Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

December 4th, 2012 - Jim-826315 said:

My aunt was a huge Notre Dame fan. I almost went there. She died in 2000. I was outraged by their decision and she would have been too.

Report

December 2nd, 2012 - Cindy-754558 said:

Yes it was - Notre Dame is a Catholic University first and Obama has clearly disrespected Catholics and their beliefs.

Report

September 30th, 2012 - Guadalupe-873127 said:

no, absolutely not! Glad to see ND is not so narrow minded!

Report

August 4th, 2012 - Jim-875732 said:

no absolutely not; i'm jesuit educated (8 years) and they are wonderful teachers-- got a kid at BC and would be disappointed if the school was so narrow minded

Report

June 21st, 2012 - John-683886 said:

Yes, Obama is not Catholic and he supports abortion. Judas Iscariot did spend time around Jesus though, so, punishment takes it's course as God see's necessary. The university did look strange though to commence such an event.

Report

June 11th, 2012 - Patrick-858671 said:

Absolutely.

Report

May 20th, 2012 - John-790192 said:

yes. But let's not single out ND. Most recently the jesuits have crossed the line at GTown & BC with commencement speakers who publically oppose our teachings and under mind Catholic instituitions in America. Wish more universities were like the Franciscan University of Steubenville.

Report

April 12th, 2012 - Veronique-771989 said:

Yes! most definetly!

Report

March 15th, 2012 - Kyle-777599 said:

Yes

Report

February 12th, 2012 - Andrew-782160 said:

yes

Report

January 9th, 2012 - ju-799100 said:

yes

Report

December 15th, 2011 - Deborah-790049 said:

to be a speaker-not honored other than the office he holds-one must be respectfu of the USA President

Report

June 10th, 2011 - Jeffrey-732072 said:

Of course not. Jesus' Christianity is all inclusive. One cannot improve if not exposed to the light. KKK, Nazi or Jew, all shoukl be welcome, and perhaps saved. Whores, theives and murderers were Christ flock, only the Pharasees sat in judgement, and they (like pompose Catholics) are doomed

Report

May 29th, 2011 - Simon-686637 said:

YES it was wrong , Obama is pro abortion ..........how dare they let him speak at their University .

Report

May 11th, 2011 - Julie-627358 said:

Yes...definately!!!!!!!!!!

Report

April 18th, 2011 - Carole-528762 said:

YES,,,,,,,,,,,, What were they thinking!

Report

March 31st, 2011 - Jonathan-694021 said:

As an alumni of the University who had Obama as his commencement speaker, I can understand why this is such a polarizing topic. The invitation by Jenkins to the President is one of tradition and respect for the leader of our country. It is not one of support for the ideals/platform of Obama. As Jasmine said, a University is supposed to be a place of academic freedom. It is supposed to be a forum where opinions can be shared and explored in a constructive manner. It should not be a place where one idea is taught and all other opinions are censored and ignored. That being said, Obama was not invited to talk on his positions on social issues. He was asked to come and speak to us about the next stage in our lives. How to approach moving out into the world. I cannot think of many individuals who would not be better to talk on this topic than the President of the United States. I did not vote for him, nor do I support many of his social issues, but I still greatly enjoyed having him as my commencement speaker. What did bother me, was the individuals picketing outside the entrances to campus with graphic, disturbing images. If anything took away from graduation weekend, it was that...

Report

March 13th, 2011 - Gene-529847 said:

Absolutely. When is happening at Notre Dame is happening at other "Catholic" universities and high schools. They are becoming secular.

Report

February 6th, 2011 - Kikki-661294 said:

It was very wrong

Report

September 10th, 2010 - Lily-463992 said:

Yes!!! very, very wrong!!!

Report

August 20th, 2010 - Salvatore-610917 said:

no he is pro choice that simple no brainer wake up

Report

May 24th, 2010 - Rich-559031 said:

YES YES AND YES. WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID

Report

November 30th, 2009 - Raymond-510043 said:

YES

Report

May 19th, 2009 - Steve-343573 said:

Regarding Iraq -- I'm still near the top of Google for the "preemptive war" and I researched the Iraq question as an international commentator. The moralizing over Iraq is the biggest crock I've ever heard, especially where it comes from left-wing political activists (I'm not talking about you) who support torture in the form of abortion and are looking for something to hang their hat on to compensate for a guilty conscience.

Saddam Hussein reputedly, and it appears this happened, promoted terrorism in Israel and gave money to the families of suicide bombers to reward terrorist attacks. If he did that for 9/11 terorrists, would people sing the same tune? Israel had a right under international law to attack him, and the U.S. is an ally of Israel.

There is an argument that that U.S. had a right under international law to attack him under humanitarian intervention, used in the Balkans, and used by Joe Biden in the debates to say we should start a war with Sudan. Saddam Hussein killed and most likely tortured many, many more people in Iraq than have been killed by the U.S. invasion, including gassing the Kurds, including throwing them in mass graves.

There also were arguments made that there was an ongoing state of hostilities dating back to Gulf War I, characterized by Saddam's repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement, all under UNSC resolutions.

And the biggest confusion people had was that they were still fighting Gulf War II. Gulf War II ended a long time ago, and the U.S. and allies won in short order, when they removed Saddam.

Gulf War III, the insurrection started by warring factions in the power vacuum that resulted from Saddam's overthrow, was not started by the U.S., who wanted nothing more than to work on rebuilding projects. It was started by local waring factions, with instigation and arming by Iran or elements with ties to Iranian special forces, and the U.S. was obligated by international law as the occupying power to restore order. To keep harping on the wmd issue in that context, by Obama or anybody else, is an out-and-out lie.

And the fact is Saddam did indeed have WMD, as determined by the UN, not all of it was destroyed, and nobody knows where they went. Because he used to tell anybody. Are they in in Iran? Are they in Russia? Are they in the lawless region in Afghanistan and Pakistan that has never been ruled by a nation-state? Nobody knows. But we know they were there, and Saddam would not cooperate with trying to investigate what happened to them.

But in the face of the terrorist threat and the nuclear threat from Iran, the U.S. now has a massive forward presence in the heart of the Middle East, sandwiching Iran, with a huge portion of the U.S. military now experienced with living and fighting and nation-building in that region, including friends of mine.

Meanwhile, the radical left, including people invited to Jesuit events, has associated itself with the mass murder of 50 million + Americans.

Wait, I should write an op-ed on this. Thanks!!!!

Report

May 19th, 2009 - Steve-343573 said:

Regarding Iraq -- I'm still near the top of Google for the "preemptive war" and I researched the Iraq question as an international commentator. The moralizing over Iraq is the biggest crock I've ever heard, especially where it comes from left-wing political activists (I'm not talking about you) who support torture in the form of abortion and are looking for something to hang their hat on to compensate for a guilty conscience.

Saddam Hussein reputedly, and it appears this happened, promoted terrorism in Israel and gave money to the families of suicide bombers to reward terrorist attacks. If he did that for 9/11 terorrists, would people sing the same tune? Israel had a right under international law to attack him, and the U.S. is an ally of Israel.

There is an argument that that U.S. had a right under international law to attack him under humanitarian intervention, used in the Balkans, and used by Joe Biden in the debates to say we should start a war with Sudan. Saddam Hussein killed and most likely tortured many, many more people in Iraq than have been killed by the U.S. invasion, including gassing the Kurds, including throwing them in mass graves.

There also were arguments made that there was an ongoing state of hostilities dating back to Gulf War I, characterized by Saddam's repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement, all under UNSC resolutions.

And the biggest confusion people had was that they were still fighting Gulf War II. Gulf War II ended a long time ago, and the U.S. and allies won in short order, when they removed Saddam.

Gulf War III, the insurrection started by warring factions in the power vacuum that resulted from Saddam's overthrow, was not started by the U.S., who wanted nothing more than to work on rebuilding projects. It was started by local waring factions, with instigation and arming by Iran or elements with ties to Iranian special forces, and the U.S. was obligated by international law as the occupying power to restore order. To keep harping on the wmd issue in that context, by Obama or anybody else, is an out-and-out lie.

And the fact is Saddam did indeed have WMD, as determined by the UN, not all of it was destroyed, and nobody knows where they went. Because he used to tell anybody. Are they in in Iran? Are they in Russia? Are they in the lawless region in Afghanistan and Pakistan that has never been ruled by a nation-state? Nobody knows. But we know they were there, and Saddam would not cooperate with trying to investigate what happened to them.

But in the face of the terrorist threat and the nuclear threat from Iran, the U.S. now has a massive forward presence in the heart of the Middle East, sandwiching Iran, with a huge portion of the U.S. military now experienced with living and fighting and nation-building in that region, including friends of mine.

Meanwhile, the radical left, including people invited to Jesuit events, has associated itself with the mass murder of 50 million + Americans.

Wait, I should write an op-ed on this. Thanks!!!!

Report

May 19th, 2009 - Steve-343573 said:

The death of 50 million innocent Americans is not some small issue. It's a bigger issue than the Nazi Holocaust, and I wouldn't give an honorary degree to Hitler for making the trains run on time. Barack Hussein Obama is an evil man and should be tried for crimes against humanity for his involvement with abortion. The ex post facto clause should not apply the crimes against humanity.

Report

May 18th, 2009 - Mike-370396 said:

That's it. Attack the messenger. The truth is that BO and all of his followers are committing a grave sin. Who among you would take the scalpel from the abortionist's hand and plunge it into the innocent body of a child of God.

Obviously, you that use war, starvation, capital punishment to justify your position on murdering children are guilty of, at least, the thought.

When demolition workers want to break apart concrete or rock, they will look for a previous crack in which to begin their work. BO has found such a crack in the Catholic community.

Report

May 18th, 2009 - John-196656 said:

I do not think God would have anything to do with Obama. Today's reading at mass 1John 5 (1-6). Was not talking about Obama, except for the fact that he came by water and blood. It is the spirit that beareth witness, because the spirit is truth. And the spirit knows the turth.

Report

May 17th, 2009 - Don-374663 said:

I respectfully disagree Jacob. The President of ND sent a message of condoning his ideals by bestowing him with a public honor that should be reserved for those who display honor to the public. Desiring to abolish states rights to limit abortions is being dishonorable to God's will and is a scandal to the public at large. No one said anything about not communicating with him. Just don't honor him while he promotes and implements agendas that are dishonorable.

Report

May 17th, 2009 - Stephanie-302804 said:

They may not have condoned his actions, but they shouldn't honor a man who favors the murder of innocent children.

Report

May 16th, 2009 - Armando-24952 said:

Obama supports abortion, embryonic stem cell research, secret military tribunals in Guantanamo. Other than these inhumane positions, what's not to like?

Report

May 14th, 2009 - Sonya-261658 said:

Based on Obama’s voting record in IL, he's also for infanticide. He's friends with Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is in 63%+ in predominately inner city neighborhoods.

He's also bought into the lie about embryonic stem cells, through the killing of the embryo. The Catholic Church only approves the use of Adult Stem Cells and umbilical cord blood. Did you know that there are over 65+ cures using adult stem cells and none for embryonic stem cells?

Report

May 13th, 2009 - Dee-329868 said:

Amen, to Jeffrey, Todd, and Matthew. The Catholic Church is going soft and so are its universities. We don't stand for anything anymore.

Report

May 13th, 2009 - Todd-220696 said:

Presidents often use speaking engagements to introduce new programs and/or initiatives. What if he uses this one to lay out his plan for FOCA? YIKES!

Report

May 12th, 2009 - Matthew-438052 said:

Honor Obama? .... For what? Being a public supporter of murder? Are you kidding me? I didn't vote for that guy. I cant stand him. No way should he be allowed to speak at the pre-eminent Catholic university. He signed into law funding for international abortions... all quiet like. I am disgusted!! Respect is earned, not given away. Fools, this world and this country are going to hell in a handbasket.

Report

May 12th, 2009 - Carmen-73121 said:

With all the due respect for President Obama....ND is wrong from the beginning...ND is a window to the world, of the teachings of the church...they know well (or they should know) that an invitation of that sort required serious thinking and consultation before making a final decision.....had to be taken according to the catholic teachings----now is too late to undo it...i believe now we have to pray....and wait to see if this will bring some good as it happened with the Da Vinci Code and so occasions in the past to weaken the core of our faith. If this....situation brings more turmoil the church may eliminate ND as a catholic university. There is not use to call a university catholic when they go their own way. This should be a message to many other catholic institutions as well....and catholic schools etc etc that are sending wrong teachings to the community causing new generations to be weak in the faith....WE MUST PRAY CONSTANTLY! We have to teach that we accomodate to the gospel not the other way around....to be or not to be...that is.......

Report

May 11th, 2009 - Mike-370396 said:

Coleen, it would be nice to live in a "Love everybody world". Someone who will stand by and watch another human being, being killed while having the power to stop it, is guilty of that sin. Yes, it is an an honor to hold the position as the president of this great country, it an obligation as well.

He's expanding the abortion nightmare by funding the massacre even more and cutting up their innocent little bodies for expermintation.

I would not even invite him into my presence.

Report

May 9th, 2009 - Andrew-337328 said:

OK, I find our current president abhorent, and I voted against him. However, my problem lies not with Notre Dame inviting him to speak. He is the president and newly elected presidents are traditionally invited. The honorary doctorate is where the school is going wrong. Then again, in a lot of ways the school is CINO.

Report

May 9th, 2009 - Thomas-435776 said:

Anyone with a clue knows that altering perception is the first step in altering behavior. If ND professes to be the educator of Catholics, then honoring a pro-choice president is a step to changing the future generations of Catholic's values. Why step forward and honor a man who 1) firmly supports abortion, 2) attends a church who's pastor is openly racist, and 3) cannot find a member within his party to represent his Administration at the Vatican? Notre Dame University is fast becoming a bastion of hipocracy rather than a beacon of truth.

Report

May 9th, 2009 - Theresa-420249 said:

The commencement speech at Catholic Notre Dame should be spoken by someone like Alan Keyes, who upholds and stands by the moral values of the Catholic Church, not someone who is as destructive to the moral fabric of the United States as Barack Obama has been in his voting record. .

Report

May 8th, 2009 - Mike-370396 said:

Can you believe the arrogance of this President. He knows the position of the church! Did he ask to be invited or who invited him? If he was invited, wouldn't he take the chance of getting booed off the stage? No, I think it was his idea to further divide groups that might oppose him. It's his political position to destroy all enemies.

Report

May 7th, 2009 - Matt-367988 said:

I haven't really thought about this much and even though Obama represents almost none of my views and opposes the church on core teachings, I think he should be allowed to speak but not be honored. He is the president of the united states. While George Bush's views on abortion and stem cell research were more in line with the church he was pro-death penalty. Just like he should have been allowed to speak, so should Obama. To honor him is an absolute disgrace to Notre Dame, however.

Report

May 6th, 2009 - Brian-278516 said:

Paul you are correct we could have phrase it better. I agree. Next time I promise! :)

Report

May 6th, 2009 - Paul-34768 said:

This poll is poorly phrased. The question is not in sync with the answers.

Report

May 6th, 2009 - Amy-123093 said:

The whole Catholic community should be outraged at Notre Dame, as their inviting Obama to speak and rewarding him with honors, flies in the face of the mission and directives of Holy Mother Church! Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.

Report

May 4th, 2009 - Mary-403436 said:

These began as Christian Universities. How far have they strayed?

Report

May 4th, 2009 - Joe-434705 said:

Notre Dame is missing a huge opportunity to make a very strong political pro-life statement. To give honor to someone so clearly at odds with these views is cowardly.

Report

May 4th, 2009 - Patrick-341178 said:

Responding to Cassandra, I've never heard a republican say torture is ok and as far as the death penalty in concerned actually Obama supports it. Furthermore, the death penalty is barely ever used in this country and when it is used it is against convicted murders. Over 1 million abortions occur in this country against the most innocent of people - unborn children.

As far as Obama speaking at Notre Dame - not a major issue for me - just had to correct Cassandra.

Report

May 4th, 2009 - Mike-81449 said:

From the opposite perspective, why do Catholics have to acquiesce to those who support a view that's at odds with our beliefs? How much respect can Catholics garner from failing to stand up for what we believe?

Report