POTUS ashamed of the CRUCIFIX, but OK with Backdrop of Arafat?
Not so long ago, (July oi, 2010), POTUS gave a speech at American University. What's the big deal, All religious symbols including the crucifix above the podium, were covered up. AU is affiliated with A religious body.
However, the POTUS gave a speech in Ramallah today, on a stage with the giant picture of Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, aka Yasser Arafat, hanging above him. It is remarkably interesting that the Prez. will only speak under a drapped over Crucifix, but has no problem speaking under the picture of the murderous thief, and the “father of modern terrorism”, who ordered the death of at least 27 Americans, including Mr. Leon K., on the Achille Lauro cruiseship, in 1985.
It is simply astonishing that the leader of the free world would agree to speak against a backdrop of a murderous terrorist with American and Israeli blood on his hands. What kind of message does this send to America’s enemies when the POTUS gives a press conference standing in front of a banner celebrating one of the most brutal terrorists in history?
Blue, you are stepping in it once again. First, nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it state that there shall be a separation of church and state - what the Bill of Rights prohibits is government interference with the establishment of religion or the government establishing a religion of it own. That phrase has been misused frequently. So the administrations decision to have the cross covered up for the President's speech was a choice not a constitutional matter.
Second and more important is the utter hogwash of an argument that the President, as a guest in a foreign country, had to accept the venue for his speech as presented to him. The President must avoid efforts to exploit his representation of the country when he travels and that's exactly what happened here. While I understand that we dealt with Arafat as the leader of the Palestinian people, he was a terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of thousands including the murder of American citizens. He's gone and so should any reverence for him on our side. The President as a moral point could have conditioned giving his speech on removing the poster - again, by choice or possibly omission they did not. Either way, bad optics considering the perception of Obama.
If you want to argue the rationale for making each of these decisions, fine. But to argue that they had no choice in either is way off base.
Blue, here is verbatim the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Show me where it says separation of church and state and more importantly, show me where anything in the ammendment would prohibit the president from making a speach with a cross in the background - He's at a Catholic University anyway!
The importance of symbolisim is every bit as important as the words that come from a president. Standing in front of a billboard sized picture of Arafat is plain and simple bad optics.
But again you avoid the substance of your own tortured argument. That being, as the guest in a foregin country - which is in itself not exactly correct - the President has no say in the surroundings . Simply wrong Blue. So the speech was either made in front of Arafat's portrait by choice or by omission.
Beach, you are rebutting the mindless comment of an ignoramus who, STALKS, concots stories and bears FALSE witness against others, and who gets his "education" and propaganda from MSLSD, ed shultz, the communist new network, communist basturds sympathizers, all 'bout communism networks. ...Remember monkey sees, monkey does, monkey hears, monkey recites.
These purveyors of mindless propaganda would like to rewrite our constitution and history if we the people let them...it ain't gonna happen though. By their fruits, we now know them as fabricators and distorters of facts. They figure this is their last chance to fundamentally transform America in such a way our founding fathers would resurrect in shame for what these loons and their purveyors of propaganda are doing.