OBAMA NIXES “JESUS” AT GEORGETOWN

Catholic League ^ | April 16, 2009 | staff

[kellynla]

When President Barack Obama spoke at Georgetown University on April 14, the White House requested that all religious symbols and signage that might appear as a backdrop to where the president was to speak be covered up. Georgetown acceded to the request and made sure that the symbol “IHS,” a monogram of the name Jesus Christ, was not in sight.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke to this issue today:

“The cowardice of Georgetown to stand fast on principle tells us more than we need to know about what is going on there, but the bigger story is the audacity of the Obama administration to ask a religious school to neuter itself before the president speaks there. No bishop who might speak at the White House would ever request that a crucifix be displayed behind him. Moreover, the same church and state fanatics who go nuts every time a polling place is set up in the basement of a Catholic school have been noticeably silent over this incident.

“Obama will be speaking at Notre Dame, and receiving an honorary award, on May 17. Will his advance team ask Notre Dame to scrub the campus clean of religious symbols? Or just the ones that might appear behind the podium? Obama is in enough trouble with Catholics—over his pro-abortion executive orders and appointees, his position on embryonic stem cell research and his war on the conscience rights of healthcare workers—that it seems almost suicidal for his administration to push the envelope one more time. This is getting old fast.”

Contact the White House Press Office at media_affairs@who.eop.gov

[artichokegrower]

Obama in Turkey. He must have made a similar request to cover up all images relating to Islam

[SumProVita]

Catholics, WAKE UP! This is outrageous!!!!

[SumProVita]

Islam does not allow icons or images....geometric designs only.

[HailReagan78]

My thoughts exactly.

The Church had better get its act together and start teaching the Bible again, rather than traditions of men.

[GraceG]

By the way he avoids Christian Objects I am starting to wonder if he is not really a Muslim, but instead he very well may be a Vampire!

[Frank_2001]

How would you describe a person who claims to be Catholic, and ignoring the warnings of Bishops that a vote for an avowedly pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research candidate, especially when there is a pro-life candidate available, constitutes MORTAL SIN, knowingly goes out and votes for that candidate, in this case Obama? They cannot say they didn’t know (as the Germans claimed who voted for Hitler)

Now do you get my meaning? It is a risky and probably flawed analogy, but not meant to give you or anyone else here any offense. I assure you that we are BOTH on the same team, let’s not waste energy beating each other up with a ridiculous flaming session. I got those stupid statistics mixed up anyway, but 35% is still far too high!

Sorry for calling you an idiot, BTW. It was Obama’s fault!;)

[fr_freak]

In point of fact, the Church did little to nothing except transfer the pedophile priests, and the flamers in the gay seminaries were likewise known but tolerated.

First, I never denied that these incidents happened. I merely pointed out that the numbers of these incidents were exaggerated in the press to make it look like there was a Catholic Church-wide problem, when, in fact, these were relatively isolated incidents, with a very small number of priests. Second, the Church has a hierarchy. You act as if the Pope himself condoned sweeping these crimes under the rug, when it was actually the failure of the local diocese. Since then, the Church has taken steps to correct this problem.

As for the flaming queers, the decision was made a while back to allow those with homosexual tendencies to become priests, with the understanding that they would be celibate as would every other priest. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I strongly disagree with that decision. What always must be taken into account is that homosexuals are not just regular folks who like members of the same sex. They are, by definition, mentally disordered. So, it is not as if the Church was somehow duped into allowing homosexuals to become priests and only discovered it once the molestations started. I hope steps are taken to correct that mistake also.

Finally, the stopped clock rule aside, if you find yourself agreeing with Oliphant on anything, you should stop, take a deep breath, and ask yourself if this is really something you should buy into.

[GladesGuru]

“You act as if the Pope himself condoned sweeping these crimes under the rug, when it was actually the failure of the local diocese.”

Actually,the files on the problem priests went at least as high as the arch bishops. That came from a friend who has access to the Vatican archives, where he does his theological research.

Count on the problem being known at “the highest level” of the Church. The previous sentence contains valid data, bank on it.

“homosexuals are not just regular folks who like members of the same sex. They are, by definition, mentally disordered.”

By decision of the American Psychology/Psychiatry community, “queers” are now normal. And their ranks of rank lawyers are ready, willing, and eager to sue you if you disagree. Under Obamunism, even discussions such as this one will be illegal.

“So, it is not as if the Church was somehow duped into allowing homosexuals to become priests and only discovered it once the molestations started.”

Your lines, not mine. They contain the admission that the Church knew about the homosexuals, accepted them, and covered up for them.

I wondered if it was just a case of the “Queer Qrowd” gravitating towards an accepting social refuge, or whether the Church had been so infiltrated by Gramscian style commies that the damage had been deliberate.

[Frank_2001]

Check your Freepmail for an explanation.

[Frank_2001]

What say you in reply to my post #86? You wouldn’t be “ducking” me, would you, MARINE?

[tet68]

When he speaks at an Islamic get together, will they
scrub their symbols, I doubt it.

He did this so as not to offend muslims.

[kellynla]

“ducking you?” ROFLMAO

Hey, genius, you're addressing a Marine who walked Point for the Fifth Marines in Nam in 1969 & 1970...they don't make wheelbarrows big enough to haul my balls around in.

I said my piece to you. And I have nothing more to say to the likes of you.

Now run along and quit bothering me.

[fr_freak]

By decision of the American Psychology/Psychiatry community, “queers” are now normal. And their ranks of rank lawyers are ready, willing, and eager to sue you if you disagree. Under Obamunism, even discussions such as this one will be illegal.

The American Psychiatrics changed their definition of homosexuality for purely political reason, with zero scientific basis for redefining homosexuality as normal. I don't give damn what those leftists say, and neither does the Church. The Church also doesn't give a damn what the US government says. The Church is based in Rome, and parishes all over the world, and duty only to God. The Pope will do what the Pope will do, and Obama can pound sand.

Your lines, not mine. They contain the admission that the Church knew about the homosexuals, accepted them, and covered up for them.

My lines contained absolutely no such admission. I said that the Church made the decision to allow homosexuals to be priests as long as they were celibate. I never said the Church accepted the behavior, or covered up for a thing (as a whole). Homosexual behavior is still considered sinful by the Church, always has been. The Church took the view that, though one might have the urge, if he suppressed it, he was OK.

Also, it is absolutely expected that your mysterious friend would find records of the priest scandals in the Vatican. Only a blind, deaf and dumb illiterate would not know about them once they started. I guarantee the Church started looking into the problem as soon as they found out, and kept records on the subject. Stop looking for sinister conspiracies where obvious motives are apparent.

[Frank_2001]

“I said my piece to you.”
NO, “genius”, you SLANDERED me on the basis of my posting an erroneous statistic, which you used as the basis for a FALSE accusation of anti-Catholic bigotry.

“a Marine who walked Point for the Fifth Marines in Nam in 1969 & 1970.”

Yeah, you and a half-million other guys. Whoop-dee-doo.

“they don’t make wheelbarrows big enough to haul my balls around in.”

No matter how big those balls are, they still FAIL to make you MAN enough to APOLOGIZE for your SLANDER!

Those with the BIGGEST balls of all, DON’T BRAG!

“Now run along and quit bothering me.”

You gonna MAKE ME, big man?

“nothing more to say to the likes of you.”

I laugh at your trite attempt at condescension!

[GladesGuru]

“kept records on the subject”.

Records were kept, no doubt. Unfortunately, they were ignored for decades, while the pedophiles were transferred from one parish to another.

Then the lawyers discovered that they could dip their hands into the Church assets, and the feeding frenzy began.

[fr_freak]

Records were kept, no doubt. Unfortunately, they were ignored for decades, while the pedophiles were transferred from one parish to another.

And we're supposed to believe all of these charges because of a mysterious friend that you have? Give it up already.

[Frank_2001]

Gays are notorious for their promiscuity; often with hundreds of partners. So suppressing “the urge” is IMO wishful thinking. Let’s get the gays out, and get REAL MEN in the priesthood, without exception! Personally, I have never known any priest who was less than the highest moral caliber.

[fr_freak]

Gays are notorious for their promiscuity; often with hundreds of partners. So suppressing “the urge” is IMO wishful thinking. Let’s get the gays out, and get REAL MEN in the priesthood, without exception! Personally, I have never known any priest who was less than the highest moral caliber.

No argument here.