RSS Feed
Pulling Back the Curtain
on Obama's Georgetown Stage
JUST LAW AND RELIGION
By Michael Kessler
Three more feet of blue curtain and no one would have noticed.
Last week, Georgetown offered the stage of Gaston Hall to President Obama. The University hosts visiting heads of state innumerable times throughout the year. Policymakers of many political stripes offer speeches across the spectrum of viewpoints. Their visits enrich the academic conversations on campus and spark many debates about policy and ideas for weeks afterwards. This contributes vitally to achieving the core of any academic institution's mission.
This time, as many media savvy handlers of dignitaries are programmed to do, the staging was set to create a generic presidential background for the news images: bright presidential blue curtain, flags, and the popular President. Except for the announcer or ticker perhaps mentioning that Obama was speaking at Georgetown, there was no indication for the average news viewer that he was anywhere other than a generic White House stage.
Behind him, above the blue curtain, was rich wood paneling and stained glass windows, just like one finds on many historic college campuses. Throughout the Hall, visible only to audience participants, were hundreds of symbols that identified the venue as Georgetown's premiere stage, a space rich with historic Catholic and Jesuit imagery. The blue curtain stood just short enough so that only the very top of an ornate wood installation was just visible. In normal circumstances, that wood piece looks like an altar standing at the front of a Church. In the news photos, the triangular crown of the altar had a black void. No one would notice this in the camera's frame, as was intended.
Except some people did notice. Behind the black panel was the historic symbol for Christ, I-H-S in bright gold lettering. Immediately came the riotous backlash as bloggers and commentators--eager to find ways that schools like Georgetown have fallen from their faithful mission--charged that this was a shameful but predictable capitulation to secular culture. Far worse were commentators in the blogosphere and the "news" programs who saw the White House's request to create a generic stage by covering the symbol of Jesus as yet another sign that Obama hates Christians and is a hidden Muslim.
As for Georgetown, we are supposedly overrun by liberal hatred for religion in our political correctness run amok, ashamed of our Catholic identity, and too inept at standing up for the Christian faith we purportedly believe in. "Better to be true to God than to Caesar" said one professor commenting on the affair. "I fear the University sought the favor of the wrong King - shame on us."
Yet imagine the alternative: President Obama comes to Georgetown and delivers his address on economic recovery. He cites the Sermon on the Mount as teaching us that the economy must be rebuilt on a solid foundation so that all human dignity can be protected. Behind the audaciously hopeful secular messiah's head is a golden halo of three potently illuminated letters.
I-H-S.
One can easily imagine the frenzy. Bloggers and radio hosts screaming: "How dare Georgetown invite the fallen, life-destroying Barry Hussein Obama to stand on the stage under the symbol of Christ!" "The messiah has come to Georgetown, and those liberal professors have endorsed his socialist (or is it fascist?) message!"
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I contend, contrary to some of these commentators, that as a policy matter, Georgetown could be very wise at times in creating a neutral stage when foreign and domestic policy leaders speak. This would preserve the University's main stage as a venue for the exchange of ideas--some of which constituents of the University may oppose--without worry that the University appears to be condoning those ideas merely by hosting the speaker. Such staging choices save us from the charge that we are baptizing some policy choices with the blessing of the Jesuit, Catholic tradition we strive to uphold.
Creating a neutral stage is certainly not necessary, and it would have been perfectly fine to have no imagery covered. However, in this instance, I predict the backlash would have been far worse had news images circulated with the golden letters of Christ shining down on the President's head, when the rest of the stage's imagery was washed out in a sea of plain blue. Just wait until next month, when Obama is photographed at Notre Dame's commencement, with touchdown Jesus or a statute of the Blessed Mother behind him. Surely some will proclaim these photos as signs of the impending apocalypse.
More profoundly, Georgetown's identity does not rise or fall by the visibility of a symbol behind the President's head in a two second news clip. This commitment to Divine truth, human knowledge, and social justice is lived out everyday by the tireless work of students, faculty, staff, and alumni and their commitment to bettering themselves, their neighbors, and the world around them. The whole community strives to be a shining beacon of God's hope and human dignity on the Hilltop.
If anyone should be ashamed, it is the commentators who arrogantly assume that they can judge the quality of any community's faith on the basis of a choice of staging.
Dr. Michael Kessler is Assistant Director of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs and Visiting Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University.
By Michael Kessler |
April 23, 2009; 12:02 PM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Taliban's Coercion Betrays Qur'an |
Next: Who Has Leverage? Iran or Israel?
Posted by: TZiggy | April 26, 2009 10:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr Kessler:
When Obama was campaigning, he didn't seem to mind having Planned Parenthood emblazoned behind his head as he re-iterated his desire to pass the Freedom of Choice Act. Other venues put their symbols behind his head, without any objection on his part.
The idea that his administration would ASK the Catholic symbols to be covered over is bad enough. The fact that Georgetown acquiesced to the request is worse.
And, for that matter, why was he asked to speak anyway? Why give a notorious promoter of abortion- on-demand a platform at an institution that supposedly espouses and defends Catholic moral doctrine? Don't retort that in academia all points of view are welcome. When his point of view prevails, people die! How can he be welcomed as an honored guest, when his policy is to eliminate the smallest, most innocent human beings? Is it because Georgetown University finds no problem with Obama's pro-abortion views?
Who is confused, the people who object, or Georgetown University?
Posted by: mamatunes11 | April 25, 2009 6:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Limbaughians and intolerant Catholics and evangelicals will never accept the fact that Obama won. They will keep whining and crying until someone else replaces them. Consider the source and ignore them. They are the irrelevant 27%.
Posted by: coloradodog | April 24, 2009 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The elephant in the room you so skillfully avoid is the fact that Barack Hussein Obama should NOT be at Georgetown in the first place. Problem solved. Inviting him in the name of academia? How about abortion in the name of choice or Gay Marriage in the name of tolerance. Don't like that? Stick around Mr. Kessler, I'm sure we'll have much more to talk about at the end of Mr. Obama's rule.
Posted by: TZiggy | April 24, 2009 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Its a sad day when we are discussing the backdrop, and not the content, of a presidential speech. Why have we come to worry so much about little things? Are our skins that thin? Are we under such torment that we cannot handle anything not going the way we want it. Have we become children? Are religions under threat?
Grow up people and worry about the important things in life. What was behind the president is not important, not at all. Reagan officials covered up a state of a naked woman which was a backdrop to a speach. There were howls then too. But what that official was talking about was curbing freedoms, which no one comprehended because they were only talking about the backdrop.
Posted by: bevjims1 | April 24, 2009 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If a person who didn't like my race came to Georgetown and they had a picture of Saint Francis Xavier-a Jesuit-baptizing a person of color as it is so often shown on his holy cards, and they covered the picture so as not to offend said bigot, what would you say to THAT?
If you would object, then this is a case of political correctness which is nothing but a buzz term for not wanting to have the "in" crowd dislike you.
When it comes to Christ you sir, are a coward. You are Pilate washing his hands of IHS to "get along" with Caesar. Remember this day when Jesus washes His hands of you on Judgment Day.
"He who is ASHAMED of Me before men..."
Posted by: bishopt2 | April 24, 2009 12:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This is what a professor said as quoted on the 6th paragraph of this interesting article. "Better to be true to God than to Caesar" said one professor commenting on the affair. "I fear the University sought the favor of the wrong King - shame on us."
Well, if we're still in a Republic we're not supposed to have a king or Caesar.
Though Georgetown is a Catholic University, I know they accept students of all faiths and religions. Also there's public funds and Grants available for their students, including Vets with their GI Bill.
Now, I don't know if the University itself receives or has received Public funding of any sort. If they do or are going to. Then they're receiving favors from the "Caesar" or "King" (the Government), if so then, Caesar can make the requests that were made. If so also, some of my taxes may have gone that way. It don't bother me at all. So why it does bother some so much that "Caesar" went to speak there and made some silly simple request??
A symbol is just a symbol anyways, is NOT the real thing. In this case a Monogram or short version of a word or name in another language. Duh! How come they don't place there the name as it has been correctly translated to English, JESUSCHRIST. In that case covering may have bother me also.
Posted by: salero21 | April 23, 2009 10:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's not logical. Why go to a Catholic University and then ask them to hide their Christian or Catholicity? The question is really a question of loyalty, to Jesus or President Obama? And the University made their choice.
The point of these "visits" is to breakdown Catholic loyalties. To illustrate the lack of unity in the Catholic community and the lack of Catholic Bishop's Authority among the flock.
A very brilliant and well conceived plan, to bad Catholics are buying in!
Posted by: rrksb | April 23, 2009 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Faith is judged by Love in Action.
To deny the name of Jesus, or innocently allow it to be hidden, so as not to offend Caesar is telling of the faith content of those hosting the event.
The only shame apparent in this situation is your column in which you hope to silence a differing opinion than what you hold and Georgetown University's worldliness and covetness of ALL things worldly. As another Bishop stated, "Choosing Prestige over Truth"
Liberal Inclusiveness = Priceless.
Thank you for the article.
Posted by: lives7 | April 23, 2009 1:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
"Limbaughians and intolerant Catholics and evangelicals will never accept the fact that Obama won. They will keep whining and crying until someone else replaces them. Consider the source and ignore them. They are the irrelevant 27%."
I'm sure Coloradodog, your point of view isn't whining, it's espousing truth and wisdom, while conservative Christian values are "whining". Liberal "tolerance" is way too hypocritical to be taken seriously.