Obama takes Oath 2nd Time - No Bible

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
I would think this is deliberate for some reason.

This isn't directed at you, but perhaps it's to assuage paranoid conspiracists who would try to use it against him, or simply to occupy the vacant space that evidently fills the heads of those who have nothing better to concern themselves with?

For the record, Presidents Coolidge and Arthur were also sworn in a 'second' time in private, for similar reasons.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,672
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Obama "officially" became PRESIDENT at 12 noon on 1/20 whether he sid the oath or not......my hunch is he re-took the oath to silence the right wingnuts from saying he wasn't pres because Roberts botched the oath.
Well obviously it wasn't enough to do that.
(silence the wingnuts that is)
 

D_Rod Staffinbone

Account Disabled
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Posts
834
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
3 previous presidents have been sworn in with no bible. rutherford hayes, chester arthur, and theodore roosevelt. a couple of other presidents have repeated the swearing in oath
in private. obama may be a little anal/paranoid but doesn't want there to be any lingering doubt about the fumbling of words at the original swearing in. legal scholars say he would be president regardless of the exact words spoken. the lincoln bible may have already been returned to the national archives by that point and obama probably didn't want to have "the other bible" (had they used one) become the "obama bible". who knows? maybe there wasn't a bible available in the white house, or was still in a box to be unpacked.
does it really matter? religion was all over the place at the actual inauguration (for
a country that prides itself on the separation of church and state).
 
Last edited:

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
my hunch is he re-took the oath to silence the right wingnuts from saying he wasn't pres because Roberts botched the oath.

perhaps it's to assuage paranoid conspiracists who would try to use it against him

For the record, Presidents Coolidge and Arthur were also sworn in a 'second' time in private, for similar reasons.

Bingo.

And FYI, there is no Constitutional mandate that the oath be sworn on a bible or any other mythological text.

Oh, and I am Jack's utter lack of surprise at seeing this non-issue posted by one of the usual suspects.
:rolleyes:
 

Whopper-lee

Cherished Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Posts
1,524
Media
12
Likes
345
Points
208
Location
USA - Southern boy
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Obama Sworn In Again, With Right Words

I find it interesting that when taking the oath for the second time no Bible was used. For all the symbolism (Lincoln Bible) and image control that there has been thus far, I would think this is deliberate for some reason.


:eek:= OOOOOOOOOOOh you noticed that too!
Nor was his wife standing beside him or any other people I could see in the room...but I'm sure some other cabniet members was there????
I did here they could not handle Linclon's Bible much and had to get it back into storage quickly...
I bet it got frost bites & frozen from that outside cold weather it was in...makes a lot of since with so much value placed on it hummmm
Well let's just say the 2nd oath go around was a double smash hit re-run for the history books.
It has only happen 2 times in history to presidents: Chester A. Arthur & Calvin Coolidge.
Interesting observation...prehaps President Obama was smart enough to request it be done over correctly for the records:wink: we'll never know right away will we?
 
Last edited:

agnslz

Loved Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Posts
4,668
Media
0
Likes
519
Points
333
I think this "do-over" of the oath of office was a big mistake. I think it's going to embolden rather than silence the right-wing detractors and kooks.

Just this morning I saw people saying that the orders President Obama signed shortly after he was sworn in the first time could possibly be challenged.

And even if those challenges aren't successful you know there will be an element who will protest from now on that Obama really doesn't have any power as president since they fucked it up the first time.

Also, Bill Sammon was on Fox News this morning complaining that the second swearing-in wasn't done fully out in the open with cameras rolling and the full press corps present.

I think because of that and since apparently no bible was used this second time weirdos everywhere will find reason to say that President Obama has never been correctly sworn in.

I can even imagine some crackpot claiming that it wasn't really Obama and Roberts heard in the audio recording of the event.:eek:

But, I will say this is no different than having to deal with these same kind of people claiming 9/11 was an inside job.
 

flame boy

Account Disabled
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Posts
3,189
Media
0
Likes
188
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Technically he didn't have to use a bible at all. Likewise he doesnt constitutionally have to say "so help me god" but he chose to do so.
 

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
71
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
3 previous presidents have been sworn in with no bible. rutherford hayes, chester arthur, and theodore roosevelt. a couple of other presidents have repeated the swearing in oath
in private. obama may be a little anal/paranoid but doesn't want there to be any lingering doubt about the fumbling of words at the original swearing in. legal scholars say he would be president regardless of the exact words spoken. the lincoln bible may have already been returned to the national archives by that point and obama probably didn't want to have "the other bible" (had they used one) become the "obama bible". who knows? maybe there wasn't a bible available in the white house, or was still in a box to be unpacked.
does it really matter? religion was all over the place at the actual inauguration (for
a country that prides itself on the separation of church and state).
Do we pride ourselves on the separation of church and state?
I mean, on paper, sure. In practice, no. :(

Where did your post go? It was there two minutes ago. :confused:
The demagogue one? Perhaps, for a moment, he thought the discussion was about Bush? :confused:
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I think this "do-over" of the oath of office was a big mistake. I think it's going to embolden rather than silence the right-wing detractors and kooks.

Just this morning I saw people saying that the orders President Obama signed shortly after he was sworn in the first time could possibly be challenged.

And even if those challenges aren't successful you know there will be an element who will protest from now on that Obama really doesn't have any power as president since they fucked it up the first time.

Also, Bill Sammon was on Fox News this morning complaining that the second swearing-in wasn't done fully out in the open with cameras rolling and the full press corps present.

I think because of that and since apparently no bible was used this second time weirdos everywhere will find reason to say that President Obama has never been correctly sworn in.

I can even imagine some crackpot claiming that it wasn't really Obama and Roberts heard in the audio recording of the event.:eek:

But, I will say this is no different than having to deal with these same kind of people claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

I think Obama knows that you can't run a country while pandering to every wingnut conspiracist out there or any given journalist with air time to fill.

Obama was prudent to simply satisfy the basic requirement whether it was necessary or not. I am sure it was not done to satisfy every wingnut out there.

Don't forget, that each administration sets its own backdrop and tone against which public discourse takes place. The Bush administration pandered to its far right base, and therefore set the tone where the 'right wing detractors and kooks' had a bully pulpit. Against the Bush backdrop, such complaints seemed important and reasonable.

The Obama administration is already setting the tone that we have tough problems to solve, that we are fully grown adults, and that only through bi-partisan problem solving will we get through them. Against that backdrop, the kooks will simply look like what they are, which are kooks.
 

agnslz

Loved Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Posts
4,668
Media
0
Likes
519
Points
333
Technically he didn't have to use a bible at all. Likewise he doesnt constitutionally have to say "so help me god" but he chose to do so.
Yes, but the no-bible part plays into the line that Obama isn't really a Christian.

Since he wanted to get the oath exactly right this time why wouldn't he use a bible? Unless he isn't really Christian... :rolleyes:
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Idk...seperation of Church and State... you know...the way it should be?

Doesn't appear that you have a clue on what is meant by sep. of Church/State.

It DOES NOT mean that you can't have "church" within "state"... i.e. a bible at a swearing in, or the words "In God We Trust" in/on gov't buildings.