It was my understanding back when it happened that he'd been advised to cover the 'IHS' so that it didn't come across as him associating himself with Jesus, or make it appear as if he thought he was 'the messiah' (a charge many conservatives had been making at the time, and still are).
I think it was overkill to cover it, and ended up creating worse press than if he had not made a big deal of it.
What a president may say personally on matters of religion, however, while in office, doesn't have anything to do with separation of church and state.
Is Obama violating his own interpreted application of "separation of church & state" when boldly using the Bible and Jesus Christ to promote his quest for non-Biblical, government-mandated social justice?
J.W. Howler
2012/02/03 16:12:21
|
|
|||||
|
25 votes
|
|
78% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
22% | |||
No -- You might say? --- SO, why did the Obama admin choose to black-out the symbolic "IHS" monogram for Jesus Christ at a 2009 Obama economics speech at Georgetown University, yet so boldly and inaccurately USE Jesus Christ to promote government-mandated social justice at the 2012 National Prayer Breakfast?
Remember that?
____________________________________
The gold-lettered monogram appeared near a painting of three female figures -- symbolizing morality, faith and patriotism -- and decorative edging along the wall that spelled out the Jesuit motto "Ad majorem Dei gloriam"—"To the greater glory of God." Georgetown was founded by the Jesuits
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/belief-blog/2009/apr/1...
BEFORE the covering of the symbol -
AFTER the covering of the symbol -
Remember that?
____________________________________
The gold-lettered monogram appeared near a painting of three female figures -- symbolizing morality, faith and patriotism -- and decorative edging along the wall that spelled out the Jesuit motto "Ad majorem Dei gloriam"—"To the greater glory of God." Georgetown was founded by the Jesuits
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/belief-blog/2009/apr/1...
BEFORE the covering of the symbol -
AFTER the covering of the symbol -
Top Opinion
-
Philo-Publius 2012/02/03 16:34:16
It would have been helpful for you to post Obama's speech--or at least the link to it--because it is VERY telling. Not only did he include a parable from The Sermon on the Mount, but he used this language:
"Its a foundation built upon five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century..."
Islam has 5 basic acts known as "The 5 pillars of Islam".
Personally, if Obama had problems with the symbols at the University he should have declined to speak. Asking them to cover or take down their religious symbols is a sign of disrespect. If I was running that place, I would have told him he could leave if he didn't like it.
Thanks for mentioning the origin of the "separation of church & state".
I am very familiar with it.
I think it sad that it has been twisted and perverted as it has since Jefferson's reference to the Anabaptists.
That's why I worded my poll question as I did when referring to it.
has been sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom since last July and they have breakfast together as J and GWB used to do.
Not my experience at all...Even at a Billy Graham event...lol
What next? Will we be told to tithe 10% to the Government?
You know, maybe that is the whole problem. Conservatives have been giving Obie hell for acting like a Muslim and not a Christian. And the Left has stood fast beside him and said: "No, Obie is a good little Christian."
What if they're right? What if Obama is more of a Christian than any of us knows? What if Christianity is the basis for everything he does? That would explain a lot. That would also infuriate the Left.
I'm sorry, taxes? Also, seeing an ignorant fool like you knowing nothing about tithes, or anything at all on the topic of government and basis of the USA, anyone can be any religion, Obama can be Christian, any and every one of the past presidents can be Christian and he "infuriated Left", it's their stuck up selves that get angry because they can't deal with people being religious.
It also proves again what complete hypocrites the lwnj's are. Had a Repub done this, they would be up in arms with their outrage.
The speech at the prayer breakfast didn't in any way violate the separation of Church and State. The President merely said that his position on many social issues was consistent with his own faith as a Christian.
"Separation of Church and State" has never meant that a public official cannot discuss religion. What it means, among other things, is that government should not operate under the "rules" of a particular religion, nor do anything that supports one religion over others. When Right Wingers say we should ban abortion or gay marriage because they believe it's against biblical teachings (even though it isn't) that steps over the line. But saying "I believe we should help people because I have faith in Jesus" does not.
I wish the Right Wing would one day learn the difference.
Got some examples?...Not disputing you, just want to compare.
The "right-wing" has people who want to help people as well because of their faith -- Just not as part of government mandated social justice.
I wish the left-wing would one day learn THAT difference.
And the Progressive, left-wing wants to control people while they are being hoodwinked into THINKING they are helped.
Progressives don't want to control people. They really DO want to help people preserve their individual liberty, freedom, self respect and self responsibility. You folks on the right treat someone on welfare as a criminal, then do everything you can to stop him from getting off welfare. Those of us on the left treat someone on welfare as a person in need, and we do everything we can to get him to the point where he can care for himself and not need the government to help him.
The false, political talking-point picture you are trying to paint of the "evil" conservative is not working well.
It is political hoodwinking of the masses.
I also would agree that there should be guidelines about what food stamps can be redeemed for - I believe that there are already restrictions about using them to buy beer and wine.
I seriously have to say that I just don't see any evidence of any compassion among conservatives. I can't think of a single piece of Republican legislation in the past decade (at least) that was clearly designed to benefit the people as a whole. Saying that giving tax breaks to millionaires will "trickle down" doesn't work. Tax breaks for the rich benefit the rich. If there is some collateral benefit to others that's great, but that's clearly not the intention of passing the tax breaks. So even if you believe "evil" is overly rhetorical, what good things have the conservatives done any time recently?