It's okay for him to use text from any religious document, including the Koran and the Holy Bible. I teach at a public school, which, I'm sure we all agree is nondenominational. I teach science, yet have used excerpts from the Holy Bible, native american religious writings, lines from the Bhagavad Gita, etc, when it was appropriate. I've not used any excerpts from the Koran simply because it has never been appropriate for a lesson that was being discussed.

TB&G- that's not what I was getting at. Let's say, theoretically, that President Obama had quoted the Bible. His position would still be logically inconsistent- going out of his way to cover up a Christian symbol in one instance, and in the other quoting the Holy Scripture.

 

Personally, I think it is fine for President Obama to quote the Holy Bible or Koran. I didn't think twice when he covered the symbols in the first place- but since the reasoning then was "separation of Church and State", and he has violated that here, his position is inconsistent. It's not a matter of Muslim v. Christianity (to me), but one of logical inconsistency.

TB&G- that's not what I was getting at. Let's say, theoretically, that President Obama had quoted the Bible. His position would still be logically inconsistent- going out of his way to cover up a Christian symbol in one instance, and in the other quoting the Holy Scripture.

 

Personally, I think it is fine for President Obama to quote the Holy Bible or Koran. I didn't think twice when he covered the symbols in the first place- but since the reasoning then was "separation of Church and State", and he has violated that here, his position is inconsistent. It's not a matter of Muslim v. Christianity (to me), but one of logical inconsistency.

 

:thumb:

 

You definitely worded it better than I did...

Personally, I think it is fine for President Obama to quote the Holy Bible or Koran. I didn't think twice when he covered the symbols in the first place- but since the reasoning then was "separation of Church and State", and he has violated that here, his position is inconsistent. It's not a matter of Muslim v. Christianity (to me), but one of logical inconsistency.

 

Was separation the reason Obama gave?

Was separation the reason Obama gave?

 

Not sure if the White House gave one, did they? But that's the reason that was given by some on this site, and as far as I know the assumed reasoning.

Not sure if the White House gave one, did they? But that's the reason that was given by some on this site, and as far as I know the assumed reasoning.

 

I didn't particularly care about the situation when it first came out. But, if memory serves me, his official reasoning for the backdrop was along the lines of being consistent with previous speeches. According to the linked article, he made Biblical references during the Georgetown speech. At any rate, the two scenarios don't smack of hypocrisy to me.

I didn't particularly care about the situation when it first came out. But, if memory serves me, his official reasoning for the backdrop was along the lines of being consistent with previous speeches. According to the linked article, he made Biblical references during the Georgetown speech. At any rate, the two scenarios don't smack of hypocrisy to me.

 

Agreed. Additionally, using symbols in the background and using appropriate word at times during a speech are two separate things.

 

Now, if he gets up and gives us a baptist (or catholic or methodist, or any non-Christian religion) sermon, then that's a different thing entirely.

I didn't particularly care about the situation when it first came out. But, if memory serves me, his official reasoning for the backdrop was along the lines of being consistent with previous speeches. According to the linked article, he made Biblical references during the Georgetown speech. At any rate, the two scenarios don't smack of hypocrisy to me.

I didn't follow the issue either, and I don't care either way if we continue with this- but if the reason was "being consistent with previous speeches" then I'd have to know what standard of consistency we are referring to.

Agreed. Additionally, using symbols in the background and using appropriate word at times during a speech are two separate things.

 

Now, if he gets up and gives us a baptist (or catholic or methodist, or any non-Christian religion) sermon, then that's a different thing entirely.

 

Agreed in regards to Baptist/Methodist/non-Christian sermon, it is a different thing entirely. Agreed.

I didn't follow the issue either, and I don't care either way if we continue with this- but if the reason was "being consistent with previous speeches" then I'd have to know what standard of consistency we are referring to.

 

True. On the surface it seems the argument is playing out as Obama being willing to acknowledge Islam in his speeches but going out of the way to deny Christianity. To me, that doesn't appear to be the case.

True. On the surface it seems the argument is playing out as Obama being willing to acknowledge Islam in his speeches but going out of the way to deny Christianity. To me, that doesn't appear to be the case.

I'm taking the Clyde approach on this one- the Christian/Muslim issue isn't what gets me, it's the apparent inconsistency in actions. It is all such a moot point that it probably isn't worth discussing any further.

I'm taking the Clyde approach on this one- the Christian/Muslim issue isn't what gets me, it's the apparent inconsistency in actions. It is all such a moot point that it probably isn't worth discussing any further.

 

It'll be inconsistancy if he makes speeches with icons for any religions in the background. Until then, it's apples and oranges.

I didn't particularly care about the situation when it first came out. But, if memory serves me, his official reasoning for the backdrop was along the lines of being consistent with previous speeches. According to the linked article, he made Biblical references during the Georgetown speech. At any rate, the two scenarios don't smack of hypocrisy to me.

 

Agreed. Additionally, using symbols in the background and using appropriate word at times during a speech are two separate things.

 

Now, if he gets up and gives us a baptist (or catholic or methodist, or any non-Christian religion) sermon, then that's a different thing entirely.

Under that line of thinking, wouldn't it have been improper to give a speech at a Catholic University? Would he have had Allah's name covered at Cairo University? As others have said, its a matter of consistency.

It'll be inconsistancy if he makes speeches with icons for any religions in the background. Until then, it's apples and oranges.

 

Couldn't disagree more. He IS being inconsistant. I could care less about the actual actions, because they aren't a big deal to me. It's the inconsistancies that bother me.

What's it matter?