of the figures "underscores the building's role as a repository of American memory, carrying the very wounds of war within its walls." The cathedrals' website on the topic calls it "Proclaiming Peace" and calls for "persistence and prayer", affirming that "war is difficult" and quoting Lincoln's famous line from his second inaugural address, "With malice toward none." Well, no more of that. No more persistence. No more peace. Absolutely no more prayer. Oh, and lots and lots of malice.
The Numbers are Out
The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) has completed a report on the 2016 American Values. You know, things like how white Christians constitute less than half of the public (that's news?) and something like 27% either don't know/refuse to answer or classify themselves as unaffiliated to any religion. Combined, non-Christian groups are on the rise, but constitute less than 10% of the nation. A few interesting points. "White Evangelicals" make up 17% of the nation (but still, apparently, put Trump in office). Politically, the Democratic Party has fewer than 30% white Christians. (A decade earlier it was 50%.) The Republicans, on the other hand, are 73% white Christian including 35% white Evangelicals. Oh, and I noticed that there was no category for "black Evangelicals". Is that because no black people agree with the Evangelical perspective, or is it because the PRRI doesn't believe in black Evangelicals? (I ask because I can find nothing in the definition of "Evangelical" that includes "white".) I offer this as a news item, not a claim to accuracy or reality (Are they really Christians? Really Evangelicals? Is the reporting accurate? Is it really true that the Democratic Party has lost most of their Christian base? That kind of thing).
Read It On the Internet
Yeah, it's the Babylon Bee, so it's humor, but clearly I am not the only one who saw it this way. Referring to the ChristiansUnited Statement, their headline reads "Liberal Christians Figure They'll Go Ahead And Accept Polygamy As Well". And at this point it's not particularly humorous, is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment