Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol , page 3

reply to post by amazed

---

??? What ???

Perhaps you didn't have the chance to read all that I have said ?

I am not upset that he didn't place a religious symbol behind him . I am bothered by the fact that the government can go to a " respected establishment " and make a request to cover there displayed symbols , as guaranteed by the constitution , in order for the government official to use the event for political means .

I do not care one way or the other what the ideological meaning of the symbol is , not important . All that matters is , was it there constitutional right to have it displayed ? And if the answer is yes , then no form of government should make an attempt to subvert there right .

As a Pagan you should recognize the importance of this train of thought .

If we can just get over the name Jesus & Obama long enough to see past our own self righteousness , then perhaps we can see what has happened here .

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

---

Once again we cant seem to get past names . This should not be about religion or politics , nor have I tried to make that link .

Its about the constitutional right granted to " us "

If the government wants a set stage to make an address then they are free to design whatever stage they so chose and host there own presentation , they do this all the time . They should not go to a place and then ask them to alter there respected place to suit the governments needs .



[edit on 1-5-2009 by Max_TO]

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Max_TO]

reply to post by amazed

---

I can't remember the name or artist right now but one of my favorite Christmas songs has the line "Now when Christians get with Pagans, only pumpkin pies are burning"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

CNS The "Right" news right now.
Yes, The point of the article is to go on another socialism rant. And looking a little deeper sheds a little more light.

“The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches,” she added. “Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context.”

Get bent as much as you want.


[edit on 1-5-2009 by Grimstad]

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

---

Once again we cant seem to get past names . This should not be about religion or politics , nor have I tried to make that link .

Its about the constitutional right granted to " us "

If the government wants a set stage to make an address then they are free to design whatever stage they so chose and host there own presentation , they do this all the time . They should not go to a place and then ask them to alter there respected place to suit the governments , needs .



[edit on 1-5-2009 by Max_TO]

I'm sorry if you took it that way, but I wasn't calling anyone names. I was saying the overall mindset that this is even an issue in this country is pathetic. It was not directed toward anyone in particular.

Second, just as the government has a right to build their own set, the university (or wherever it was) had every right TO NOT LET IT BE COVERED.

Bottom line this reeks of an attempt to start a religious debate, when there is really no issue here.

He did non denounce christ. He did not make them remove it permanently. They asked that it be covered for an address, and when you consider the heat that this administration has taken for their so-called "deifying" of Obama, do you blame them?

reply to post by Grimstad

---

Ah how sweet & thoughtful of the government .

Perhaps I can use that line on my girlfriend with regards to her mothers picture on the wall .



[edit on 1-5-2009 by Max_TO]

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

---

You are correct with a lot that you say and I tend to agree .

However , the government went there and simply should not put its self over the places it goes to as long as the respected place was operating within its constitutional rights .

IMHO we see far to often the erosion of individual rights and we in general have become to complacent when ones rights are infringed upon .

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

---

You are correct with a lot that you say and I tend to agree .

However , the government went there and simply should not put its self over the places it goes to as long as the respected place was operating within its constitutional rights .

IMHO we see far to often the erosion of individual rights and we in general have become to complacent when ones rights are infringed upon .

I can't agree with you last sentence more.

As for the second statement though, can you show me where they FORCED this to happen? If not, it is as much a choice of the university as it is the Obama Administration. They could have quite easily said "no, that will not be covered", and there would have been nothing that Obama's staff could have done but change locations.

Also, in what I can find on it, the reason it was covered was because it became halfway covered by the presidential backdrop. Had any christian symbol been shown half covered, or like it appeared as though it had a slash through it, can you imagine the backlash?
\
I'm just not seeing where anyone's rights were violated.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

---

Excellent points yet again .

You may very well be right and I will say it again , you bring up very good point .

The thing I see coming from this is a president being set and only time will truly tell who is on the right side of this topic .

Sad that just about everything we see on T.V is so over prepared before its presented to us and its sad that tradition has to be hid for the sake of this prepared presentation , or any other reason .

reply to post by Max_TO

---

All right, let's see if I understand your complaint. You are not complaining that he had a "Christian" religious symbol covered. Correct?

Even though your thread is titled "Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol". Is that right?

You are complaining that he requested a symbol of ANY kind covered? Correct?

I am under the impression, that Georgetown asked Obama to speak at the University, not the other way around. Yes?

A point I am trying to make, is that Obama had the right to make the request he made, and the establishment had the right to say yes, or to say no. They chose to say yes. Just as Obama would have had the right to say no either way, so did the university.

No ones "toes" were stepped on.

It is not as if he just chose some establishment out of the blue, told them he was speaking there no matter how they felt, and oh by the way they also had to cover up their religious symbols. Now, in that case I would agree that he would be wrong.

Even though, I agree he has the right to ask, and they would have the right to say no. As long as he does NOT use threats etc, then he has the right to make the request he made.

As far as I can tell, no one anywhere had their constitutional rights taken away in any manner.

If I asked Obama to speak at my house, and he said "sure, as long as you mow your lawn", would you be upset? It is my right to have tall grass in my area if I want. I could even claim it my constitutional right. Or if he said "sure, as long as you cover up your religious symbols", (knowing that my religious symbols are not Christian) would you still be upset? I suggest that perhaps you(Christians) would not and perhaps you(Christians) would even support him, and or maybe even start a thread titled "Proof Obama is Evil" or some such crap.

So what are you really complaining about? I don't get it, it seems as if this is another bashing Obama with religion thread.

And let's not forget, Georgetown asked Obama to speak at their establishment, not the other way around.

Peace

reply to post by amazed

---

Very good point you make as well .

Just for the record I do not make Obama threads all that often nor do I often post in the different threads out there about Obama .

Could I be over reacting , very possible .

Did the title of this thread create the very debate that I was trying to avoid , the religion card , possible , however in all honestly it was not my intention to do so . Nor did I which to create an Obama bashing thread and I hope my past posts here prove that .

Would I cut my lawn for Obama , sure .

Did the direction set out in this post by myself as well as others , on both sides of the debate , turn this issue into something that its not , again very possible .

Once again time will tell .






[edit on 1-5-2009 by Max_TO]

DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags

US threatens Sweden with watch list sanctions if they don’t prosecute The Pirate Bay.
  Posted 6 days ago with 20 member flags

The CIA in Australia: America\'s Foreign Watergate
  Posted 0 days ago with 12 member flags

Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags

ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 9 days ago with 11 member flags

There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 9 days ago with 10 member flags

Medical Scientists & Doctors Finally Stand Up To The Feds: Suing Them For Spying
  Posted 11 days ago with 7 member flags

WW2 US mutiny in Australia by African-Americans soldiers uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: