Obama at Notre Dame

[Cambridge]

I can't believe there is no topic on this...

Personally, having read his speech and seen a replay of it, I have to say I'm pretty impressed. Other thoughts?

[SFHoya99]

I didn't see this, but I did see the Saturday Night Live bit completely mocking Arizona State for not giving him an honorary degree.

It was pretty good.

[hoyatables]

I read the speech and thought it was quite good. (text was available on NYT) I thought the ending piece about Father Hesburgh and the Civil Rights Commission was particularly clever. Kudos to the speechwriter/staffer who dug up that story!

[Elvado]

I think the President did a nice job with his speech. He handled it gracefully. Now let's see if he and his party can walk the walk when it comes to toning down the rhetoric and working toward common ground.

[hoyatables]

May 19, 2009 8:12:06 GMT -5 Elvado said:

I think the President did a nice job with his speech. He handled it gracefully. Now let's see if he and his party can walk the walk when it comes to toning down the rhetoric and working toward common ground.

Agreed. I think the Pres is up to the task, not sure whether he can get the party to follow suit, though.

[theexorcist]

www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/17/obama-notre-dame-speech-f_n_204387.html has the text and video.

I didn't like this speech. I really didn't like the speech. Here's why.

1. One of the more continuous themes of the coverage was students complaining that protestors disrupted their day by mentioning abortion.

Obama, in his speech, discussed abortion. And, in a day focused on commencement, he made a point to bring up one of his major differences with a key Catholic belief. It's rude.

And the point of the abortion story - that you can't demonize your opposition, and that reasonable people may come to different conclusions - could have been illustrated with 17 million other examples. And it's the one disconnect in the speech that doesn't naturally flow with the rest - it's a tortured jump to get back to the Developing Communities anecdote.

2. The emphasis on abortion to tell the story about tolerance also gets me. It's the idea behind the anecdote that there's a compromise on the issue of abortion - maybe banning late-term abortions, but still keeping it legal beyond that.

The problem is, in the Catholic tradition on abortion, there's no middle ground. Absolutely zero. None. The Catholic belief holds that, if you're performing an abortion, whether after two weeks or seven months, you're still taking life. And by making the point that it's essentially an unreasonable position, Obama is once again being rude to his hosts and thumbing his nose at them - especially since his prefatory remarks make it clear that a key point is the defense of the weak (and since Catholic teaching on abortion is that there is no clearer case of defending the weak than opposing abortion).

So, quick version of the above - instead of making the speech about the students, Obama made it about pushing the Democratic platform on abortion to the Catholic community.

[TC]

May 19, 2009 8:29:03 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Obama, in his speech, discussed abortion. And, in a day focused on commencement, he made a point to bring up one of his major differences with a key Catholic belief. It's rude.

Are you serious?

The message of the speech was fair-minded words. Not abortion. He chose abortion as an example because it was the elephant in the room and he basically had to address it somehow. If you want to blame someone for making abortion an issue that distracted from the Notre Dame graduation, I think there's plenty of room to point fingers and I wouldn't start with pointing at Barack Obama.

That said, the ASU speech was a better commencement speech and a superior speech in general. He basically took the text of the ASU press release that caused the "why aren't you giving him an honorary degree" firestorm and turned it into a neither-I-nor-the-graduates have achieved our body of work message. There was a measure of humility to it and he managed to tackle the controversy head-on without distracting from giving a message to graduates.

[Boz]

May 19, 2009 8:23:35 GMT -5 hoyatables said:

May 19, 2009 8:12:06 GMT -5 Elvado said:

I think the President did a nice job with his speech. He handled it gracefully. Now let's see if he and his party can walk the walk when it comes to toning down the rhetoric and working toward common ground.

Agreed. I think the Pres is up to the task, not sure whether he can get the party to follow suit, though.

Exorcist's point about there really being no middle ground on the issue of abortion notwithstanding, is there anything in President Obama's track record that indicates a desire to work with the pro-life community and that would make this anything more than a pretty speech?

Forget for a minute his track record as a state and US Senator.

As President, he has:

- Nominated first Tom Dschle, then Kathleen Sebelius, as HHS secretaries. Not exactly two people with strong backgrounds for working with the pro-life community.

- Not invited any pro-life groups to his health care summit, but did invite Planned Parenthood.

- Has selected members of NARAL and Emily's List to key positions in his administration, but as far as I know, no prominent pro-life staff (you can correct me if I am wrong on this, but I am not aware of any).

- Released an entirely unnecessary statement noting his support for Roe v. Wade. (why did this have to be done?)

- Overturned/rescinded Mexico City policy.

- Has pledged to pass FOCA, which would prevent Catholic hospitals and pro-life doctors from refusing to perform abortions on conscientious grounds. (OK, he hasn't actually pledged this as President per se, but he did on the campaign trail).


I'm sure I could come up with some others, but the point is not to say that the President can't or shouldn't do these things. He did win the election after all. And I'm sure some Hoyatalkers agree with some or all of these initial positions, appointments and actions. But you'd really have a hard time convincing me or anyone else who is pro-life that any of his actions to date indicate that the President is truly interested in reaching out to the pro-life community and/or finding "common ground" on this issue.

If someone would like to make a counter-argument and point out any actions you know of that are, in fact, an effort to reach out to those who oppose abortion, believe me, I'd be happy to read about anything you have.

Maybe, just maybe, he might be adjusting his sails a little bit with the recent Gallup pro-life polling numbers, but this speech is the only evidence we have of that to date. And without any action to support it, is it anything more than empty rhetoric?

[theexorcist]

May 19, 2009 9:01:32 GMT -5 TC said:

May 19, 2009 8:29:03 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Obama, in his speech, discussed abortion. And, in a day focused on commencement, he made a point to bring up one of his major differences with a key Catholic belief. It's rude.

Are you serious?

The message of the speech was fair-minded words. Not abortion. He chose abortion as an example because it was the elephant in the room and he basically had to address it somehow. If you want to blame someone for making abortion an issue that distracted from the Notre Dame graduation, I think there's plenty of room to point fingers and I wouldn't start with pointing at Barack Obama.

That said, the ASU speech was a better commencement speech and a superior speech in general. He basically took the text of the ASU press release that caused the "why aren't you giving him an honorary degree" firestorm and turned it into a neither-I-nor-the-graduates have achieved our body of work message. There was a measure of humility to it and he managed to tackle the controversy head-on without distracting from giving a message to graduates.

I disagree - the speech doesn't always have to be about the speaker - David Foster Wallace gave a great speech (google it) that talks about the person passing you on the right lane that doesn't mention "a little book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope - oh, you've heard of it? Splendid!". Obama simply could have excised the abortion aside and essentially had the same speech - and anyone worth his salt would have noticed enough references to abortion to have the same point made. There's a difference between a scalpel and a shotgun.

Absolutely and entirely unrelated - check out the great Steve Jobs speech he gave in 2005 at www.snopes.com/glurge/stevejobs.asp

[washingtonhoya]

I won't offer an opinion on the matter (since I can't be entirely sure what mine is), but I thought this was an interesting article that deserves a read, regarding the divide between the Catholic colleges and the Church as a whole. The point regarding Catholic institutions like Notre Dame and Georgetown being perceived as non-Catholic due to their stances on issues of "cultural Catholicism," abortion being Exhibit 1, is particularly well-taken.

At the Gates of Notre Dame

However, I would have to disagree with this passage:
"The people at these institutions do not all approve of legalized abortion—some do, some don’t, and the percentages vary, with Georgetown probably high toward approval and Notre Dame certainly high toward disapproval."

This may very well be true but it ignores 'approval of legalized abortion' as a function of the percentage of Catholic students at the university. If this is the case, extended through the end of the article regarding cultural Catholicism, then it would seem that the traditionalist/pro-life solution is to discourage the admission of non-Catholic students to Catholic institutions, which would be detrimental to the open exchange of ideas that a University is designed to foster.

[SFHoya99]

exorcist, your comments go to prove that people get out of something what they expect to see. Abortion is about four paragraphs of forty. And I'm sure if he didn't mention it, some people would accuse him of dodging the issue. Furthermore, he clearly states that the abortion issue isn't one that is likely or even possibly reconcilable.

The speech doesn't come close to centering on abortion. It's inspirational and has a good message -- things Obama is very good at. I'd be shocked if most of the ND students -- despite probably being more conservative than most campuses -- didn't think it was excellent.

[EasyEd]

See Archbishop Raymond Burke's comments, pre-Obama speech. They are lengthy.

www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050819.html

[TC]

May 19, 2009 9:35:18 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

I disagree - the speech doesn't always have to be about the speaker - David Foster Wallace gave a great speech (google it) that talks about the person passing you on the right lane that doesn't mention "a little book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope - oh, you've heard of it? Splendid!".

....

Absolutely and entirely unrelated - check out the great Steve Jobs speech he gave in 2005 at www.snopes.com/glurge/stevejobs.asp

So, if I have this straight - it's arrogance when Obama to mentions an experience with a Doctor that he detailed in The Audacity of Hope, but when Steve Jobs slams Windows, praises the Mac, praises NeXT, and talks about how awesome Apple Computers is in a speech - it's great?

(and don't get me wrong, Apple Computers is awesome, the stuff NeXT came up with was awesome and there is not a person on this board that hates both Microsoft as a company and Windows as a product more than I do)

[Cambridge]

So my question is did George W. Bush get an honorary degree when he gave the commencement speech to Notre Dame in 2001? If he did, and there was no protest regarding his stance on the death penalty, I consider this all a load of hogwash. Why? Well, I'm pretty sure our Lord and Savior had some very personal experience with the cruel and unusual nature of the death penalty and I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church, several Popes (including the current) and Church dogma has been VERY clear on the issue of the death penalty. I'm also sure that as Governor of Texas, Bush presided over 152 executions. You might say he didn't convict them or carry them out, he simply upheld the laws of the state and the will of the people. That reminds me of a certain Roman, named Pontius Pilate.

So, in sum, according to this element of the Catholic Church - and I'm referring to the ones out in protest in 2009 who did not protest GWB in 2001 - it's perfectly alright to give an honorary degree of law to a man responsible for over 150 state executions, but it's an abomination to give one to Obama because as a President, U.S. Senator and state legislator he has stated his support for the right to choose - but who has dedicated his life to the alleviation of poverty, injustice and discrimination - and whose chief requirement for the next Supreme Court Justice (as ridiculous as it sounds) is empathy?

Yep, I'm pretty sure Jesus would be so Editeded off.

[EasyEd]

Yep, 150 Texas state executions in FOUR YEARS vs 150 per HOUR executions by abortion. Some comparison. There is also a difference in the Church's positions on abortion and the death penalty. Church's view is abortion is intrinsically wrong, always wrong. As for the death penalty the position is that there appears to be other ways of dealing with great crimes that will prevent the criminal from repeating the crime so we conclude the death penalty is wrong.

[hoyatables]

May 19, 2009 12:32:27 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Yep, 150 Texas state executions in FOUR YEARS vs 150 per HOUR executions by abortion. Some comparison. There is also a difference in the Church's positions on abortion and the death penalty. Church's view is abortion is intrinsically wrong, always wrong. As for the death penalty the position is that there appears to be other ways of dealing with great crimes that will prevent the criminal from repeating the crime so we conclude the death penalty is wrong.

Ed, I expect better from you.

For one, I thought that abortion was intrinsically wrong because all life is sacred. If that's the case then why isn't death penalty intrinsically wrong because "all life is sacred"?

And furthermore, I would argue that Jesus's teachings argue just as strongly for mercy and forgiveness of criminals, as well as offering them the chance to seek their own forgiveness and redemption.

Finally, I did find your observation that the death penalty is wrong "because there are other ways of dealing with great crimes and to prevent the criminal from repeating the crime." Of course, there are other ways to prevent abortions, too (hint -- contraception!) -- but the Church is woefully out of step on that issue.

I completely understand the Church's position on abortion (agreement or not, notwithstanding). But I find the Church's position on contraception to be somewhat shameful and stubborn for the sake of stubbornness.

[vcjack]

May 19, 2009 10:36:07 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

So my question is did George W. Bush get an honorary degree when he gave the commencement speech to Notre Dame in 2001? If he did, and there was no protest regarding his stance on the death penalty, I consider this all a load of hogwash. Why? Well, I'm pretty sure our Lord and Savior had some very personal experience with the cruel and unusual nature of the death penalty and I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church, several Popes (including the current) and Church dogma has been VERY clear on the issue of the death penalty. I'm also sure that as Governor of Texas, Bush presided over 152 executions. You might say he didn't convict them or carry them out, he simply upheld the laws of the state and the will of the people. That reminds me of a certain Roman, named Pontius Pilate.

So, in sum, according to this element of the Catholic Church - and I'm referring to the ones out in protest in 2009 who did not protest GWB in 2001 - it's perfectly alright to give an honorary degree of law to a man responsible for over 150 state executions, but it's an abomination to give one to Obama because as a President, U.S. Senator and state legislator he has stated his support for the right to choose - but who has dedicated his life to the alleviation of poverty, injustice and discrimination - and whose chief requirement for the next Supreme Court Justice (as ridiculous as it sounds) is empathy?

Yep, I'm pretty sure Jesus would be so Editeded off.

According to the article washingtonhoya linked, at least one of the priests at the head of the Notre Dame protests also tried something similar in 2006 when BC gave Condi Rice an honorary degree

so to answer your question, kinda.


I was expecting Father Jenkings to pull something to save face during the ceremony ala Bollinger ripping Ahmadinejad at Columbia, but we were unfortunately denied the hilarity of that.

[CAHoya07]

May 19, 2009 12:32:27 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Church's view is abortion is intrinsically wrong, always wrong.

Even in cases of rape and incest. And even in cases when the would-be mother's health is in danger and could die. That's what gets me most about this view.

And hoyatables... RIGHT ON.

[theexorcist]

May 19, 2009 13:09:15 GMT -5 CAHoya07 said:

May 19, 2009 12:32:27 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Church's view is abortion is intrinsically wrong, always wrong.

Even in cases of rape and incest. And even in cases when the would-be mother's health is in danger and could die. That's what gets me most about this view.

And hoyatables... RIGHT ON.

The Catholic viewpoint on this is actually pretty darn simple:

1. Life is above all.
2. Life begins at conception
3. All humanity has a specific duty to speak for and defend those who can't defend themselves.

If the fetus in the womb is alive, then, according to the above, it doesn't really matter whether or not rape or incest is involved (even in the case of birth defects - points #1 and #3 matter most, and so even a severely handicapped child can't have someone else decide that they would be "better off dead"). And the prospect of *possible* death for the mother has to be weighed against the case of *certain* death for the fetus.

If you accept #2, then all else naturally follows - you wouldn't kill a baby to get someone a needed kidney, for example. You may disagree with the logic, especially with point #2, but it's remarkably consistent logically.

[Cambridge]

May 19, 2009 12:32:27 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Yep, 150 Texas state executions in FOUR YEARS vs 150 per HOUR executions by abortion. Some comparison. There is also a difference in the Church's positions on abortion and the death penalty. Church's view is abortion is intrinsically wrong, always wrong. As for the death penalty the position is that there appears to be other ways of dealing with great crimes that will prevent the criminal from repeating the crime so we conclude the death penalty is wrong.

Hmm, so the Catholic Church has reasoned around the very straight forward language of "Thou Shall Not Kill" for the death penalty and ruled on the issue as a practical and not as a moral issue. That seems very convenient and relative.

I'm not sure Jesus would agree with the Church doctrine you espouse, nor would many of the Church's most vaunted Saint's - considering Christ and many of them were subjected to executions at the hand of the state.