The Obama White House requested that a symbol for the name of Jesus be covered during the president’s economic speech at Georgetown University on Tuesday.
The Washington Times’ Belief Blog has the story here.
First Notre Dame, now Georgetown. What is up with Catholic institutions and their appeasement of the anti-Christian agenda of the Obama administration?
And does this not lend fuel to the speculation of exactly to which faith system Barack Obama adheres? Let’s see, he can’t find a Christian church to join, he didn’t attend a Christian church since becoming president until Easter, he bows to an Islamic king, and he covers up the symbol for the name of Jesus (a symbol which would be offensive to Muslims) during a policy speech.
Maybe someone should follow the president and see where he is going on Friday nights.
I’ve gone and read a couple of other accounts of this and the white house public relations people asked Georgetown to cover up all symbols and signs before the president got there. When they got there, there was one that wasn’t covered up, so they asked to have it covered up.
I would venture to guess most people don’t even know what the IHS symbol even means. I know I didn’t until about 5 years ago.
Again, I think this is all much ado about nothing. Trying to strain out a gnat.
Evidently Paul Edwards is not a real Christian, because Christians are, by their own belief systems, not supposed to lie. Yet claiming that President Obama is “ashamed of Jesus” is clearly a lie, and a nasty one at that.
Paul Edwards is a splendid example of the hypocritical and dishonest behavior of many fundamentalist Christians.
Tim, that’s a good point. But I think context is everything. . .
If the President, for example, gave a speech at Disneyworld, I wouldn’t expect them to cover up a picture of Mickey Mouse…but I WOULD expect the speech to have something to do with Disneyworld. If he just happened to be visiting Disneyworld and had to address the nation on a matter of importance…it would be distracting and confusing to hear a speech on, say, the economy with a picture of Mickey Mouse. I’d wonder what the context was.
Likewise, I think Georgetown was chosen because it was a nearby university…and most likely Obama was invited or had requested to address university students. It was not a speech on religion nor was Georgetown chosen because it is a religious university–to be completely honest, I don’t think of Georgetown as a religious university. I understand the reasoning behind covering it up, even if I happen to think it’s silly. Again, had Obama chosen to speak at a university known for its theology and commitment to the Gospel, like Moody or MTS, I would have a much different opinion about them covering up a cross or religious symbol. Here I think it’s just people taking cheap shots–and maybe they’re owed a few cheap shots; they stood by while the Democrats were taking cheap shots at Bush (although ‘is our children learning’ is a much more significant gaffe than giving the queen an ipod).
I would agree with some of the points above about the idea that it was justified to cover it up except that the chosen venue was a Georgetown “stage” that had a religious symbol already there. If they felt strongly enough about it to cover it up, why didn’t they just do the speech somewhere else – like the lobby of a hotel or something? What they did makes about as much sense as choosing to give a speech at Disneyworld and then demanding that they cover up Mickey Mouse.
I’d be willing to bet he didn’t even know this happened until after the speech and the talking point came up on Fox News. Something like that is going to be a decision of the people who are putting on the event. There’s no way the President is involved in the minutia of planning a speech or event like that. He has thousands of people to do that for him.
After reading the article, I have to say that I don’t think it was altogether an unreasonable statement and I have to wonder if even Bush would have made the same decision. From a communications standpoint, it’s a smart move–the speech was not about religion, did not center on religion and did not even touch on religion or the college itself. It would have been confusing and irrelevent to have the religious symbols displayed there and, if you saw a soundbyte on the speech but with religious iconography and symbolism behind it, you would draw wrong conclusions. I would also argue that speaking about the economy in this time with religious backgrounds would likely inspire a dire tone (i.e. “the economy is doomed; all we can do as pray”–while that’s true for those who are true Christians, non-christians would get a depressing view.) I think it was just a communications strategy and I would be curious to see if Bush spoke at Georgetown and the same decision was made. I guess I’m more comfortable with him doing this at Georgetown–a college that I don’t associate with religion–than if he were, say, speaking at Moody or MTS. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this wasn’t even Obama’s choice but rather one made by his communication’s team.
But I stand by what I said that I don’t necessarilly think Obama is a Bible-believing Christian.
Nothing new under the sun (son).
…As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Ever notice that not as much “offence” is taken at the name of “God”, but “Jesus” is a different story.
….That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
…And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
“Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, sweetest name I know,”…
And I know you will love this one Paul, His sheep know his voice, as perhaps in; (trumpet please) “come up hither!” (whats for supper?)
Thats a sharp outfit he has picked out for us.
Good points, wrong conclusion.
I don’t think Obama is a Muslim any more than I think he’s a true Christian. Christianity–or the American version of it–is still the majority religion in the U.S. So of course a Presidential candidate would jump behind it when he’s on the campaign trail–as tolerant as many people are, polls show that most Americans won’t vote for an atheist President. I think he said what people wanted to here–and may even truly classify himself as “Christian”–to get votes. I think his religion really probably means very little to him (and in that case, he’d be in line with most Americans). I think if you were to really scrutinize him, you’d find Obama is probably more agnostic or atheistic in his beliefs. Of course, I also point out, that politicians have always used religion to score points–George W. Bush won two elections by appealing to Christian voters–to his credit, I do think his faith was probably genuine.
I personally don’t care if my President goes to church or follows Christ, except where his soul is concerned. Politics and Christianity are best left separate–the idea of servant-leadership doesn’t really seem to live well in Washington. HOWEVER, I would much rather Obama had just been honest about his unreligious faith.
Then again, he could consider himself a strong Christian. The sad truth is that many “Christian” churches in America would agree with the decision to hide the name of Christ so as not to offend Muslims. I don’t think this decision says as much about Obama as it does about the state of the American church, where most professing believers are practicing atheists and peace and false unity are idols.