Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol , page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times
Topic started on 1-5-2009 @ 01:07 AM by Max_TO

Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol


www.cnsnews.com
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said he was “disturbed” by President Barack Obama’s request to have the symbolic name for Jesus Christ – IHS – covered from a pediment that was visible behind him when he spoke at Georgetown University’s Gaston Hall on April 14.

(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 1-5-2009 @ 01:33 AM by Blanca Rose
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 posted on 1-5-2009 @ 01:34 AM by LiquidLight
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.


reply posted on 1-5-2009 @ 01:38 AM by LiquidLight
Originally posted by Blanca Rose
reply to
post by Max_TO



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.



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 posted on 1-5-2009 @ 01:40 AM by Max_TO
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 posted on 1-5-2009 @ 01:42 AM by Blanca Rose
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.


reply posted on 1-5-2009 @ 01:47 AM by Blanca Rose
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]


reply posted on 1-5-2009 @ 02:12 AM by jd140
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.


reply posted on 1-5-2009 @ 02:15 AM by Max_TO
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 .
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 10 days ago with 59 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 9 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 8 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 9 days ago with 10 member flags
White House pressure on Gulf oil leak figures
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags