<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No Jesus Here</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/16/no-jesus-here/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/16/no-jesus-here/</link>
	<description>Because Common Sense Transcends Distance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:30:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: One</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/16/no-jesus-here/comment-page-1/#comment-90730</link>
		<dc:creator>One</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.poligazette.com/?p=12889#comment-90730</guid>
		<description>Obama: There can only be one, &#039;One&#039;.

Some people have argued that Obama does not want to use religion to further a political ideology.  However, Obama did evoke the Sermon on the Mount, at this Georgetown appearance, to further his economic agenda. Although Obama failed to mention Jesus Christ by name for the Sermon on the Mount. 

“There is a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells a story of two men…‘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,’” Obama said. 
 
“We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” he added. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

The last statement is particularly ironic since building your house upon a ‘ROCK‘ means to build your house with Christ as the foundation. Obama decided to blot out the real foundation from the timeless parable.

See the hi-res pictures:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://tinyurl.com/djtzgm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://tinyurl.com/djtzgm&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama: There can only be one, &#8216;One&#8217;.</p>
<p>Some people have argued that Obama does not want to use religion to further a political ideology.  However, Obama did evoke the Sermon on the Mount, at this Georgetown appearance, to further his economic agenda. Although Obama failed to mention Jesus Christ by name for the Sermon on the Mount. </p>
<p>“There is a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells a story of two men…‘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,’” Obama said. </p>
<p>“We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” he added. “We must build our house upon a rock.”</p>
<p>The last statement is particularly ironic since building your house upon a ‘ROCK‘ means to build your house with Christ as the foundation. Obama decided to blot out the real foundation from the timeless parable.</p>
<p>See the hi-res pictures:<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/djtzgm" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/djtzgm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin T. Keith</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/16/no-jesus-here/comment-page-1/#comment-90692</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin T. Keith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:26:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.poligazette.com/?p=12889#comment-90692</guid>
		<description>You have to read further into the story to get the truth. It&#039;s clear enough that the White House did &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; request that &quot;especially not [symbols referring to] Jesus&quot; be visible. They just wanted their own backdrop of flags and banners, and nothing that was not part of that backdrop. There were dozens of copies of the same symbol displayed all over the auditorium - just not directly behind the President - and that symbol just happened to be a tiny part of the many symbols and seals on the back of the stage that were covered up when the flag backdrop was installed.

But even more than this, buried way near the bottom of the story is a quote from a Vice-President of the University who says that they had no objection to the flags-and-banners backdrop, but that it was only tall enough to cover the symbols on the lower part of the back wall of the stage, and that &quot;it seemed most respectful to have [the IHS symbol] covered so as not to be seen out of context&quot;. It&#039;s not clear to me what would have been &quot;disrespectful&quot; about it, but this quote seems to say that it was &lt;em&gt;the University&lt;/em&gt; that decided to cover the IHS symbol higher up on the wall - not the White House. At the very least, it makes it clear that it was done (by whoever it was who made the decision) out of &quot;respect&quot; and that the University concurred. And this is explicitly stated in the story itself - in direct contradiction to CNS&#039;s own headline and the many right-wing rants about the issue that are filling up the &#039;Net.

In other words - it&#039;s a total non-story. But the winger screamer battalion has launched its usual berserker attack, and, well . . . here we go again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have to read further into the story to get the truth. It&#8217;s clear enough that the White House did <em>not</em> request that &#8220;especially not [symbols referring to] Jesus&#8221; be visible. They just wanted their own backdrop of flags and banners, and nothing that was not part of that backdrop. There were dozens of copies of the same symbol displayed all over the auditorium &#8211; just not directly behind the President &#8211; and that symbol just happened to be a tiny part of the many symbols and seals on the back of the stage that were covered up when the flag backdrop was installed.</p>
<p>But even more than this, buried way near the bottom of the story is a quote from a Vice-President of the University who says that they had no objection to the flags-and-banners backdrop, but that it was only tall enough to cover the symbols on the lower part of the back wall of the stage, and that &#8220;it seemed most respectful to have [the IHS symbol] covered so as not to be seen out of context&#8221;. It&#8217;s not clear to me what would have been &#8220;disrespectful&#8221; about it, but this quote seems to say that it was <em>the University</em> that decided to cover the IHS symbol higher up on the wall &#8211; not the White House. At the very least, it makes it clear that it was done (by whoever it was who made the decision) out of &#8220;respect&#8221; and that the University concurred. And this is explicitly stated in the story itself &#8211; in direct contradiction to CNS&#8217;s own headline and the many right-wing rants about the issue that are filling up the &#8216;Net.</p>
<p>In other words &#8211; it&#8217;s a total non-story. But the winger screamer battalion has launched its usual berserker attack, and, well . . . here we go again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
