Obama avoided a World War today, by ensuring the words "Jesus" were covered in black cloth so they wouldn't be seen on camera at the Catholic University he was speaking at. The University was willing to oblige.
"We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock." said Obama in a speech at Georgetown Catholic University, mollifying Christians around the world with a biblical quote.
I guess Presidents must be seen to be neutral, for fear of upsetting the strong and possibly violent atheist lobby :-) not to mention starting a war with upset radical Islamic Fundamentalists, who still haven't gotten over the Danish cartoons and Iraq (or are they Democrats?).
Some people are a little upset about this White House "cover-up". Questions are naturally asked: Is it that such a backdrop causes offense? Is it that some people cannot figure why it is there? Is it simply easier to squash all religious references?
I don't think so, given the frequent religious references he peppers his speeches with. Just the usual White House worries about spin. Of course, then even this action gets some spin. The end result might be that all speeches are done from the White House, or he has a traveling backdrop of a flag in every single speech. Just the thing to start calls of American imperialism!
I'm not offended, but I am noticing Christian references are increasingly deemed "inappropriate". When this is also the case from a so-called champion of religious tolerance, perhaps the story is more significant than I realise.
Related Link: Religious symbols far too symbolic
"We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock." said Obama in a speech at Georgetown Catholic University, mollifying Christians around the world with a biblical quote.
I guess Presidents must be seen to be neutral, for fear of upsetting the strong and possibly violent atheist lobby :-) not to mention starting a war with upset radical Islamic Fundamentalists, who still haven't gotten over the Danish cartoons and Iraq (or are they Democrats?).
Some people are a little upset about this White House "cover-up". Questions are naturally asked: Is it that such a backdrop causes offense? Is it that some people cannot figure why it is there? Is it simply easier to squash all religious references?
I don't think so, given the frequent religious references he peppers his speeches with. Just the usual White House worries about spin. Of course, then even this action gets some spin. The end result might be that all speeches are done from the White House, or he has a traveling backdrop of a flag in every single speech. Just the thing to start calls of American imperialism!
I'm not offended, but I am noticing Christian references are increasingly deemed "inappropriate". When this is also the case from a so-called champion of religious tolerance, perhaps the story is more significant than I realise.
Related Link: Religious symbols far too symbolic