Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 16, 2009 10:57:44 GMT -5
The irony here is, if it hadn't been covered up, I'm pretty sure there would be Catholics Editeded off that it looked like the Catholic Church was endorsing a pro-choice President. Is there any way to win here? No, I'm pretty sure this is a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. The end result of all this outrage will be the inevitable conclusion that no President will speak at Georgetown again.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Apr 16, 2009 11:14:40 GMT -5
From the Christian Broadcasting Network, not exactly a den of liberalism (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/581525.aspx):
Here is what The White House is telling The Brody File:
The President appreciated the gracious hosts at Georgetown University where he delivered his speech on the state of the economy. Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events. Any suggestions to the contrary are simply false."
...
Georgetown University is saying that The White House made the request to cover all symbols around the stage but it’s important to point out at there are dozens of religious symbols in Gaston Hall and those were not covered up. Also, other still pictures from the event show portraits of Jesus in the background which are off center from the stage. In addition, I can tell you that it has been my experience on the campaign trail that advance teams do typically make backdrops as generic as possible. It’s pretty much standard fare to make them that way. Also, the fact that Georgetown University actually has a perfectly fit triangle piece to cover up the cross and monogram suggests that they have done this before at other events.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 16, 2009 11:31:17 GMT -5
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Apr 16, 2009 11:39:37 GMT -5
The irony here is, if it hadn't been covered up, I'm pretty sure there would be Catholics Editeded off that it looked like the Catholic Church was endorsing a pro-choice President. Is there any way to win here? No, I'm pretty sure this is a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. The end result of all this outrage will be the inevitable conclusion that no President will speak at Georgetown again. Warning; semantic argument to follow: In a classic "damned if you do, damed if you don't" situation, the lack of the action would have to lead to a distinct outrage because the "don't" becomes the focus. That's not what you are talking about. You are just saying they would have complained no matter what, they would have just complained about something totally unrelated to the "do" that they did. In a true classic "damned if you do" situation, some group would have had to be outraged specifically THAT the Jesus image, etc was NOT covered up, not merely found another reason to complain. Consider that hair split. If this is SOP, and it seems more and more like it is, as I said from the outset, I'm fine with it. But might be a bit too soon to be shouting at everyone to "get over" a story that broke this morning and we are still learning about. I mean it's not like the suspicions raised were outlandish and beyond the pale of reason.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 16, 2009 12:30:22 GMT -5
The irony here is, if it hadn't been covered up, I'm pretty sure there would be Catholics Editeded off that it looked like the Catholic Church was endorsing a pro-choice President. Is there any way to win here? Yes, don't invite a pro-abortion President to a Catholic college. In fact, refuse to allow him/her to use a Catholic college and let that be known to the media to send him and America the message that Catholic colleges have principles that will not be given up. Of course, that would have required Georgetown University to be a Catholic college.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 16, 2009 12:36:08 GMT -5
The irony here is, if it hadn't been covered up, I'm pretty sure there would be Catholics Editeded off that it looked like the Catholic Church was endorsing a pro-choice President. Is there any way to win here? Yes, don't invite a pro-abortion President to a Catholic college. In fact, refuse to allow him/her to use a Catholic college and let that be known to the media to send him and America the message that Catholic colleges have principles that will not be given up. Of course, that would have required Georgetown University to be a Catholic college. Oh yes, the "I don't agree with you on everything so please don't come and speak here about anything" school of debate and reason. It's funny, but I believe even the Vatican welcomes foreign leaders regardless of their religion. In fact, I recall it was only just last year that Bush was being hosted by the current Pope in the Vatican. I believe Bush is a big supporter of capital punishment. I believe that is contrary to Catholic doctrine. Soooo, under your logic, shouldn't he have been turned away at the door? Or is this policy only reserved for baby killers and not adult killers?
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Apr 16, 2009 12:47:33 GMT -5
It's funny, but I believe even the Vatican welcomes foreign leaders regardless of their religion. In fact, I recall it was only just last year that Bush was being hosted by the current Pope in the Vatican. I believe Bush is a big supporter of capital punishment. I believe that is contrary to Catholic doctrine. Soooo, under your logic, shouldn't he have been turned away at the door? Or is this policy only reserved for baby killers and not adult killers? This.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 16, 2009 13:13:31 GMT -5
Didn't the Pope meet with Nancy Pelosi earlier this year?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 16, 2009 14:33:22 GMT -5
First off, Obama's visit was to talk, no questions, no dialog. The Pope did not cover his cross and he did tell Ms Pelosi and Mr. Bush what he thought about abortion and about capital punishment and the War in Iraq. Had Georgetown refused to allow Bush to speak and told him it was because of his support for the death penalty my response would have been "bravo, stand up for your principles". But, there is also a matter of degree. During 4 years of an Obama administration, about 5 million Americans will die due to abortion. If he wins a second term, double that number. That does not include fooling around with embryos.
If Georgetown were to invite President Obama to a discussion about abortion with pro- and anti-abortion persons involved in the discussion, I would have less opposition. But it's not just the invite to the President, it's what I hear on this board about students and recent grads who have bought into the charade of "choice" and "we don't know when personhood begins", coming from a supposedly Catholic university, that galls me even more. Georgetown has done you a great disservice. I am especially sad for your parents who sent you to a Catholic university only to have you lose your faith there. If Georgetown is to continue this, please, please stop calling yourself Catholic.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Apr 16, 2009 14:35:31 GMT -5
Whoa Ed...did you just conclude that abortions are only legal because Obama is in the White House and if he is not re-elected, abortions will stop?
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on Apr 16, 2009 14:51:34 GMT -5
And on December 20, 2007 Pope Benedict XVI personally confered the title Honorary Chanoine of the Basilica of St. John Lateran upon French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy is pro-choice. ed, you are simply wrong.
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on Apr 16, 2009 14:55:15 GMT -5
Whoa Ed...did you just conclude that if abortions are only legal because Obama is in the White House and if he is not re-elected, abortions will stop? seriously, isn't it true, then, that "millions of Americans" died due to abortion during Bush's presidency too?? Does that make Bush "pro-abortion" in your mind?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 16, 2009 14:59:33 GMT -5
What if a pregnant woman moves to Canada before giving birth. Is her kid still an "American"?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 16, 2009 15:01:35 GMT -5
I am not Catholic. Nor are my parents. I didn't lose my faith at Georgetown. They are not sad about my education there, nor am I. If anything, it made me consider religion more than I would have. I appreciate everything about the Jesuit tradition; I even attended a Jesuit law school. The best thing I learned from them was that I should not be afraid to listen to those I disagree with; rather, I should engage them in dialogue and reasoned debate. My problem is that you do Catholicism a disservice by restricting its identity to a single issue. That is a dishonor to the long tradition and history of the church and its role in society. There are 2000 years of amazing philosophy, reason, debate, writings and doctrine to cherish in the Catholic tradition, yet all that goes out the window and we are forced to focus on an issue, that quite simply, has been extremely minor in the history of the Church. It is you and those who share your disdain for dissent on this single issue who have sidelined and marginalized the Church. Why not embrace Obama and his speech because of his views on poverty, which are much in line with Church doctrine. Or the death penalty. Or the power of confession? Or Jesus being the son of God? No, none of that is important, only the singular issue of abortion.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Apr 16, 2009 15:53:57 GMT -5
My problem is that you do Catholicism a disservice by restricting its identity to a single issue. BINGO! I consider myself a non-practicing Catholic. I was raised in this tradition, and attended Catholic school all my life, including Georgetown. I believe in a lot of Church teachings, such loving your enemies and treating others as you would like to be treated. However, I do not attend church often, and I do not give up anything or refrain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent. I believe my actions towards other people are more important than doing these things, which is why I have issues with all of organized religion, not just Catholicism. I am pro-choice, and this is one of many issues that I disagree with the Church on (also premarital sex, contraception, and gay marriage). However, I still am anti-war, anti-death penalty, and think giving to the poor and disadvantaged is probably the most important thing that Catholics can do, especially in regards to Jesus' teachings in the Bible. For these reasons, with all my issues with the Church, I still consider myself Catholic. And I feel that there are a lot of Catholics out there like me. EasyEd, please feel free to tell me why I am not Catholic, and how Georgetown has failed me. And finally to get back on topic, although I disagree with them and their tactics, the pro-life protesters have a right to their free speech, and I think Georgetown is best served having speakers of all political persuasions and viewpoints on campus.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Apr 16, 2009 15:56:52 GMT -5
But it's not just the invite to the President, it's what I hear on this board about students and recent grads who have bought into the charade of "choice" and "we don't know when personhood begins", coming from a supposedly Catholic university, that galls me even more. Georgetown has done you a great disservice. I am especially sad for your parents who sent you to a Catholic university only to have you lose your faith there. If Georgetown is to continue this, please, please stop calling yourself Catholic. Ed, these days about 50% of students at Georgetown report being Catholic. If you hear about students and recent grads "buying into the charade of choice," it doesn't mean Georgetown is responsible for them losing their faith. It probably means that they are in the 50% that never held Catholic beliefs. Moreover, even if you are speaking specifically about people who say they are Catholic but hold pro-choice views, it does not follow that their viewpoint on abortion is the result of anything Georgetown did. I am confident that all Georgetown students, upon graduating, know of and understand the Catholic belief that personhood begins at conception. In that sense, Georgetown has done its job in educating its students about Catholic beliefs. But if students disagree with those beliefs, it isn't because Georgetown is responsible for their loss of faith, it's probably because they never had that faith to begin with. Just because 100% of students don't leave Georgetown with pro-life views doesn't mean Georgetown is causing a loss of faith.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Apr 16, 2009 16:40:57 GMT -5
Georgetown isn't supposed to be teaching us catholic doctrine they're supposed to be indoctrinating it and making sure everyone beleives it when they leave otherwise they've failed us. Any non catholic should not be allowed and non beleiver who sets foot on campus should be stoned to death.[/ed]
|
|
PhillyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by PhillyHoya on Apr 16, 2009 18:49:26 GMT -5
My Catholic faith was lost long before I ever got to Georgetown. Parochial school, disagreement with Vatican social policies and a specific holier-than-thou, overbearing nun were responsible. Georgetown didn't fail me in that case. It was never a question. What Georgetown did was give me a respect for theology and other religions and beliefs. It helped me create and solidify my personal belief system.
Like afirthionado said, only half of the current student population even identifies as Catholic. And you'll probably find that the majority of those remain pro life. If we wanted indoctrination, we would've went to seminary. But no, we went to a university that is open to all ideas and beliefs and believes that they can be discussed in an educated manner in an open forum. If you have a problem with Georgetown not making us all pro life, you'll find plenty of non Catholics to protest any number of things about religion at Georgetown (including crucifixes in all the classrooms - I didn't have an issue with it but I knew several people who did).
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 16, 2009 19:00:55 GMT -5
I think I turned on my Catholic upbringing when the Church decided that, based on really old writings by various somewhat random authors combined with the theories of a group of really old men in Italy, I should believe that homosexuals are sinning by loving other people in the way that is most fulfilling to them.
I'll take the West Wing on Sunday mornings, thank you. Georgetown even let this President speak on campus at his daughter's (fictional) graduation!
President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination. Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does. President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus. Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22. President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 16, 2009 19:05:12 GMT -5
I think I turned on my Catholic upbringing when the Church decided that, based on really old writings by various somewhat random authors combined with the theories of a group of really old men in Italy, I should believe that homosexuals are sinning by loving other people in the way that is most fulfilling to them. I'll take the West Wing on Sunday mornings, thank you. Georgetown even let this President speak on campus at his daughter's (fictional) graduation! President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination. Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does. President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus. Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22. President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits. OH Snap!
|
|