Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol

Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol

www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Strange to me that he would make such a request yet he seems to have no problem with the statue of Albert Pike located in Washington DC or the building design of the U.S. Naval barracks in Coronado, California .

Even if you are not a " christian " do you not think that it would be better worth ones time to remove monuments to the founder of the KKK or to change the design of a Swastika-Shaped Government Building ?



www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Max_TO]

I'm sure it was him and not one of his PR aids that said it...... Because he probably spends all his time on making sure where he is going to speak is just right.

If this wouldn't have been done then you would have another post saying how he is mixing religion with politics and its so wrong of him. Damned either way I guess.

With everything going on in the world, why is this such a concern for you? It's not like he did anything negative to it, he just didn't have it showing so it was neutral.

It doesn't bother me. If you want to go on a tangent and make an extreme out of a simple request...no one is stopping you. People make unfounded and ridiculous claims all the time.

whats obamas problem with christianity? maybe he really is the anti christ.

reply to post by Max_TO

---

First of all, the article you are linking to is a few days old, and not breaking news.

Is this a Christian news publication?

Your point about removing swastika shaped buildings and statues is silly, in my opinion.

Obama did not ask for this symbold of Jesus Christ to be removed, but covered up.

What's your point?

Government has no place in religion, and religion has no place in government. The US is made up of people who subscribe to many different faiths. To have Obama standing directly under a symbol of Jesus Christ would be insulting to some people. Nothing more than that, in my opinion.

reply to post by whoshotJR

---

I agree, it was probably one of his aides who made the request. I don't think it was really necessary to cover it, but apparently the university didn't have a problem complying. Non-issue if you ask me.

I disagree I do not make a point out of targeting Obama .

I do however take offense to these " small " changes that we seem to be seeing more and more of now a days that seem to forever change the country .

And as for is crafty PR people that you speak of could they be the same handlers that advised him to bow to every one he met well over seas ?

Maybe he needs some new handlers .

While I don't think covering it was a big deal, I don't think it would have been a big deal if it wasn't covered, either. Everyone knows he was talking at a university and not the Oval Office; anyone who would have perceived it as an endorsement of Christianity would have just been picking a fight, in my opinion.

reply to post by Blanca Rose

---

Yes you are right , I am sorry the story is 2 days old as you correctly point out .

As for if this is a christian story or not really shouldn't matter .

We are seeing changes in the way things work and an erosion of our rights in many ways now a days and we need to stand to protect rights and traditions of the country .

When the " christians " are all gone who do you think they will go after next ?

reply to post by LiquidLight

---

I believe the opposite, actually. If it was at the oval office nobody would care, but at a university, addressing younger, more savvy people, it just might have been noticed.

I suppose it the long run, the request to cover it, was just to make sure no issues of it came at all.

Just another excuse...




Maybe he didnt want to make the impression that christ was a part of his government?

I mean, George made a big effort to say he brought religion into the whitehouse, maybe Obama's saying the opposite?

Religion has NO PLACE in government, it has a place in each and everyones heart, and thast where it stops.
In no way should Obama's request NOT to speak with it behind him, conflict, annoy, demoralize, socialise, or anything other 'ise' ANYONES backing of Obama or their religion.

The point of religion is its for you, yourself and 'I', Even if Obama was AGAINST the image of christ, big bloody deal.

I think Americans need to grow up a bit, stop sucking on the baby bottle and expecting everyone to love 'their' god, do as they 'suggest'

I dont believe jesus even exists in this fairy tale story.

But thats me, and like Obama im entitled to act, react or do anything i feel about 'my' religious beliefs.
so get over it!

A: He likely didn't want to appear to be mixing church with state.

B: He didn't want to appear in a photograph with a huge "JESUS" (IHS) symbol over his head.


I know if I was doing a press conference and there was a huge title hanging over my head of someone else, I wouldn't want to give the wrong impression, I'd have it covered too.


Obama can't be the Anti-Christ... I've been accused of that already.

reply to post by Max_TO

---

I don't think it is a target against Christians. If it had been at a university sporting any other religious symbol, I think a request to cover it would have been made also.

Could it be I am not seeing how this is an infringement on rights?

In this case, I think it just means he did not want to be supporting just one religious group at his speech, not that he is denying Christianity, or Christians.

edit typo

Remember when some place in the south was ordered to have the 10 commandments removed from a public court house? That was under another presidential reign, so I don't think this is something new under the Obama administration.



[edit on 1-5-2009 by Blanca Rose]

I agree government should have nothing to do with religion and thats exactly why he should have let it be .

Why should the government show up at a place to give a speech and then request that the place " modify " there religious symbols ?

If I am not mistaken that could also be seen as an infringement on ones right to expression or ones freedom of speech .

Who really cares if its christian , Muslim or whatever , not the point .

I find it very telling that Representative Fleming used this as an opportunity to fuel American fears of "socialism". This is not about religion or reverence for god--it is purely political. The goal is to urge Christian Americans toward the right out of fear of the great monster that is godlessness; the rest of the Obama-wary Americans are rounded up by using the fear of socialism (a bogeyman positioned as representative of the Democratic Party). It's in your best interest to see the charade for what it is--these politicians are not concerned about protecting your god or your liberty, but rather about protecting their own party interests. You'd all do well to study up on Joseph McCarthy and co.'s antics during the Cold War--these tactics are not new.

I am not a supporter of Obama, but nor will I be taken in by these scoundrels. You don't have to choose between the two.

reply to post by Blanca Rose

---

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't think that Bush Jr requested the removal of the 10 commandments.

I think that was a Supreme Court or some lesser Court ruling.

I think it's a good idea he doesn't give speeches with prominent Christian symbols or emblems in the background.

Also where are you getting that Albert Pike founded the KKK ?
I googled him and he was a freemason but a clansmen ?

I find it hard to believe an outright clansman would have a statue in DC.

This is yet another utter bollocks knee-jerk reaction to the most trivial of instances.......

Reminds me of the 'hue and cry' when former Attorney General John Ashcroft demanded that the naked breasts of a STATUE be covered for his press conferences at the Justice Department!!!

I bleedin' STATUE, for pity's sake!!!

Some people need to grow up......

reply to post by paperplanes

---

You bring up some truthful claims regarding political posturing on behalf of the Rep. You are probably correct that the Rep. was using this as a means to a political end .

Having said that any reported story on an elected official can bring about the same claims , as so often they do .

I am not concerned with that , what bothers me is that an elected official can go to a " respected " establishment and make such a request .

The government serves us we do not serve the government .