Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caveman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TracyJ said:
Thank you for your answer. What did the dreadful man say about the Pope?
I don’t think that anyone is trying to force any Church to perform marriage between
same sex couples but in America we have separation of Church and State and quite
frankly I think that it’s wrong to try to impose your religious beliefs on someone else, so I am for civil unions so that the couples can get the same legal protections that heterosexuals get.
It seems fair and just to me.
Click to expand...
Just a quick note, there is no separation of moral truth from the state. IOW, we do not want the state to be amoral simply because we think we are being fair.
 
Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request

(CNSNews.com) - 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.

Isn’t this action indicative of someone possessed by satan?
Those possessed by satan flee holy objects and symbols.​
 
Mom_of_5 said:
If it is protocol for any religious symbol to be covered, does anyone know if any president before Obama ask that this be done?
Click to expand...
I suspect that if there were “official” protocol for this, we would have already heard about it from his supporters. It wouldn’t surprise me if some “official” document saying as such is found within the next day or two - as soon as Obama’s team can come up with something. :rolleyes:

In any case, what I don’t understand is if he doesn’t want to have, or can’t have, religious symbols surrouding him, why speak at a religious institution? 🤷 Bizzare.
 
The strength of possession is manifested also from the reaction of the demon of holy names. Generally the evil one does not and cannot say those names; he substitutes expressions such as “he” (referring to God or Jesus) or “she” (referring tour Lady). Gabriel Amorth – An Exorcist Tells His Story
Click to expand...
So if one possessed by a demon can’t say the name of Jesus then wouldn’t it be correct to assert that someone possessed also dislikes being in the presence of the written name of Jesus?
 
also notice how it was covered up, by a piece of black painted plywood. Obama may be possesed or as some have indicated in other forums he is some one far worse.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

notice the resemblence to a black pyramid
 
Beautiful said:
So if one possessed by a demon can’t say the name of Jesus then wouldn’t it be correct to assert that someone possessed also dislikes being in the presence of the written name of Jesus?
Click to expand...
Seems like Obama has all the signs of a person possessed…
 
It seems as if our Catholic Universities can’t so no to Obama but have no trouble denying Catholic tradition.
 
Della said:
I have been searching Google and the State Department website trying to find the protocols for a presidential visits within the United States. I seem to recall that when the President gives a talk nothing is supposed to be visible around him except symbols of the United States. If this is the case (which I’ve been trying to confirm or refute) it would mean that no one at the WH intended to offend anyone’s religious sensibilities but were just trying to follow proper protocols for a presidential speech outside the WH proper.

I didn’t vote for Obama, I don’t support his policies, especially not his pro-death policies, but he is the president, and if the WH was merely following protocol then it should be no harm no foul. If not, then I would agree that something is terribly wrong with the way this was handled. If someone knows the proper protocols or has a source, I’m sure we’d all appreciate seeing them.
Click to expand...
It still boils down to preference.
Even …‘IF’ that were protocol - it could still be ‘what’ the President wants.
 
Mom_of_5 said:
If it is protocol for any religious symbol to be covered, does anyone know if any president before Obama ask that this be done? I am not disappointed in Obama, I have come to expect this of him, it was clear before the election that he was not truly christian. I am disappointed in the Universitys that have allowed him to use them for his own gain. N Dame should not have had him give the commencement speech and Georgetown was really wrong in covering up the symbol of Jesus. They denied Jesus as Peter did. I was taught that if need be, to die for my faith. Whatever happened to that teaching? We had better all start worrying about the future of this nation and our beloved christian faith. Soon our Catholic schools and universitys, as well as all other christian schools, will be taken over by government. We better be careful and not accept any “bail out” to help pay the bills because the donations are lagging. Our church will, one day, be underground. Far-fetched ? Just in my imagination? I think not. Just look at everything Obama has managed to do in a short time with the help of the Catholics and other christians who voted for him. We better start praying and telling our church leaders to pay attention or they too will be out of a job.
Has anyone heard how the Pope felt/feels about the Universitys outragous behavior?? Obama’s wishes come before Jesus? I do not accept the WH explanation for this horrible behavior.

Pray, pray!

Mom of 5
Click to expand...
Here is link that has a photo of when Laura Bush spoke at Georgetown and at the exact same place where Obama spoke and IHS was not covered.

cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46769
 
The Church, I should say MANY in the Catholic Church in America, has been cowering so badly in the post Vatican II years, principally out of a fear of the masses, that it should be no wonder something like this happens. It is simply a reflex action. The tragedy is that what they feared most, the migration out of the Church, has come to pass despite their actions or, more probably, because of them. Appeasement and compliance have simply not worked. It should be asked: is it really “pastoral care” to extoll only half truths when so many souls are at stake? How clearly has ‘engagement with the world’ been differentiated from ‘engagement in the world’? How responsible are the liberal, “forward thinking” churchmen for the rampant secularism that exits today, even in the Church?

Thank God for the many courageous and inspired in the Church who have kept the flame of faith alive and have seen the inherent flaws in attempting to democratise the Church. They must take comfort in the fact that in the end: the Truth will prevail!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top