US president undermines Catholic schools after Vatican Prefect praised them

  • Thread starter Thread starter lizardley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I view him as anti-Catholic & anti-christian… we get what we vote for, & sometimes what we don’t vote for. The Catholic Church in Ireland won’t bow to this person moralizing to Ireland when he sanctions the deaths of US citizen’s, when you get that sorted Mr Obama Sir, then comeback and moralize to us and tell us how evil we all are here, because you never fooled me or many here in Ireland who refuse to be your shoe shine boys.
 
Well done Most Reverend Excellency. 👍
A Catholic bishop has expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama’s Belfast speech last Monday in which he appeared to suggest that denominational schools perpetuate division in the region.
Reacting to the speech, delivered ahead of the G8 summit, auxiliary Bishop Donal McKeown of Down and Connor said the president’s “echoing the Protestant/Catholic caricature that has actually receded into the background in Northern Ireland was disappointing”.
irishcatholic.ie/20130620/news/bishop-criticises-obamas-hackneyed-belfast-speech-S34633.html
 
BO feels free to criticize Catholics and Protestants when jihadis are murdering people around the world daily.
Obama goes out of he way to not offend Muslims. For example, he always calls the Qur’an “the holy Qur’an”. But he goes out of his way to offend orthodox Christians. And he never passes up an opportunity to poke the Catholic Church in the eye.
 
Obama compared separate faith schools to racial segregation in America. That is an outrageous comparison.
And yet I seriously doubt Obama would ever tell Muslims that they can’t have their separate Islamic schools. “Religious tolerance” :rolleyes:
 
So do you agree with Obama that the divisions of Ireland are caused by seperate (Catholic/Protestant) religious education? If that is so then certainly his comments are appropriate. But if not, then they are ripe for criticism.
They weren’t caused by Catholic or Protestants, they were caused by one country stealing a part of another country, there were many protestant Irish Republican’s who fought for an united Ireland, not for the right to be Catholic or protestant…
 
One of the snakes St. Patrick drove out of Ireland snuck back in.
 
The arrogance and duplicity of this man is astounding!
exactly,

but hey he is the president so obviously he has a right and obligation to tell Ireland what to do.

Lets forget the fact he is screwing up our own country faster than any president or administration since modern times, he really needs to focus on what other countries are doing.
 
That is because the man has STRONG sympathies and leanings to Islam.
no no he has strong denials is what you meant to say, he denies he has any strong sympathy or leanings to Islam, and remember he flat out said he is a Christian so that has to shut everyone up instantly and don’t you dare look at what he actually does and judge him on what he actually does versus what he says.

He is our president and we have no right to judge what he says or does nor what is in his heart or mind, we are only to sit idly by and pray he does the right thing and then vote for someone better next time around .
 
What in the heck is the President talking about? He has no idea what he is talking about. Its not a Catholic vs Protestant thing. Its a republican vs loyalist thing.This all a charade to promote his world view of State Uber Alles.
 
Stating an opinion that catholic schools should cease to exist and that everybody should attend homogenized schools (unspoken, but understood is the government control) ISN’T evidence of hostility to catholicism in the public square?

How bad does it have to get to qualify by your standards?
Perhaps you should actually read the statement before making inaccurate claims about it.

I can’t stand the man, but it’s completely obvious that:
  1. he referred to Catholic and Protestant schools, so the “he’s attacking only Catholics” line is total hogwash; and
  2. he’s talking about the overall, longstanging separation between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
 
In Northern Ireland?
Anywhere.

And, for that matter, what freaking good did his comments in Ireland serve? They stirred up a hornet’s nest, that’s all, in a country where he had exactly zero right or need to weigh in at all. Our illustrious American Emperor just likes to hear himself talk.

I’ve seen paper bags that were more diplomatic than No-Bama.
 
Perhaps you should actually read the statement before making inaccurate claims about it.

I can’t stand the man, but it’s completely obvious that:
  1. he referred to Catholic and Protestant schools, so the “he’s attacking only Catholics” line is total hogwash; and
  2. he’s talking about the overall, longstanging separation between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.
Thank you for bringing facts into the conversation. And for those who have criticised the president for poking his nose into other people’s affairs, perhaps I can bring them a little closer to reality. American presidents and secretaries of state have been heavily involved in the peace process, and their help in moving things along is still welcomed here. Senior American politicians are (astonishingly, you might think!) celebrities in Northern Ireland, so when they turn up there (Obama was there for the G8 talks) they are encouraged to do a bit more for the still very precarious move to peace. You should know that there are still terrorists active there, there are still bombs and murders and violence in the streets, there are still heavy divisions between Catholic and Protestant communities. The peace process is still in the balance. So Obama gave a speech, as all those working for peace there will have pressed him to do, and he spoke about the need to work to overcome divisions. Result back home? In forums like this? Vitriol. I can understand that people need a space to rehearse their fantasies about Obama the Terrible, but it would be in better taste if they didn’t use the lives of Irish children as their excuse.
 
I believe one thing we are missing here that if there are those who analyze Obama’s speech as talking about long-time divisions between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.

Then we should remember Obama has seemed to stand against what was British colonialism in places such as Kenya.
Obama’s father and Kenyan anti-colonialism
Family history and university training in left-wing anti-colonial theory may explain President Obama’s general perspective. But connect-the-dots speculation is too simplistic.
But come Northern Ireland we are speaking about a religious division, does Obama miss out that the British likewise can be seen as colonial occupiers and still occupiers of Northern Ireland??
In Dreams from My Father, the focus of the D’Souza film, Obama uses words like “colonial,” “colonialism,” or “neocolonialism” 17 times, plus associated words like “imperialism” (among others) three times. Phrases used in the book (sometimes by people Obama quotes) include “colonial administration,” “colonial West,” “white colonials,” “serving the interests of neo-colonialism,” and even a line about Christian missionaries bringing not religion but (allegedly) colonialism.
So, it’s not clear to me but it could be when the discussion is Kenya or other exotic locales, the talk is about colonialism.

But if one wants to go the radical route, if it is talk on Northern Ireland, no mention of Colonialism, the division is assigned to religion. I think there is something wrong with this picture and at worse, it would be ignoring a similar background of colonialism that pertains say to India or Kenya and blaming divisions of the Christian faith.

A bit of an odd-view and something to watch as he makes a trip to Africa, to see if now again, colonialism might be mentioned but not in NI.
 
I believe one thing we are missing here that if there are those who analyze Obama’s speech as talking about long-time divisions between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.

Then we should remember Obama has seemed to stand against what was British colonialism in places such as Kenya.

But come Northern Ireland we are speaking about a religious division, does Obama miss out that the British likewise can be seen as colonial occupiers and still occupiers of Northern Ireland??

So, it’s not clear to me but it could be when the discussion is Kenya or other exotic locales, the talk is about colonialism.

But if one wants to go the radical route, if it is talk on Northern Ireland, no mention of Colonialism, the division is assigned to religion. I think there is something wrong with this picture and at worse, it would be ignoring a similar background of colonialism that pertains say to India or Kenya and blaming divisions of the Christian faith.

A bit of an odd-view and something to watch as he makes a trip to Africa, to see if now again, colonialism might be mentioned but not in NI.
Oh dear. I have very little to be proud of, as a Briton, in my country’s record in Ireland over the centuries, and of course colonialism is very important in that history. But if you think “occupation” is the issue for Britain today you see the world through strange lenses. Meanwhile take a look at the results of the Good Friday agreement referendum in Northern Ireland and (even more strikingly) in the Republic.
The truth is that here is a small portion of the globe inhabited by two different tribes, as it were, in whose history religious differences have been the cause of great sufferings, and who identify each other by their religious labels. We, that is to say the community, separate those tribes as children. Question: is that a good thing? The answer to that question is not: “Religion is not a factor and you are attacking Christianity”. And if you say “No, no, no, it’s not religion, it"s British colonialism” you are simply saying to one of the two tribes: “No peace, get back to the gun.”
 
I believe one thing we are missing here that if there are those who analyze Obama’s speech as talking about long-time divisions between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.

Then we should remember Obama has seemed to stand against what was British colonialism in places such as Kenya.

But come Northern Ireland we are speaking about a religious division, does Obama miss out that the British likewise can be seen as colonial occupiers and still occupiers of Northern Ireland??

So, it’s not clear to me but it could be when the discussion is Kenya or other exotic locales, the talk is about colonialism.

But if one wants to go the radical route, if it is talk on Northern Ireland, no mention of Colonialism, the division is assigned to religion. I think there is something wrong with this picture and at worse, it would be ignoring a similar background of colonialism that pertains say to India or Kenya and blaming divisions of the Christian faith.

A bit of an odd-view and something to watch as he makes a trip to Africa, to see if now again, colonialism might be mentioned but not in NI.
Oh dear. I have very little to be proud of, as a Briton, in my country’s record in Ireland over the centuries, and of course colonialism is very important in that history. But if you think “occupation” is the issue for Britain today you see the world through strange lenses. Meanwhile take a look at the results of the Good Friday agreement referendum in Northern Ireland and (even more strikingly) in the Republic.
The truth is that here is a small portion of the globe inhabited by two different tribes, as it were, in whose history religious differences have been the cause of great sufferings, and who identify each other by their religious labels. We, that is to say the community, separate those tribes as children. Question: is that a good thing? The answer to that question is not: “Religion is not a factor and you are attacking Christianity”. And if you say “No, no, no, it’s not religion, it"s British colonialism” you are simply saying to one of the two tribes: “No peace, get back to the gun.”
 
It seems to me that Obama is exposing a popular view that obliterating difference leads to peace and harmony. Of course, he is being quite selective about it and some differences bother him more than others. The statement he made sounds rather stupid and worthy of an amateur. I’m amazed he was allowed to actually say that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top