This news about President Obama's speech at Georgetown, reported by Catholic News Service, is causing a bit of a stir:
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.
“In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage,” Julie Green Bataille, associate vice president for communications at Georgetown, told CNSNews.com.
More of the story, along with photos, are available on the CNS site.
Julia Dunn of The Washington Times' Belief Blog provides some helpful quotes:
Julie Bataille from the university's press office e-mailed me that the
White House had asked that all university signage and symbols behind
the stage in Gaston Hall be covered.
"The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and
drape for the speech, consistent with what they've done for other
policy speeches," she wrote. "Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn't high
enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and
it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out
of context."
<snip>
Not every Catholic institution would have caved to quite
this extent. Victor Nakas, spokesman for Catholic University, e-mailed
me to say several presidents have visited CUA and the most recent
administration official to speak there was then-Vice President Dick
Cheney.
"I can’t imagine, as the bishops’ university and the
national university of the Catholic Church, that we would ever cover up
our religious art or signage for any reason," Mr. Nakas wrote. "Our
Catholic faith is integral to our identity as an institution of higher
education.
But, of course, the prize for Obamaccommodation, goes to a usual suspect:
I called the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the
Woodstock Institute at Georgetown University, who was at the speech, as
to what he thought.
"It is more for camera quality than anything
else," he surmised. "They don't want distractions that would make the
eye wander. I don't think this is motivated by theology, but by
communications strategy."
Students "were dying to get into the
hall," he added. "There is this great enthusiasm for Obama especially
among Catholic young people. The conservatives don't know how to deal
with this.
"The audience wanted to cheer and cheer this very
professorial address. He played Professor Obama. He's a damn good
professor but not even he could make economics a barnraiser."
And what, exactly, was being communicated? As Daniel Pulliam of the Get Religion blog points out, it was a message about economic policy based, in part, on a biblical metaphor—and not just any metaphor, but the metaphor of "The House Upon a Rock":
Most news stories I have surveyed on President Obama’s speech Tuesday on the economy (among other things) have mentioned his use of the biblical metaphor of the nation’s economy being built on a rock, but few have gone beyond the message’s surface. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here.) For starters, none of the stories I read mentioned that President George W. Bush used a lot of religious metaphors and was at times criticized for using such language.
Obama has used the Sermon on the Mount
before in his political rhetoric, (namely to express
his support
for civil unions), but this is one of the first times that I remember
where biblical passages have been used for an area outside the social
issues:
Here is the pertinent part of the speech:
Now, there's a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells the story of two men. The first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was soon destroyed when a storm hit. But the second is known as the wise man, for when "the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
It was founded upon a rock. We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity -- a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.
It's a foundation built upon five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century: Number one, new rules for Wall Street that will reward drive and innovation, not reckless risk-taking -- (applause); number two, new investments in education that will make our workforce more skilled and competitive -- (applause); number three, new investments in renewable energy and technology that will create new jobs and new industries -- (applause); number four, new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and number five, new savings in our federal budget that will bring down the debt for future generations. (Applause.)
That's the new foundation we must build. That's our house built upon a rock. That must be our future -- and my administration's policies are designed to achieve that future.
It's worth looking at the larger context of the passage used, from Matthew 7:
"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' "Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it." And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. (Matt 7:21-29)
All of this, I think, is quite ripe with ironic, even surreal, qualities: The President of the United States goes to the oldest Catholic university in the U.S., has the university cover up the monogram of the name of Jesus Christ, then gives a speech in which he prominently uses (or misuses) a biblical passage about the necessity of building one's house on Christ and His teachings in making his case for "the new [economic] foundation we must build" in the United States. And then a prominent Jesuit crows about the "great enthusiasm ... especially
among Catholic young people" for a man who appears to be purposefully subverting the words of Scripture for his political ends. Audacity, indeed.
All of which begs a simple question: upon what, exactly, is Georgetown built? And who, exactly, does it serve? And for what end?
Recent Comments