President Re-Takes Oath

[Enoch]

3. I would not read anything into him not using a Bible. It was not an official ceremony, just a redo for political/legal purposes. Therefore a Bible was not required or demanded.

Obama said he forgot his Bible, oops but he sure didn't forget to make a big deal about using Abraham Lincoln's Bible yesterday in front of ALL those people.

Therefore a Bible was NOT important today.

 

[Martin]

Obama said he forgot his Bible, oops but he sure didn't forget to make a big deal about using Abraham Lincoln's Bible yesterday in front of ALL those people.

Therefore a Bible was NOT important today.

==That is really an amazing reply! You ignored everything I wrote, probably for political reasons, and are still trying to make something out of nothing. Maybe you should go back and read my points (mainly #1). Swearing on the Bible is a sin and our Consitution does not require a person to sin in order to take the office of President.

I await your answer to my points from Scripture and the Constitution (per previous reply).

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Obama said he forgot his Bible, oops but he sure didn't forget to make a big deal about using Abraham Lincoln's Bible yesterday in front of ALL those people.

Therefore a Bible was NOT important today.

Don't take the

 

[rbell]

So JamieinNH the Bible being omitted from the retake of Obama's swearing in is just tripe? Don't sweat the small stuff, for instance the Holy Bible.

As a Christian this is a big deal, regardless of my political affiliation.

No, it's not.

Sheesh.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This is interesting. So was he our President today or yesterday. If the answer is yesterday why do a repeat.

I noticed in the second swearing in Obama did not bring a Bible. So it was done without a Bible. It seems it was a pretty big deal to do the retake so why leave the Bible out? Interesting.

Because there is no need to use one - it is all public tradition. No big deal.

 

[LeBuick]

I think it was just the crowd. Roberts did flub it, but c'mon......I've never had to speak to 2 million people.


(pssssst...I hear he had a Koran in his jacket)

I heard he was standing on a Koran...

 

[LeBuick]

So JamieinNH the Bible being omitted from the retake of Obama's swearing in is just tripe? Don't sweat the small stuff, for instance the Holy Bible.

As a Christian this is a big deal, regardless of my political affiliation.

I believe we all saw him place his hand on the Bible and swear to an oath yesterday. For that reason I don't see it as necessary today even though it would have been nice.

However, isn't there a law against having a bible publicly displayed in a government building? I know you can leave a Bible out at most jobs.

 

[LeBuick]

Clearly the Bible yesterday was just for show. Why am I not surprised.

Your allegation would carry more weight if Obama was the one who made the flub. Roberts was appointed by a GOP president.

 

[Enoch]

==That is really an amazing reply! You ignored everything I wrote, probably for political reasons, and are still trying to make something out of nothing. Maybe you should go back and read my points (mainly #1). Swearing on the Bible is a sin and our Consitution does not require a person to sin in order to take the office of President.

I await your answer to my points from Scripture and the Constitution (per previous reply).

What political reasons? I really do not know where you stand on any issue.

Apparently it is nothing to you but it's something to me. I did read your other comments and did not ignore them sorry you felt that way. They simply were not my complaint.

 

[Martin]

Apparently it is nothing to you but it's something to me. I did read your other comments and did not ignore them sorry you felt that way. They simply were not my complaint.

==So your complaining that Mr. Obama did not sin again by swearing on the Bible? Your complaining that he did what is required by the Constitution? He is not required to swear in on a Bible and the Bible itself forbids such swearing. So why do you want him to do something the Bible says he should not do? I don't get it.

 

[Enoch]

Because there is no need to use one - it is all public tradition. No big deal.

To each his own, but imo it is revealing.

 

[Enoch]

==So your complaining that Mr. Obama did not sin again by swearing on the Bible? Your complaining that he did what is required by the Constitution? He is not required to swear in on a Bible and the Bible itself forbids such swearing. So why do you want him to do something the Bible says he should not do? I don't get it.

Apparently you missed the big deal about using Abraham Lincoln's Bible which was just for show otherwise Obama would have used a Bible the second re-do. Priorities noted. Remember crowd size when displaying character.

 

[Martin]

Apparently you missed the big deal about using Abraham Lincoln's Bible which was just for show otherwise Obama would have used a Bible the second re-do. Priorities noted. Remember crowd size when displaying character.

==I don't care what Bible was being used or not being used. Constitutionally it is not required and Biblically it is forbiden. A point you continue to set aside. He used the Bible Tuesday for the same reason every other President has since John Adams, tradition. It is a tradition that has nothing to do with the law or the Bible. In fact it is a tradition that is in disobedience to Scripture.

Why do you want Mr. Obama, or anyone for that matter, to do what Scripture says he should not do (Matt 5:34-37, Jms 5:12, Matt 23:16-22)? Please give a direct answer to that question. Thanks.:wavey:

 

[Alcott]

When you go to court for jury duty, for testimony, or if you are elected to an office, you are to affirm and not swear.

No. Jesus said to swear not by heaven, or by earth, or by your head. Then he added, "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil." Therefore affirming comes of evil, as well as swearing, because it's more than a Yes or No.

 

[Martin]

No. Jesus said to swear not by heaven, or by earth, or by your head. Then he added, "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil." Therefore affirming comes of evil, as well as swearing, because it's more than a Yes or No.

==You might have a point there, I will have to think about it more, but the way I understand it is that affirming is just agreeing. I'm not sure it violates the "yes" or "no" principle/command but you have given me something to think about.

 

[donnA]

President Obama summoned Chief Justice John Roberts to readminister the oath of office, following Roberts' flubbing of the oath at the official ceremony yesterday. While Obama was, and is, legally the President without the retake, it erases the potential for anyone to make an issue of it. After the brouhaha by the nutty fringe over his birth certificate, can't say as I blame him.

Story HERE

What I saw on tv was that the constution has a specific oath that must be followed, and when he didn't follow it exactly, no matter who was at fault, he was not legally president until he take the oath in the manner given in the constution.

 

[donnA]

This is interesting. So was he our President today or yesterday. If the answer is yesterday why do a repeat.

I noticed in the second swearing in Obama did not bring a Bible. So it was done without a Bible. It seems it was a pretty big deal to do the retake so why leave the Bible out? Interesting.

No press.

....

 

[KenH]

Legally power changed hands at high noon EST on January 20th regardless of when the oath was taken.


Amendment XX

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

 

[donnA]

Legally power changed hands at high noon EST on January 20th regardless of when the oath was taken.

apparently the oath doesn't mean anything then does it, out goes the constution.

The oath is explicit. Roberts tried to wing it. No repeat was necessary...but it was just being very by the book.

Your right to constution is explicit on that oath, and if it wasn't done right, then according to the constution you ahve to do it exact in order for it to be legal.

Yep. And the whole thing could have been avoided by
1. Rehearsal
2. Roberts not trying to ad-lib it under such pressure.

4.Obama not interrupting.

 

[StefanM]

==You might have a point there, I will have to think about it more, but the way I understand it is that affirming is just agreeing. I'm not sure it violates the "yes" or "no" principle/command but you have given me something to think about.

If you think about it, the oath isn't swearing by anything. Swear vs. affirm without grounding the oath in something else is just a semantic game.