I believe that was done for PR. They just did not want a Muslim seen on TV with Obama, fearing some backlash, which is wrong as well.

 

O I agree with you totally. Just saying that he has had Muslim stuff removed too.

So? Are you saying that him standing in front of a statue of Jesus is some how the President identifying Christianity as a national religion???? This same President who just recently took his vow on the BIBLE!!!!!! Do you remember that day?

 

I'm saying that if he chooses to cover something up we shouldn't all overreact and accuse him of being "ashamed of Jesus".

If they want him there and agree to do what his people ask, it's his right as well as their right. It is nor yours nor mine to tell that institution or the white house where they can or can not give speeches.

 

I agree with this. I see Gtown as at fault here as much as anyone. They should have said, sorry, we are a Catholic/Christian university. You want to use our grounds and you take us as we are.

 

I would have loved to see them stood up to the political bully of removing Chrisitianity and said no way, O. You either take us with Christ or you don't take us at all.

 

The same way I have gained a ton of respect for the Catholics who have taken the position that they don't want O to speak at Notre Dame. They have a position that the Pope is leading them on and they are sticking to that position.

I'm saying that if he chooses to cover something up we shouldn't all overreact and accuse him of being "ashamed of Jesus".

 

As a politician, I understand his decision.

As a Christian, I do not.

And in this incident and I wonder how many more not just for him but all of us, do we put something BEFORE our Christianity.

And I am pretty sure that Jesus calls us to not put ANYTHING before our Christianity.

O's faith should be in front in order of importance of his being President.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't have separation of church and state? And that it is made up? Seriously?

 

You are seriously suggesting that only liberals want to use separation of church and state AGAINST Christianity? That's the sole purpose for it? Wow.

 

Read the Constitution and you will not find anything about seperation of church and state. I know some liberal teachers teach made-up stuff like this, but it is not in the Constitution.

 

I believe 99% who use this line are liberals. The followers of Marx and Lenin do want the people to believe in a god. This is used to move Americans away from God and into totalitarian state.

This is used to move Americans away from God and into totalitarian state.

Kinda hard to get people to worship at the altar of government, the power of the state and the authority of the esteemed leader if they're already committed to a Divine Being.

 

Faith in God and belief in the truth of, and application of the virtues and morals of the Bible have done more to make America great than any other influence in our history. Removing ourselves from this foundation is a recipe for disaster.

 

Idiots who insist upon covering up emblems representing the things that undergird our independence and success as a nation do not deserve to be in any kind of leadership position... at all.

Read the Constitution and you will not find anything about seperation of church and state. I know some liberal teachers teach made-up stuff like this, but it is not in the Constitution.

 

I believe 99% who use this line are liberals. The followers of Marx and Lenin do want the people to believe in a god. This is used to move Americans away from God and into totalitarian state.

 

Well if you're really afraid of what this government might do, then you should hold on to that "separation of church and state" mantra just as tightly. The religion clauses of the Constitution have a two fold purpose: 1) to prevent one religion from become the "state religion" and thus having preferred status at the expense of any others and 2) to keep the government out of churches and church theologies.

 

With that out of the way, I have a question: is there a standard White House policy about speaking at engagments with an organization's name or logo emblazoned behind the president? I say this not in light of the name of Jesus being a symbol for Christianity, but because that particular symbol, the IHS as depicted in that way, is the official seal for the Society of Jesus (Jesuits).

 

I really don't think the White House did this because the President is "ashamed" of Christ. It's probably because he'd take a lot of flack from other groups for speaking in front of an overtly Christian symbol. It was a political move. Nobody that is fuming about this liked him anyway. So what did he have to lose by playing PC? That's the way I feel about it anyway.

I disagree. During the campaign was there not an episode that a Muslim woman was removed from the crowd behind him during a campaign television shot?

 

Key word bolded...

Kinda hard to get people to worship at the altar of government, the power of the state and the authority of the esteemed leader if they're already committed to a Divine Being.

 

Faith in God and belief in the truth of, and application of the virtues and morals of the Bible have done more to make America great than any other influence in our history. Removing ourselves from this foundation is a recipe for disaster.

 

Idiots who insist upon covering up emblems representing the things that undergird our independence and success as a nation do not deserve to be in any kind of leadership position... at all.

 

You should state that as your opinion and not a fact, because just maybe it is the freedom that makes America great, including the freedom to not have faith in God and applying the virtues of the bible. Just saying, hows "insert therocracy here" doing on the great nation scale?

Read the Constitution and you will not find anything about seperation of church and state. I know some liberal teachers teach made-up stuff like this, but it is not in the Constitution.

 

I believe 99% who use this line are liberals. The followers of Marx and Lenin do want the people to believe in a god. This is used to move Americans away from God and into totalitarian state.

 

Either all of your beliefs/definitions of liberals are wrong or all the liberal leaning people I know fall in the 1%. I'll go with the former.:ohbrother:

You should state that as your opinion and not a fact, because just maybe it is the freedom that makes America great, including the freedom to not have faith in God and applying the virtues of the bible. Just saying, hows "insert therocracy here" doing on the great nation scale?

 

Individual liberty is a very Christian idea...even if that means some people use it to deny the very God who teaches that idea. If our country wasn't founded on Judeo-Christian (aka Biblical) values, freedom wouldn't be part of the equation.

 

People choose to disagree with facts all the time. It doesn't make it any less of a fact though.

Either all of your beliefs/definitions of liberals are wrong or all the liberal leaning people I know fall in the 1%. I'll go with the former.:ohbrother:

 

I think he mis-typed. The followers of Marx and Lenin do not want the people to believe in God.

Well if you're really afraid of what this government might do, then you should hold on to that "separation of church and state" mantra just as tightly. The religion clauses of the Constitution have a two fold purpose: 1) to prevent one religion from become the "state religion" and thus having preferred status at the expense of any others and 2) to keep the government out of churches and church theologies.

 

With that out of the way, I have a question: is there a standard White House policy about speaking at engagments with an organization's name or logo emblazoned behind the president? I say this not in light of the name of Jesus being a symbol for Christianity, but because that particular symbol, the IHS as depicted in that way, is the official seal for the Society of Jesus (Jesuits).

 

I really don't think the White House did this because the President is "ashamed" of Christ. It's probably because he'd take a lot of flack from other groups for speaking in front of an overtly Christian symbol. It was a political move. Nobody that is fuming about this liked him anyway. So what did he have to lose by playing PC? That's the way I feel about it anyway.

:thumb::thumb:

I hope those of you who don't think it's a big deal enjoy your time now, because it's not going to be pretty on judgement day. This is ridiculous...

The Paranoia on some of these threads is sufficating