Oh Dear Lord,

Smite these trifling mofo Jesuits for allowing Your Boy to be dissed.

Unfunded pensions are no excuse. Don't let them equivocate their way out of this one.

Wow, Pops, hear our pleas.

ps.- this does not mean we want You to allow the repubs to regain congress in 2010.

Amen

With the spelling corrected for donkey's ears.

How ridiculous is that something beautiful and natural as a rainbow, is accepted as a symbol of homosexuals by the writer of this note. Then in an oximoronic way the writer compares the rainbow (which is an event in nature), with the use of the star of David by Israel. Then proceeds to equate it to the IHS of the catholics. Both Jews and Catholics if they have any moral strength should be offended by this Amoral attempt at doing so by Mr. Hirscfield.

Lest we forgot the symbols in question are man made (IHS, star of David). A rainbow is a natural phenomenon ocurring in nature which is God's creation. It is not man made. But pagans instead of given the proper credit to the creator, assumes that it is a symbol like Mr. Hirschfield did.

ZZZZZ

JESCOWA, how is secularism a common ground for our society? Does it not require a commitment of faith in the notion of objective reason? Its not a concept that has existed since humanity has existed, it is a philosophy born of the "Enlightenment" Era. Secularism, at the least demand a hyper-individualism such that religious beliefs are personally held, which is counter to the nature of most religious beliefs. Supporting the myth that we should lock up our faith in our "personal" lives so that our "public" life is secular is horribly offensive and oppressive. Is not our worldview something that we holistically carry with us in every facet of our lives?
The notion of the separation of Church and State is best seen as that the Church is not meant to rule the government, and the government is not meant to play kingmaker over which faith is correct. But in so doing, which worldview does our government operate in? In a pluralistic society we do great harm to silence each other and ignore aspects of each others lives as if they don't exist or are off-bounds, true peaceful community requires dialogue and humility.
All people have made commitments of faith including Atheists and those who contend that they are people of "no-faith", each have a worldview to contribute to our society and deserved to be valued for who they are and the background that they have to enrich our society. I liked the concept the author proferred which is that the melting pot notion is destructive and that we should adopt what is a better way of describing what is already the reality that our nation is a mosaic of unique individuals and communities that enhance and enrich the entire nation.

Mr. Hisrchfield is a carbon copy of the Catholic League's President, William Donohue. I do not think the IHS symbol, which is Greek, not Latin should have been covered, but also wonder why the University would have covered it. This is just another tempest in a teapot - Bill Donohue Style - and sullies any real valid issues and faith based University would have about a Secular Government.

Anyone remember "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?? It may be time for those of faith to review the ten commandments -- and think before employing the Seven Deadly Sins.

Mr. Hisrchfield is a carbon copy of the Catholic League's President, William Donohue. I do not think the IHS symbol, which is Greek, not Latin should have been covered, but also wonder why the University would have covered it. This is just another tempest in a teapot - Bill Donohue Style - and sullies any real valid issues and faith based University would have about a Secular Government.

Anyone remember "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?? It may be time for those of faith to review the ten commandments -- and think before employing the Seven Deadly Sins.

I mean, see what I'm talking about here?

You say *this:*

"Let's hope that in the days and weeks ahead the White House will address their error and reestablish their credibility as builders of real bridges between the religious and secular segments of our society - bridges which don't force anyone to pay the toll of self-erasure in order to cross. That is too high a price to ask of anyone."

...And meanwhile, we got people offended about *rainbows.*

You still see any particular reason the President of the United States ought to let someone put a flag proclaiming a particular religious view over his shoulder?

"How ridilculous is that something beatiful and natural as a raibow, is accepted as a symbol of homosexuals by the writer of this note."

Actually, it's not a 'symbol of homosexuals,' Mr. 'Saler.'

The rainbow is a symbol of the *world,* which has many different colors and appearances, ...to Christians and Jews, it could be a symbol of a new hope after devastation, even. Diversity, and a covenant of sorts that maybe God won't total a bunch of cities over someone getting inflated fears of strangers or queer folk..

Or are you trying to say gay people are somehow defiling rainbows. Who's next, Strawberry Shortcake?

I hope the imagery isn't too heretical and confusing to you, but the notion behind the rainbow flag is not actually, 'Let's all make everyone gay and destroy civilization, so they can't lead us to a very righteous Apocalypse...'

It's about that there are many kinds of people.

Like there are many colors in the world.

And that trying to destroy one or a few or however many... Honors nothing 'light.'

What do *you* see when you see a rainbow?

'God has shown that through diffraction and enforced ignorance of science and literary metaphor, we must hold pure to hurting people who are different...'

Gods, man, that doesn't even make *sense.*

"Then in an oximoronic way the writes compares the use of it with the use of the star of David by Isrel."

I have this real little pet peeve. If you're going to claim you are quoting the Bible 'Literally' as a reason you have every right to kill me....

Would you please learn to *spell?*

There's injury, and then there's adding insult.

If you're not even going to take this seriously, go join the 'Texas secession' movement.

"Then proceeds to equate it to the IHS of the catholics. Both Jews and Catholics if they have any moral strength should be offended by this amoral attempt at doing do."

I still just can't understand why you lot are so 'offended' by PC, then keep whining when someone points out what candidates for donkey-ears you are.

How ridilculous is that something beatiful and natural as a raibow, is accepted as a symbol of homosexuals by the writer of this note. Then in an oximoronic way the writes compares the use of it with the use of the star of David by Isrel. Then proceeds to equate it to the IHS of the catholics. Both Jews and Catholics if they have any moral strength should be offended by this amoral attempt at doing do.

I agree Brad. I would add that "freedom of religion" is betrayed when the state seeks to have freedom "from" religion. It is unreasonable of President Obama to ask religious hosts (no pun intended) to censor their religious expression. Peace, Nate Walker

I hardly think this is a matter of 'PC,' so much as a President trying to give a speech without having the recent religious polarization of our country constantly in the viewers' faces.

He should be neither compared to nor seen to *claim the approval* of such religious references: it runs counter to the whole matter of *healing* the nation's divisions. He's not 'Pastor-in-Chief.'

Some Christians will claim to be being suppressed when someone won't, de facto, place their 'flag' above the American one, then scream bloody murder if anything governmental even *hints* there are other Americans here.

Where do you draw the line? Say Obama went to Holy Cross in Massachusetts, should he speak on foreign policy under a banner of some charging Crusader with a big cross on his shield and a lance ready to run through some infidel?

The very fact that such symbols are being *used as such a wedge* is sufficient reason just to not put those up where the President speaks for America.

I'm sure your religion will survive a little break from the *constant* expectations of genuflecture.

Over all it is not important for what was done (my opinion) all the christian still believe no matter what is covered up or not endorsed. It is bad that some people do forget why this Country was established on a belief of something bigger than themselves there was no melting pot of opinions but just a belief in something greater (not my opinion). So people that want to denounce this are too busy talking and creating rights and not understand the big picture. So a removed or covered up a sign does not matter either way but to really believe a religion is pulling people apart when the concept of a belief that created religion is what brought people together? If you don’t think this than please stop using your money that seems be the best lack of endorsement IN GOD WE TRUST.

Removing the IHS emblem was not inappropriate, in fact it was the only proper course. This is not an issue of secular v. religious. Our civil society embraces religious freedom and our government defends it, but that government is (blessedly) secular. Faith (or lack thereof) is a private possession, but the public sphere is (or at least should be) a secular space. In fact, our common ground must be secular, as this is the only place where people of diverse faiths and no faith can come together as equals.

There is no need for a bridge between the relgious and secular segments of our society. Rather, a secular civil space provides the foundation on which bridges may be built among people of many beliefs.

Georgetown, like other Catholic universites and hospitals, seem to be in trouble with their pensions. They made promises they cannot now keep.

Georgetown needs money and will eventually show up asking for a Federal bailout on the premise they are 'too big to fail"

Like Judas, I am sure they would would renounce anything if it meant they would get a federal bailout for their pensions.

The Catholic church is also a force behind illegal immigration ( for their own reasons) and that is pleasing to the economic powers that allowed illegals to drop the bottom out of economic system

IMO, the fault lies not with BHO, but with Georgetown for covering up IHS.

In the rush to get El Presidente on campus, Catholic colleges seem to have forgotten that they are, well, Catholic.

Remember, since 1967, with the Land O Lakes statement, Catholic colleges have put themselves above the teaching authority of the Church (the Magesterium).

any time the government can get the christian's panties in a wad, it shows their sense of being in control is weakening.

And that's a good thing. This is not just your country, and DwightCollins, your lord and savior blah blah is not my lord and saviour. Keep your gods to yourself.

You religionists really need to get a secular life.

I know that all of you liberals love Obama, but look at what he has done, and tried to do in his first 92 days:

He has embarrassed the United States at virtually every opportunity he has had to speak on foreign soil.

He has denied that America is based on Judeo/Christian ethics.

He has proposed a UN treaty that would void the 2nd. Amendment to the US Constitution and prohibit American private ownership of guns. (Thereby getting around the US Constitution and Congress.)

He is proposing a similar UN treaty that would void "right-to-life".

He is proposing another Treaty that would give control of the US Federal Reserve, and the US Treasury to the International Monetary Fund.

He has angered virtually every Catholic in the US, and has hinted at limiting religious freedom for Christians.

He is proposing a new law that will effectively void the First Amendment rights of Freedom of the Press, in favor of imposing restrictions that would only apply to Conservative media.

His Secretary of Homeland Security has issued a letter to all law enforcement agencies that states that Conservatives may be enemies of the US. Then, listed the traits of these people to be US military veterans, people who oppose illegal immigration, people who support a person's right to choose, people who oppose increasing the federal deficit, Christians, and people oppose Barack Obama's plans. (What is preventing her from issuing an order next week to shoot these people on sight?)

When people voted for Obama, they wanted change, but i don;t believe this is the type of change they voted for.

I am involved in the university's management of the hall where Pres. Obama spoke and I can tell you, it's not terribly uncommon of us to change the religious nature of the hall when we have events going on that call for it.

And yet again we come full circle tracing the Magisterium back to the lies, myths and embellishments made by P, M, M, L and J about Jesus, a simple, Jewish, preacher man. He was never and will never be deity or a messiah/saviour.

Bottom line: IHS has no historical meaning!!!! Cover it up and keep it covered!!!

I'm surprised Obama's ego didn't replace IHS with his initials BHO.

I concur that the White House put President Obama in a predicament when they asked Georgetown, a Catholic University, to cover up the reference to Jesus. But the real fault lies with the Georgetown geniuses who agreed with the White House request. Where is their gumption and respect for Georgetown's Catolicism. Shame on them. Forget about future alumni giving from me for awhile. And I hope Notre Dame shows more backbone.
Georgetown Alum

The writer doesn't have the word "Statism" in his vocabulary. He writes inarticulately about what troubles him, like a South African who never learned the word "Apartied." You probably won't ever learn about Statism in public school.

What a non-issue. So the President didn't want to include a Catholic symbol in his speech. Big deal. Get over it.

To me, it isn't even an issue of Christian versus non-Christian...it is an issue of respect. Obama spoke in a CATHOLIC setting and then expected them to hide their beliefs from the public. It is obvious to me that he did not consider that their beliefs are just as valid as anyone else's. In the quest to be PC, he offended a large group of people. Georgetown is obviously a religious place, and I am sure the majority of people watching his speech would have acknowledged that and let it slide that a catholic university may have one or two Christian symbols in it...big shock!

In response to Dwight Collins, who asked, "how many times will obama deny our Lord JESUS CHRIST while wrecking havoc on our country... "

My guess is ... none. None times.

When Obama speaks at Notre Dame he will ask the university to remove the "Notre Dame" from its logo...

Not only does it offend seculars, Notre Dame (meaning "Our Lady" aka the Virgin Mary)it is also anathema to evangelical Christians.

As well, he will ask any crosses to be removed from church steeples on the campuses at which he speaks. Might mean be seen in the background and he needs neutrality. As well, they could pose a security risk. Said crosses will be replaced with..ehmm...weathervanes for the duration of the visit!

Only for the disagreeing eyes of one "furtdw":
Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations(literal reading of the NT) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".
Current crises:
Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!
Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
Current crises:
Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

Posted by: CCNL | April 20, 2009 4:

*****************************************

Thanks for the book but I've previously read your musings which are redundantly posted ad nauseam.

Teachings of the Magesterium? Or, your "teachings."

I'll stay with the Magestrium.

Only for the disagreeing eyes of one "furtdw":

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations(literal reading of the NT) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

Come on, children. It's common practice for national politicians to arrange to appear before a generic backdrop, usually with American flags, etc.

Why? Because private institutions were getting ridiculous in their backdrop marketing, often creating very distracting backdrops.

This is a non story.

Leftoflarry wrote:

"I'm sorry but this author has no idea what he is talking about."

Larry, it is you who doesn't know what you're writing about

"Removing the cross and any religious insigna while the president speaks is in par with the constitutional 1st ammendment."

No. It violates the Universities right to actively or, in this case, passively express its views on its campus. Remember, Obama was the visitor freely expressing his views.

"The president MUST NOT portray an endorsement of ANY religion."

Silly. The President's mere presence in the vicinity of any religious symbol can not be construed as his endorsement of it.

"I'm pretty sure that this author and christians everywhere would never have objected to the removal of the muslim symbol or the word Allah."

Just as Muslims did not object to the removal of a Christian symbol. Muslims would have rightfully objected had it been
a Muslim symbol disguised.

"This is only a criticism by christians because they understand that this president talks to everyone, and does not endorse christianity."

Doesn't endorse Christianity??? Warped thinking. Obama claims to be a Christian. That certainly constitutes endorsement.

"Christians want only 1 religion to rule the USA, not pluralism."

Please cite specific examples underwriting your opinion.

"They hide behind this term, only when it is convenient for them to use. You cannot show pluarlism when you endorse one religion only. This author must either be very ignorant or very sly."

Larry, as you can tell by my rebuttal, it may be you who is the ignorant one.

It is best to think before writing.

Ravitch:

You hate Catholics. But next time before you start explaining their sacred symbols have a look at what Catholics themselves say:

IHS

"A monogram of the name of Jesus Christ. From the third century the names of our Saviour are sometimes shortened, particularly in Christian inscriptions (IH and XP, for Jesus and Christus). In the next century the "sigla" (chi-rho) occurs not only as an abbreviation but also as a symbol. From the beginning, however, in Christian inscriptions the nomina sacra, or names of Jesus Christ, were shortened by contraction, thus IC and XC or IHS and XPS for Iesous Christos. These Greek monograms continued to be used in Latin during the Middle Ages. Eventually the right meaning was lost, and erroneous interpretation of IHS led to the faulty orthography "Jhesus"."

/www.newadvent.org

One entry found. Thanks to M.W.

Main Entry: IHS
Pronunciation: \ˌī-ˌāch-ˈes\
Etymology: Late Latin, part transliteration of Greek ΙΗΣ, abbreviation for ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Iēsous Jesus
—used as a Christian symbol and monogram for Jesus. (Thanks to M.W.)

The Romans appropriated the first three letters of the Greek word iota, eta and sigma to come up with their monogram for Jesus.

DWIGHTCOLLINS wrote:

"how many times will obama deny our Lord JESUS CHRIST while wrecking havoc on our country..."

*******************************************

Agree.

Obama couches *EVERYTHING* in politics and playin' to constituencies. He certainly doesn't want to appear being "too Christian."

Despite being in Washington since Jan 20 (actually, before that as a Senator), he has yet to figure out which church to attend.

A Baptist knows to go to a Baptist service.

A Jew knows to go to a temple and its services.

A Muslim knows to go to a Mosque.

A Catholic knows to go to church/Mass.

Why is Obama so hesitant to pick a church?

Does Obama have any core convictions?

I'm sorry but this author has no idea what he is talking about. Removing the cross and any religious insigna while the president speaks is in par with the constitutional 1st ammendment. The president MUST NOT portray an endorsement of ANY religion. I'm pretty sure that this author and christians everywhere would never have objected to the removal of the muslim symbol or the word Allah. This is only a criticism by christians because they understand that this president talks to everyone, and does not endorse christianity. Christians want only 1 religion to rule the USA, not pluralism. They hide behind this term, only when it is convenient for them to use. You cannot show pluarlism when you endorse one religion only. This author must either be very ignorant or very sly.

CCNL wrote:

"Considering the lies, myths and embellishments made by P, M, M, L and J about Jesus, it was wise to cover up this flawed symbol of a simple Jewish preacher man. He was never and will never be deity or a messiah/saviour."

***************************************

Disagree. Strongly.

Ah what a controversy! Fox news strikes again...

Yes! Yes! President Obama has done so much, has worked so tirelessly, to bring us all together! He studied at the feet of the masters, Jeremiah Wright and Bill
Ayers, he appointed the Pope-bashing idiot to the "faith council", he put out an Alert through DHS for law enforcement to watch out for Christian, anti-abortion believers and military veterans, and Texans. Yes, the O is really a moderating force, isn't he?

Obama is a 'thumb in your eye person' ... reflecting his upbringing as a 'community organizer' from the far left. The removal of the IHS crest was meant to irritate.

Much in common with Ahmadinejad and Chavez ...

Considering the lies, myths and embellishments made by P, M, M, L and J about Jesus, it was wise to cover up this flawed symbol of a simple Jewish preacher man. He was never and will never be deity or a messiah/saviour.

Mr. Hischfield,

I am Catholic.

I did not and will not ever vote for Obama.
(I am not a "hater" but I dislike him greatly).

The Obama administration was wrong for asking to have the symbol hidden BUT ........

Georgetown was ten times more wrong for complying.

teamuse said:

Please, get your facts straight before writing. Both the University and the White House have made clear that this was a purely aesthetic decision. The WH asked for all symbols to be removed and to have a backdrop of a curtain and flags. The backdrop didn't cover the the pediment that had the IHS symbol on it -- and the University thought it looked bad sticking up like that. So they covered it to match the backdrop. That's all. Nothing anti-Catholic, nothing anti-Christian. I do have to wonder about the agendas of those who have made a mountain out of this molehill.
_____________________
If they didn't like the "aesthetics", they could have moved to a different setting. It's just more insulting spin for people like you to believe and nod in agreement.

Where was BO's Public Relations team in all this? Didn't they consider the ramifications of covering IHS at a so-called Catholic university? Was the university's PR office asleep? Obviously.

NOBODY, NO INSTITUTION, should have to remove symbols to accommodate anybody -- particularly a man who wants Americans to be purple instead of blue or red.

As the old saying goes, If you don't like what's on, change the channel. If BO's team didn't agree with the "aesthetics," they should have taken it someplace else, and then this wouldn't have been a story.

Brad, I couldn't have said it better.

I'm not an Evangelical, don't go to church, glance at the bible once in a while. But when I heard that BO's administration insisted the IHS be covered -- and that Georgetown ACTUALLY AGREED to this abomination -- it became more clear what Obama's really like, which is way too lengthy to post here. But it's not good.

The crazy liberals see nothing but good in this move; the loony right will really foam at the mouth. As in independent voter, I hope the more sane amongst my tribe will take another hard look at the man who's in the WH now, and not elect him in 2012, because he's more concerned that the world and our enemies like him than those of his own country. We don't need a politically correct rock star. We need a leader who has guts and fortitude, and respect for symbols the left detests.

how many times will obama deny our Lord JESUS CHRIST while wrecking havoc on our country...

In his recent columns, Mr. Hirschfield seems to be straining to find something provocative on the church/state issue. This one, like the story about the Hospice "censorship" appears to be a mountain/molehill attempt to generate controversy. Perhaps this column should only be published when a significant case arises? Or maybe the author should do more homework before leaping to his keyboard? Is this dicussion worth my effort to keep checking?

Has the Post lost its last remaining shreds of integrity? Does this institution even bother to check the most basic of facts before letting random idiots spout thoroughly discredited nutbar conspiracy theories from right-wing propaganda mills?

I know that a religion column is going to contain a pretty high nonsense to sense ratio, by definition, but this has no news content whatsoever. The President ALWAYS speaks in front of a standard backdrop. This "journalism" serves no purpose except to dishonestly smear one party for the benefit of the other.

At least George Will bothered to PRETEND that he had sources other than fringe websites. This is just a disgrace.

Please, get your facts straight before writing. Both the University and the White House have made clear that this was a purely aesthetic decision. The WH asked for all symbols to be removed and to have a backdrop of a curtain and flags. The backdrop didn't cover the the pediment that had the IHS symbol on it -- and the University thought it looked bad sticking up like that. So they covered it to match the backdrop. That's all. Nothing anti-Catholic, nothing anti-Christian. I do have to wonder about the agendas of those who have made a mountain out of this molehill.

Y'all have been looking at too many fish symbols on cars with the IHSOUS. IHS is Latin, period. Nest y'all will be telling us that Yehoshua is Greek. It's all Greek to the ignorant.

President Obama was certainly not trying to "de Cristianize" Georgetown. If he was, he probably wouldn't have referenced the Sermon on the Mount at length in his remarks. Please read the whole story here:

http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2009/04/cultivating_outrage_on_the_rig.html

"IHS" is not Latin; Mr. Hirshfield is correct that the letters reference Jesus' name as it was originally recorded in the Koine Greek writings of the New Testament. In Greek, JESUS = IHSOYS...which Christians have since ancient times shortened to "IHS" (think "Sal" from Salvadore). [Note that sometimes it is "IHC" and rarely uses the well-known-from-frat-parties Greek form of the letter sigma. The use of "S" or "C" doesn't make it Latin, but rather Byzantine (still Greek).]

There are many folk customs around IHS..."In His Service", "Iesus Hominum Savator", etc...but these show Christian ignorance of our own roots, trying to make sense of ancient symbols we're too lazy to understand.

Thank you, Mr. Hirshfield, for standing up for our need to be more aware and more embracing of our histories rather than sliding further down a slope of what seems like a bitter intolerance.

Yeah...actually it IS Greek. It's a monogram of the first 3 letters of Jesus' name in Greek, which is IHSOUS. The Greek I and J are one letter, just like in Latin, and the H is an Eta, a long "e" sound. IHS has a long-used monogram in East and West, but when saints like Bernadine of Siena preached on the Holy Name, they were to talking to Latin-world people, and needed an acronym the people would readily grasp. Hence, the sort of "folk etymology" of IHS as an acronym.

The reason Mr. Hirschfield doesn't know Latin from Greek is probably because he had a new liberal education at an Ivy School where he could take electives rather than real courses. I bet he went to Brown!

IHS is Latin, not Greek. It means either Iesus Hominum Savator (Jesus Saviour of Men) or In Hoc Signo (Vinces) In this sign you shall conquer.