Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Presidency

Obama at Georgetown

Father Schall and Mary Eberstadt offer their commentaries on the covering up of IHS at Georgetown. There is nothing more to add to this sad and pathetic demonstration from the White House. An apology, however, ought to attempted.
Categories > Presidency

Discussions - 11 Comments


Excellent. Schall hits the nail on the head.

Apology for what? He was speaking. He didn't want the cross behind him. Georgetown could have refused . . . but they would rather cover their cross and have the President speak than chance him not showing. What does that say about Georgetown?



But you and Schall can lament this as some awful day for America - as if Obama wasn't explicitly a Christian (which, of course, if he wasn't, would indicate the greatest tragedy in American Presidential history of all time and would clearly also indicate a lack of morality and American - aka "good" - principles).



What a Jesus-hater. Clearly, as Shall makes evident, he must be a statist.

It is like the John Ashcroft story with the statues only no big deal. Sometimes the media double standards are just disgusting

It's called manufacturing dissent, Matt, only with rosaries instead of tea-bags.

Some folks are pretty sore that Obama dared to say that the United States is not a Christian nation.

Gentlemen, we are merely noting the "change". He ran for president proclaiming his Christianity, giving speeches with Christian rhetoric. Now, Obama's America is not a Christian nation. I suppose we have no right to notice nor to dissent?

Schall is right. This is about Obama, not about Georgetown. At this point, it sounds like a deliberate statement that the president is ashamed of Catholicism in America. Why request that venue, otherwise, when there are so many other options?

One could point out that the story seems to carry equal weight in either direction. If he had spoken with religious symbolism in the background then you could question if Georgetown by having him speak was implying that catholism was endorsing his policies. Certainly the problem with Notre Dame inviting him to speak and giving him an honorary diploma was given backlash given his strong pro-choice positions on life issues. In the aftermath of such backlash the only sensible thing to do is cover up religious symbolism. The question is which sociology is being followed? By covering up religious symbolism Obama makes clear that the catholicity of Georgetown does not endorse him, but that the secular elements do. No appology is needed, it isn't a question of manufacturing dissent but simply acknowledgement that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If IHS fish symbols and crosses were not covered up then we would be saying that the pope doesn't matter, that Georgetown by virtue of having a popular basketball team, or Notre Dame with a football team can endorse or confer status upon a president on behalf of religion.

So long as the teaching of the church is clear on life issues, Obama should not appear with religious symbolism. In this telling he also should not appeal to the sermon on the mount.

But Obama does appeal to the sermon on the mount, and he does go to "catholic" universities.

Maybe the catholic universities have gone the equivalent of the Anglican church, have become American and thus split from Rome.

When the Vatican gets a football team then I will listen to it?

Also what are we really debating when we argue that America is a christian or is not a christian nation? If America is a christian nation does God stand behind Roe v. Wade? Absurd!

Lend your symbolism freely and you get syncritism, guard it jealously and Newsweek declares that God is dead. 70% of americans say they are christian, but again you have lies damn lies and statistics. Saying that we are a christian nation or the opposite changes nothing, the only thing that is changed is the method or litmus test used for judging the veracity of such a statement.

46% of the nation was Republican and this after eight years of Bush, but what percentage "conservative"?

For that matter what percentage of "catholics" voted for Obama? Do you want me to find you a figure? Obama did win the state of Indiana...and not the protestant parts.

WaPo:

"The pamphlet has circulated in other primary states, and it always raises eyebrows for its overt appeal on religion. The words across the top read, "Faith. Hope. Change." Obama is pictured at a church pulpit, with a large illuminated cross in the background. A quote at the bottom reads, "My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work."

On the flip side is a photo of Obama in front of a stained glass window. A few paragraphs describe his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and tell of how some folks he met encouraged him to attend church one Sunday. "That day Obama felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life." The words along the side read, "Committed Christian."

But that was then--he doesn't need those voters now.

He quoted the Sermon on the Mount and turned it into the The Sermon on the Me. He wouldn't mention Jesus' name, but he said his 5 economic pillars are America's new foundation, the House built on the Rock, not the sand.

He also blatantly ripped off Reagan's Biblical "City on a Hill"--except Reagan used it to call America to freedom. Obama used it to promote socialism. David Gelertner:

"In one of his favorite, best-remembered phrases, he told the world that America was and must always be the "shining city upon a hill." "The phrase comes from John Winthrop," he explained, "who wrote it to describe the America he imagined." Winthrop wrote those words aboard the Arbella bound for Massachusetts Bay in 1630: "We shall find that the God of Israel is among us," he wrote. "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us." The phrase comes from Matthew 5:14 ("Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid"), and indirectly from the prophet Isaiah ("In the end of days it shall come to pass that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and many nations shall flow unto it"). Reagan's use of these words connected late-20th century America to the humane Christian vision, the Puritan vision, that created this nation."

Reagan would kick this little Communist phony's ass.

I am becoming so sick of this obama and his anti Christian attitude. He'll bow to a shiek, but have a weak backboned Georgetown cover up the crucifix.

Two words: SECRET ARAB.

Well, the speech did outline Obama's New Foundation, the Five Pillars. Google it, Hadji.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/13820