According to this foxnews.com article, when Barack Obama spoke at Georgetown University on Tuesday (see my preceding post), his administration requested—and Georgetown University complied—that the religious symbols behind the lecturn in the chapel, including the name of Christ, be covered.
Does it strike anyone besides me that it is the height of arrogance to request to speak in a chapel and then to request that the religious elements in the background be covered? When you are the guest? If you wish to speak in an environment free of religious symbolism, surely a university the size of Georgetown has an auditorium, or theatre, or some similar venue where a speech could be given?
Combined with the fact that he then goes to this Catholic university and misuses the Holy Scriptures? (Again, see preceding post)
Obama spoke at Georgetown University before, in September of 2006, at this same chapel, where he gave a typically liberal/statist speech on energy independence. As Senator, it does not appear that he was given the opportunity to change the background.
Catholic leadership (and laity) need to recognize that no matter how much they coddle or befriend Obama, there is no reason to believe that he will conform his views to match theirs. Giving him an honorary doctorate at a prestigious school? No. Allowing him to speak and essentially backhand you by asking you to cover up what you consider important symbolism? Not gonna matter.
Obama's views are, and have been, at odds with Catholic doctrine and teaching. Catholics need to stand up, not bow down.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Barack Obama and the Catholics: Will the Catholics Ever Learn?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yeah, that's right!! I was just reading this article on FOX this morning and thought you might have a comment about it!! I was thinking just about the same thing. But I do have a question, and I'm asking you because I seriously don't know the answer to the question, nor am I making excuses. It seems that somebody (maybe the White House people) did seem to defend this action by saying that it's "protocol" (my word) when the President of the United States speaks somewhere that there are certain "symbols" (again my word) that are always up around him as a form of ceremony or respect to him i.e. flags, dramatic fabric drapping, etc., and that Georgetown was asked to cover up there religious symbols simply to add a uniformity to the look on stage for the President. Does that seem like what they were saying was the reason for this? Again, if this is the case, I'm certainly not excusing (not a good excuse in my book), but helpful in understanding the reasoning behind this move.
Brenda: I can see where you are coming from. If the president wanted a generic or "standard" background, other options were available. Another venue was likely available on the GU campus (or would have been made available for the president). A background closer to the president, as opposed to near the rear wall, would have worked without covering the symbols. It might have looked more like a "press conference" background, but is that really a problem?
Catholics, like Baptists, must remember that Obama has given no evidence whatsoever that he is going to change his positions on issues of family, holiness, and morality. No amount of compromise on their part will make this happen...which provides all the more reason not to compromise on issues of family, holiness, and morality.
Absolutely.....well said!!
Post a Comment