Covering up the Real Rock at Georgetown (What Obama was really communicating in his speech)

Insight Scoop ^ | April 16, 2009 | Carl Olson

[NYer]

This news about President Obama's speech at Georgetown, reported by Catholic News Service, is causing a bit of a stir:

Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram “IHS”--symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there.
 
As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com.

“In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage,” Julie Green Bataille, associate vice president for communications at Georgetown, told CNSNews.com.

More of the story, along with photos, are available on the CNS site.

Julia Dunn of The Washington Times' Belief Blog provides some helpful quotes:

Julie Bataille from the university's press office e-mailed me that the White House had asked that all university signage and symbols behind the stage in Gaston Hall be covered.

"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 wrote. "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."

<snip>

Not every Catholic institution would have caved to quite this extent. Victor Nakas, spokesman for Catholic University, e-mailed me to say several presidents have visited CUA and the most recent administration official to speak there was then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I can’t imagine, as the bishops’ university and the national university of the Catholic Church, that we would ever cover up our religious art or signage for any reason," Mr. Nakas wrote. "Our Catholic faith is integral to our identity as an institution of higher education.

But, of course, the prize for Obamaccommodation, goes to a usual suspect:

I called the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Institute at Georgetown University, who was at the speech, as to what he thought.

"It is more for camera quality than anything else," he surmised. "They don't want distractions that would make the eye wander. I don't think this is motivated by theology, but by communications strategy."

Students "were dying to get into the hall," he added. "There is this great enthusiasm for Obama especially among Catholic young people. The conservatives don't know how to deal with this. 

"The audience wanted to cheer and cheer this very professorial address. He played Professor Obama. He's a damn good professor but not even he could make economics a barnraiser."

And what, exactly, was being communicated? As Daniel Pulliam of the Get Religion blog points out, it was a message about economic policy based, in part, on a biblical metaphor—and not just any metaphor, but the metaphor of "The House Upon a Rock":

Most news stories I have surveyed on President Obama’s speech Tuesday on the economy (among other things) have mentioned his use of the biblical metaphor of the nation’s economy being built on a rock, but few have gone beyond the message’s surface. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here.) For starters, none of the stories I read mentioned that President George W. Bush used a lot of religious metaphors and was at times criticized for using such language.

Obama has used the Sermon on the Mount before in his political rhetoric, (namely to express his support for civil unions), but this is one of the first times that I remember where biblical passages have been used for an area outside the social issues:

Here is the pertinent part of the speech:

Now, there's a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells the story of two men.  The first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was soon destroyed when a storm hit.  But the second is known as the wise man, for when "the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, it fell not:  for it was founded upon a rock.

It was founded upon a rock.  We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand.  We must build our house upon a rock.  We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity -- a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.

It's a foundation built upon five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century:  Number one, new rules for Wall Street that will reward drive and innovation, not reckless risk-taking -- (applause); number two, new investments in education that will make our workforce more skilled and competitive -- (applause); number three, new investments in renewable energy and technology that will create new jobs and new industries -- (applause); number four, new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and number five, new savings in our federal budget that will bring down the debt for future generations.  (Applause.)
 
That's the new foundation we must build.  That's our house built upon a rock.  That must be our future -- and my administration's policies are designed to achieve that future.

It's worth looking at the larger context of the passage used, from Matthew 7:

"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' "Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it." And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. (Matt 7:21-29)

All of this, I think, is quite ripe with ironic, even surreal, qualities: The President of the United States goes to the oldest Catholic university in the U.S., has the university cover up the monogram of the name of Jesus Christ, then gives a speech in which he prominently uses (or misuses) a biblical passage about the necessity of building one's house on Christ and His teachings in making his case for "the new [economic] foundation we must build" in the United States. And then a prominent Jesuit crows about the "great enthusiasm ... especially among Catholic young people" for a man who appears to be purposefully subverting the words of Scripture for his political ends. Audacity, indeed.

All of which begs a simple question: upon what, exactly, is Georgetown built? And who, exactly, does it serve? And for what end?

[Antoninus]

Several of my priests, who are very good men, are willing to give Obama a pass on abortion because they believe he will further the cause of social justice.

Such "good" men are short-sighted idiots. They should take heed to the words of Mother Theresa: "If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

[stop_fascism]

Short sighted, yes. Idiots, no.

[Antoninus]

Short sighted, yes. Idiots, no.

Perhaps idiot savants, then. It's possible to be brilliant in an incredibly complex field but not realize it's a bad deal when someone is selling you a car with no tires.

[stop_fascism]

They would probably say that they abhor abortion, and have worked their entire lives to do away with it, and to heal the damage that is done by it. However, it is the law of the United States and neither candidate would do much to change that. On the other hand, Obama heals the wound of racial animosity, understands poverty, and will establish a kinder gentler foreign policy.

I don’t agree, but that seems to be the belief of many sincere Catholics. It doesn’t help to have Servants of Satan like Kmiec beating the drum for Obama.

[georgia peach]

And a liar.

[stop_fascism]

My point is that good people can be beguiled. “Satan’s greatest trick was to convince mankind that he doesn’t exist.” It is similar to the way liberation theology led good men to do great damage to the people they wanted to help.

[FatherofFive]

الاسلام هو شر لا مثيل لها ، ويجب القضاء عليه

[Antoninus]

My point is that good people can be beguiled.

True. But in my experience, many people let themselves be beguiled because deceived and comfortable beats honest and uncomfortable with a stick.

[Ro_Thunder]

I called the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Institute at Georgetown University, who was at the speech, as to what he thought.

“It is more for camera quality than anything else,” he surmised. “They don’t want distractions that would make the eye wander. I don’t think this is motivated by theology, but by communications strategy.”

I would agree. It’s been said if you look into a cobra’s eyes, you’re dead. Once you look into their eyes, you become frozen, and they kill you. Much like once you look into Obama’s eyes, the powers that be (whatever they are), have you mentally ‘frozen’. Frankly, your soul may be in peril at that point - not just your life.

[goat granny]

good men in this case= bad priest and not catholic

[AliVeritas]

Mockery, how Jim Jones of him.

So many anti-christs, so little time.

All I want to know is... Did the press office specifically ask for the dais to be covered, or if they did it on their own? When (during the intro), the camera got that high, did you not have stained glass windows? Shall I not believe my eyes on the pics I have of him in front of the light up cross and other pulpits (inc. Pfleger’s, don’t get me started)? What did he ask to be removed at the Blue Mosque? I wouldn’t be surprised if Doug Kmiec himself asked Georgetown to cover the Holy Name.

Did you see this?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/wh-no-religious.html

As a commenter points out (same applies to Condi and others who spoke there), that Laura Bush spoke re: US/Afghan Women with muslims there... no covering.

As Father Benedict said on the mystery of vocations, “No one lives the Christian life perfectly. In my life, I’ve known dumb Jesuits, confused Dominicans, proud Capuchins, rich Franciscans, and Salesians who can’t stand small children! I’ve known merciless Sisters of Mercy and uncharitable Missionaries of Charity and foolish Daughters of Wisdom.”

[AliVeritas]

Maybe he meant the Islamic Sermon on the Mount.

(57 states)

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Another one: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041704.html

[humblegunner]

Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram “IHS”--symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ

How in the world does "IHS" symbolize Jesus?

[humblegunner]

Boy, did they screw up.

Turns out "IHS" is something totally different from Jesus...

[MarkBsnr]

***How in the world does “IHS” symbolize Jesus?***

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

IHS

A monogram of the name of Jesus Christ. From the third century the names of our Saviour are sometimes shortened, particularly in Christian inscriptions (IH and XP, for Jesus and Christus). In the next century the “sigla” (chi-rho) occurs not only as an abbreviation but also as a symbol. From the beginning, however, in Christian inscriptions the nomina sacra, or names of Jesus Christ, were shortened by contraction, thus IC and XC or IHS and XPS for Iesous Christos. These Greek monograms continued to be used in Latin during the Middle Ages. Eventually the right meaning was lost, and erroneous interpretation of IHS led to the faulty orthography “Jhesus”. In Latin the learned abbreviation IHC rarely occurs after the Carlovingian era. The monogram became more popular after the twelfth century when St. Bernard insisted much on devotion to the Holy Name of Jesus, and the fourteenth, when the founder of the Jesuati, Blessed John Colombini (d. 1367), usually wore it on his breast. Towards the close of the Middle Ages IHS became a symbol, quite like the chi-rho in the Constantinian period. Sometimes above the H appears a cross and underneath three nails, while the whole figure is surrounded by rays. IHS became the accepted iconographical characteristic of St. Vincent Ferrer (d. 1419) and of St. Bernardine of Siena (d. 1444). The latter holy missionary, at the end of his sermons, was wont to exhibit this monogram devoutly to his audience, for which some blamed him; he was even called before Martin V. St. Ignatius of Loyola adopted the monogram in his seal as general of the Society of Jesus (1541), and thus it became the emblem of his institute. IHS was sometimes wrongly understood as “Jesus Hominum (or Hierosolymae) Salvator”, i.e. Jesus, the Saviour of men (or of Jerusalem=Hierosolyma).

[TASMANIANRED]

Shame on them.

[Iscool]

And don’t forget his ties and friendship with the AMerican muzlim leader...

http://hereticdhammasangha.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/barack-obama-anti-semitic/

[Iscool]

He wants to divide the Catholic church between real catholics and those who claim to be catholic but follow few of the church’s teachings. He is using social justice to drive a wedge into the church. So far, he was been very successful. Several of my priests, who are very good men, are willing to give Obama a pass on abortion because they believe he will further the cause of social justice.

Social justice??? You mean special rights for homos and voting rights of illegal Mexican aliens...

How do you know you are the real Catholic when you have one 'Holy Father' kissing a Koran and another one puddle jumping around the world visiting mosques???

[bperiwinkle7]

Here is what came to my mind.....

Psa 11:3 if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

After reading his staff’s logic of this speech, in the WSJ article,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123991149634726345.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

it is clear the whole thing is cockeyed goofy thinking, and he will end up destroying this country, if God allows it.....

Everything with him is opposite day and alternate universe, evil is good and good, evil....bitter is sweet and sweet, bitter....