# Obama at Notre Dame **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773 "2009-05-17T19:20:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![caligulashorse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@caligulashorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/caligulashorse)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/21 "2009-05-18T01:05:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 It’s like “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” All the words are in English and in correct grammatical order, but in combination convey no semantic meaning. Error! Error! Drink more koolaid… Error! Error! Obamabot self-destructing. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/22 "2009-05-18T01:32:14Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Not as consistent as you think there - the Church believes that the death penalty is an outdated relic but it does not explicitly ban the practice. See Catechism paragraph 2267. > > The teaching as regards abortion is far more absolute. > > As I said, not that big a deal to me - these universities should debate all sides. But commencement and the honorary doctorate are different than the normal campus speech, and if we aren’t going to treat the decision to grant the honorary degree seriously then maybe we should ditch it altogether - it doesn’t serve much purpose anyway. Condoleezza Rice spoke at the commencement for Boston College in 2006, where she received an honorary doctorate. And she is pro-choice (IIRC, her statement is that she is mildly pro-choice or something like that). ETA: I don’t mean that she spoke on the issue of choice at the commencement (I don’t know what she spoke on). I mean I’ve read interviews with her where she says she is mildly pro-choice or similar. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/23 "2009-05-18T01:34:37Z")
I’m sorry - maybe you missed the part where I said this wasn’t exactly a big deal for me. I was merely expressing a preference. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/24 "2009-05-18T01:39:11Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I’m sorry - maybe you missed the part where I said this wasn’t exactly a big deal for me. I was merely expressing a preference. If this is addressed to me, then maybe you can point out where I said it was a big deal for you. If it’s not addressed to me, no worries. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/25 "2009-05-18T01:39:12Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Not as consistent as you think there - the Church believes that the death penalty is an outdated relic but it does not explicitly ban the practice. See Catechism paragraph 2267. > > The teaching as regards abortion is far more absolute. This is all pretty much baloney. The Church position on the death penalty is that it is only permissable if there is no other way to prevent a person from harming others. In all other circumstances (and that explicitly includes when life imprisonment is an alternative) it damn well IS “absolutely” forbidden, and that includes every single death warrant ever signed by George W. Bush. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this specious attempt to draw a distinction, and it’s a load of crap. It’s precisely analogous to saying that killing other people is permissable in self-defense, therefore prohibitions on murder are less absolute than abortion. Who do you think you’re kidding? And not for nothing, but the Catholic Church was adamantly against the Iraq war too, so why don’t you guys just admit this flap was all purely political and nothing else. Religion had nothing to do with it. If it did, they would have protested Bush. They’re not fooling anybody with this sanctimonious pretense that it’s all about spiritual purity. No it isn’t. It’s about Republicans and Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/26 "2009-05-18T01:49:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is all pretty much baloney. The Church position on the death penalty is that it is only permissable if there is no other way to prevent a person from harming others. In all other circumstances (and that explicitly includes when life imprisonment is an alternative) it damn well IS “absolutely” forbidden, and that includes every single death warrant ever signed by George W. Bush. > > This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this specious attempt to draw a distinction, and it’s a load of crap. It’s precisely analogous to saying that killing other people is permissable in self-defense, therefore prohibitions on murder are less absolute than abortion. Who do you think you’re kidding? > > And not for nothing, but the Catholic Church was adamantly against the Iraq war too, so why don’t you guys just admit this flap was all purely political and nothing else. Religion had nothing to do with it. If it did, they would have protested Bush. They’re not fooling anybody with this sanctimonious pretense that it’s all about spiritual purity. No it isn’t. It’s about Republicans and Democrats. The killing of a completely innocent person is “worser” than the killing of a reasoning adult man. > [@Ca3799](#): > > Another fine speech. I’m proud of this President. > > The transcript mentions humanists, Sampiro. > > I like how the audience shouted down the heckler. I think the guy was yelling “abortion is murder”. The audience began to boo (at the interruption, I suppose) and then chant. I could not tell what they were chanting but think it may have been “Yes we can.” I’d love to think that this openess to have speakers who hold opininos which differ from the majority extends to conservative speakers speaking at liberal universities and that you’ll protest when hecklers shout them down. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/27 "2009-05-18T01:50:45Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > I suspect the hardcore liberals won’t like this speech along with the hardcore conservatives. Obama did not criticize the pro-life movement at all. He did not try to argue the liberal side of the issue. He basically said that we should focus more on the things we can agree on (lower teen pregnancies) and nothing about making changes on abortion law. > > So he’s just keeping the status quo and telling everyone to chill out about it. I don’t think people will chill out. > > If anything good will come from this speech is that religious moderates might deflect from the Republican party. Obama did not come across as a liberal who demonizes religion and has shown that he has respect for religious views. That will certainly help win over moderates who don’t like the religious extremism of the GOP. Why would anybody on the left expect Obama to turn a commencement speech into a pro-choice rant? I’m as lefty as it gets, and I think that would have been not only a rude, but a politically stupid thing to do. Saying we need to focus on commonalities was exactly the right thing to say in my own radical left, pro-abortion opinion. As for “demonizing religion,” you’re aware that Barack Obama is religious, are you not? Are you also aware that most political liberals believe in God? The notion that liberalism and religion are mutually exclusive is a giant canard. Atheists are an extreme minority even in the Democratic party, and and people who hate religion are a minority even among atheists. I honestly don’t think many, if any, lefties were expecting the President to go off on an anti-religion tirade today, nor would the vast majority have been happy about it if he had. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/28 "2009-05-18T01:51:48Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The killing of a completely innocent person is “worser” than the killing of a reasoning adult man. Not according to the Catholic Church, it isn’t. ETA, the Iraq War killed lots and lots and lots of innocent people. The Church has unequivocaally condemned it. I think some Catholics are very selective about what innocent life they care about. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/29 "2009-05-18T02:09:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why would anybody on the left expect Obama to turn a commencement speech into a pro-choice rant? I’m as lefty as it gets, and I think that would have been not only a rude, but a politically stupid thing to do. Saying we need to focus on commonalities was exactly the right thing to say in my own radical left, pro-abortion opinion. Everyone got upset when Rick Warren was chosen to speak at his Inauguration. I guess being pro-life is more mainstream than some of Rick Warren’s ideas, but every time Obama gives lip service to religious ideas it seems like people get upset. > [@](#): > > As for “demonizing religion,” you’re aware that Barack Obama is religious, are you not? Are you also aware that most political liberals believe in God? The notion that liberalism and religion are mutually exclusive is a giant canard. Atheists are an extreme minority even in the Democratic party, and and people who hate religion are a minority even among atheists. > > I honestly don’t think many, if any, lefties were expecting the President to go off on an anti-religion tirade today, nor would the vast majority have been happy about it if he had. What you describe is true. However, I fear that a lot of people still believe the “godless liberal democrats” hype that gets thrown around by Fox News. Hopefully this speech will let those people see that this isn’t the case. I know no one was expecting the President to go off on an anti-religious rant, but I’m not so sure the lefties would not be happy if he did. I know that the people on these boards would probably start jumping for joy if that happened. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/30 "2009-05-18T02:14:27Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > I know no one was expecting the President to go off on an anti-religious rant, but I’m not so sure the lefties would not be happy if he did. I know that the people on these boards would probably start jumping for joy if that happened. Not really. Most of all because we realize just how STUPID that would be, even if Obama were a dedicated atheist in secret. It’s one thing for some anonymous schlub on a message board to advocate the death of religion through attrition of faith, it’s another thing entirely to expect the president of the United States to make it a public announcement at a Catholic university commencement. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/31 "2009-05-18T02:17:20Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > Everyone got upset when Rick Warren was chosen to speak at his Inauguration. I guess being pro-life is more mainstream than some of Rick Warren’s ideas, but every time Obama gives lip service to religious ideas it seems like people get upset. I can play this game too. Obama also had Minister Gene Robinson speak at the inaguration, and the righties got upset. Which obviously means that the righties are anti-religious too! ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/32 "2009-05-18T02:25:25Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Not really. Most of all because we realize just how STUPID that would be, even if Obama were a dedicated atheist in secret. It’s one thing for some anonymous schlub on a message board to advocate the death of religion through attrition of faith, it’s another thing entirely to expect the president of the United States to make it a public announcement at a Catholic university commencement. Well, not until after the 2012 election, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/33 "2009-05-18T02:28:12Z")
There’s also a difference between _inviting_ guests and _being_ a guest. Having said that, I didn’t care about Warren being invited to the inauguration. If he’d taken that opportunity to go off on an anti-abortion or anti-gay rant, it would have pissed me off, but he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/34 "2009-05-18T02:45:15Z")
Ross Douthat put it well: Barack Obama pretends he wants to rise above the culture wars. In reality, he wants to win them for his side. Let’s try a an analoy: SUPPOSE that A die-hard pro-death penalty President appeared before the ACLU and gave a pleasant-sounding speech in which he said, “Nobody likes the death penalty, and we all think it’s regrettable, but it’s always existed in the United States, and it always will. Instead of fighting against the death penalty, can’t we all agree that it would be better if there were fewer capital crimes being committed in the first place? Let us all join together and pledge to hire millions of new cops, to build hundreds of new prisons, and to crack down on petty crimes. If we did that, there’d be far fewer murders, and there’d be fewer executions.” Think the ACLU would view that as a compromise? Well, that’s precisely the extent to which Barack Obama is making any genuine outreach to anti-abortion forces. He thinks saying, “Give up your opposition to abortion, and let’s all start passing out more condoms and jacking up welfare” amounts to a compromise. It’s not. It’s a friendly demand that his enemies roll over and die. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/35 "2009-05-18T02:46:31Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > It’s not. It’s a friendly demand that his enemies roll over and die. Works for me. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/36 "2009-05-18T03:02:55Z")
Good speech. It was a little cobbled together (a lot of recycled anecdotes and chunks from other speeches), but I wasn’t expecting a masterpiece. The protest over the invitation and the degree is clearly partisan. While disagreement about abortion is absolutely a good faith divide, the singling out of abortion as a kind of religious litmus test is merely a (decreasingly) useful political tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/37 "2009-05-18T03:09:10Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Let’s try a an analoy: SUPPOSE that A die-hard pro-death penalty President appeared before the ACLU and gave a pleasant-sounding speech in which he said, “Nobody likes the death penalty, and we all think it’s regrettable, but it’s always existed in the United States, and it always will. Instead of fighting against the death penalty, can’t we all agree that it would be better if there were fewer capital crimes being committed in the first place? Let us all join together and pledge to hire millions of new cops, to build hundreds of new prisons, and to crack down on petty crimes. If we did that, there’d be far fewer murders, and there’d be fewer executions.” > > Think the ACLU would view that as a compromise? This is a weak analogy because while both sides of the abortion divide support easier adoptions, more information on family planning, etc., not everyone thinks more prisons will reduce crime. And, indeed, one of the main reasons the ACLU thinks the death penalty is bad is not because of the killing, per se, but the racist application of it and other systemic problems. If you rephrased your analogy as acceptance of the death penalty but making legal changes and pouring in resources to make it fairer and less error-prone while funding of education and other resources to prevent crime, then the ACLU would view that as a compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/38 "2009-05-18T03:09:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Not according to the Catholic Church, it isn’t. > > ETA, the Iraq War killed lots and lots and lots of innocent people. The Church has unequivocaally condemned it. I think some Catholics are very selective about what innocent life they care about. Yes, it is. The Catholic Church never codemned the war in Iraq. The Pope and several bishops clearly expressed their disgust with it and how it was carried out, however, their in no official pronouncement saying that Catholics should not participate directly or indirectly in it; i.e. being a soldier in the Iraq war was not in itself a sin (of course your actiond there can be sins). I’m sure and they are all terribly wrong, purposely killing innocent pepole, as I said before, is “worser” (it is the worstest) than killing “guilty” people (e.g. self defence) or killing innocents by mistke or oversight. no of them is good, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/39 "2009-05-18T03:12:03Z")
Obama hasn’t tried to offer anything as a “compromise” on abortion. His position is that we’re never going to agree, but that doesn’t mean we have to demonize each other or refuse to work together on things we DO agree about. He basically said in the speech today, that there’s NEVER going to be any agreement on abortion. He never proposed any compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773/40 "2009-05-18T03:15:08Z")
There is a sense of “compromise” that means something like not agreeing to either parties core terms but finding some other common ground on which to agree. You’re right that this meaning of “compromise” is different from the one in which the parties are done fighting or have settled the core issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-at-notre-dame/496773.md?page=3)