This editorial opinion by the New York Times is stunning in its dogmatism. The editorial board writes: "President Obama is not a foreigner. He is not secretly a Muslim. Those are the facts. . . ." Let's take these assertions one at a time.
The best evidence of one's nationality is one's original birth certificate. Nobody except the president has seen this document, so how are we supposed to know what it says? Even the editorial board hasn't seen it. It simply takes the president's word that he was born in the United States.
As for the president's religion (if any), how does the board know whether the president is secretly a Muslim? The president says he's a Christian, but that doesn't contradict the claim that he is secretly a Muslim. And what exactly does it mean to be a Christian? Isn't this relevant to whether the president is a Christian? We know that the president took liberties with the truth in order to be elected. For example, he said very clearly in a debate with Hillary Clinton that he was against the individual mandate. Why, then, did he later support it? Did he change his mind? If so, on what basis?
People have doubts about the president's nationality and religion not because they're crazy but because such doubts are grounded in evidence. The editorial board makes it appear as though only a crazy person could have doubts about these things. Is that responsible journalism? Shouldn't journalists demand evidence, especially from self-serving politicians? Shouldn't the Times be leading the charge to have the president's original birth certificate released, instead of mocking those who make such a request? What a disgraceful excuse for a newspaper.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 