It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

No, you were not. Stop lying. I never once hinted at, implied, or said anything about someone's rights being violated or the constitution until AFTER you claimed both had happened. Look, I just posted it all up there for you. You just want to argue with me. This thread is NOT about me. Get over it. You were wrong. If you cannot admit it, then at least leave me alone.



I did admit back on page 3 that there was no violation of rights given the context that it happened .

I have not once lied .

Do you disagree that you were making a case for covering the symbol based on a means of disassociation ?

In that context and that context alone I would argue the the possibility of a constitutional right violation . Not in the context that it has happened .

You sir are the one not leaving me alone . You continue to ask me questions and you have sent me a total of three harassing U2U's now , that mixed with your accusations as well as your need to name call has left me with no desire to talk with you again as far as this thread is concerned .



[edit on 11-5-2009 by Max_TO]




posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Dude, who cares why he covered it up?????

The reason matters not.


That where I disagree and where my argument is based . I do believe that depending on the reason it can make a big difference .

Now we both understand each other and good bye .



[edit on 11-5-2009 by Max_TO]
[edit on 11-5-2009 by Max_TO]

[edit on 11-5-2009 by Max_TO]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Thread Announcement


Thread Title:

Obama's Request to Cover Christian Symbol

Any further post to this thread should be on topic and NOT focused on other members of this board.

Be polite, make your points, debate issues but we insist it be done with maturity and civility.

Thanks everyone...



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
In the above discourse I agree with Max....I think that covering up a integral piece of an institutions identity is a violation of the rights of the free citizens who displayed it in the first place. It falls under freedom of speech. The University said it was absolutely no problem and they understood completely that it did not look good aesthecially. If he did not like how it looked he should have delivered his speech somewhere else, and the University should have not agreed to cover it up, being that is is the seal, monogram of their founder and a symbol of Jesus Christ himself, whom the University is supposed to serve above all.

There is quite a flap right now about what Obama is going to wear at the Notre Dame commencement this weekend. His is being presented an honorary doctorate and is expected to wear the doctoral robes which are emblazened with a cross and a prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary which reads, "Our Life, Our Sweetness and Our Hope" in Latin. He probably is going to assume the prayer is about him and will use if for his re-election campaign in 2012.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Dude, who cares why he covered it up?????

The reason matters not.


That where I disagree and where my argument is based . I do believe that depending on the reason it can make a big difference .


What difference does the reason make? I really need to understand this. Are you saying that the reason could have been a violation of someone's rights? What does the reason have to do with anything? How does the reason make it more or less constitutional?

The entire argument presented by you was that this was a violation of rights and the constitution. Since you have admitted it is not but now the whole thing shifts to reasons. Ok, I am game. Not looking to bicker and argue but I do not understand how the reason changes anything. To me, the reason is completely beside the point and does not matter one bit. Can you please clear that up for me?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted 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)

So,what all that Rep. Fleming is doing is posturing for the GOP's base nothing new.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
what does the letters "IHS" have to do with Jesus?

sorry i have never even heard that before

and i didnt see anyone say what it meant

sigh....i guess google is my friend


even if it does mean jesus, i honestly do not care

although the religious folks will certainly read more into it, which i cannot blame them

they are being incited to revolt lol


oh wow 10pages almost already ??? ----im definately not reading this whole thread ! lol

[edit on 8-6-2009 by muzzleflash]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join