The Oath – Let us not Forget

Barack Obama sworn in again, but without a Bible

FROM JANUARY 22, 2009 He's sorted out the legalities, but could Barack Obama have made the first political mistake of his presidency? After constitutional law experts questioned the validity of his swearing-in because of a fluffed line in the oath of office, Mr Obama moved quickly to quash speculation that his presidency was in any way illegitimate. John Roberts, the Chief Justice charged who helped bungle the oath on Tuesday, was summoned to the White House and, in front of a small pool of reporters, Mr Obama carefully and accurately repeated the 35-word oath prescribed by Article 2 of the Constitution. The problem was, no-one thought to bring a Bible and Mr Obama decided to go ahead without one. Legally, that was fine – the Constitution makes no mention of the Bible. Politically, it may prove to be a problem. "The Obama boobery with the oath, led to a second oath. But the Bible, like the once disdained flag lapel pin, was nowhere to be seen," sniped the Hillaryis44 blog, referring to a row during the presidential campaign over a missing lapel pin. "Expect a third oath when bitter small town gun- and Bible-toting America finds out." Mr Obama's likely reaction in the event of a backlash will be that he did not consider last night's oath to be the one that counts. The White House counsel, Greg Craig, said last night that the Administration believed that Mr Obama was "sworn in appropriately" on Tuesday. "Yet the oath appears in the Constitution itself and out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath a second time," he added. On Tuesday, Mr Obama was sworn in with his left hand on the Bible used by his great political hero, Abraham Lincoln, on his first inauguration in 1861. That book was returned to the Library of Congress straight afterwards. It is not clear whether Mr Roberts, the Supreme Court Chief Justice, had been expected to bring a Bible with him but it might come as a shock to some of Mr Obama's more devout supporters – he and his family are regular churchgoers – that no Bible was available last night and the ceremony went ahead without one. The second oath was taken in the White House Map Room, witnessed not by a crowd of two million but four members of the White House press corps. “We decided that because it was so much fun ...,” Mr Obama joked as the reporters filed in. No TV camera crews or news photographers – although pictures were taken by a White House photographer – and even Michelle Obama, the President's wife, was absent. Mr Roberts put on his black robe. “Are you ready to take the oath?” he said. "Yes, I am,” Mr Obama said. “And we’re going to do it very slowly.” Mr Roberts then led Mr Obama through the oath without any missteps. "The retaking of the oath went without a hitch and Obama was successfully sworn in, a second time, as president of the United States Of America. But this time he done it without his left hand on the bible," reported the Atheist News weblog. "Obviously this is not that much of a big deal and the second taking of the oath was just, as the White House lawyer put it, "out of the abundance of caution". But it is refreshing to see that Obama doesn't attach much important to religious pomp and ceremony."

COMMENTARY You know, I hate to go back in time like this and dredge up old stories, but there is just something that bothers me about this whole swearing in debacle. The whole purpose of taking an oath, is to pledge truth to a higher purpose.  It is the very nature of the higher purpose, or God for example, that makes the oath process sound and secure, as the oath taker is basically saying, “I am telling the truth” or you can otherwise “strike me dead.” In a broad sense, the oath taker has to place himself “BELOW” a higher power, whereby there is sound punishment should the oath taker not keep his word. Would you take an oath with your left hand on a hamburger and right hand raised?  What exactly would the oath taker have to fear from the hamburger or what it stands for? In the case of Obama, exactly who was he swearing to?  The mere fact that the first “public” display of him taking the oath of office was seen by MILLIONS, yet the fixed version was seen by less than 12 people.  No motion picture, no audio.  Just still shots. WHY?????? I would think that the POTUS, who is to be elected by the people, would want to instill in the people absolutely NO DOUBT about his honor and integrity. The mere fact that not one bible was present in the White House, or that nobody could take a 5 minute hike down to Barnes and Nobel to get one, or to a church, or make a phone call.  SOMETHING!? No.  That didn’t happen. I am telling you my friends and readers, there is something to this.  Whether Obama is concealing his true religion, ISLAM, or, is just stupid.  I don’t think the latter is the case. Here is how Wiki defines “Oath”: An oath (from Anglo-Saxon āð, also called plight) is either a statement of fact or a promise calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually God, as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact. To swear is to take an oath, to make a solemn vow. The essence of a divine oath is an invocation of divine agency to be a guarantor of the oath taker's own honesty and integrity in the matter under question. By implication, this invokes divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in their sworn duties. It therefore implies greater care than usual in the act of the performance of one's duty, such as in testimony to the facts of the matter in a court of law. A person taking an oath indicates this in a number of ways. The most usual is the explicit "I swear," but any statement or promise that includes "with * as my witness" or "so help me *," with '*' being something or someone the oath-taker holds sacred, is an oath. Many people take an oath by holding in their hand or placing over their head a book of scripture or a sacred object, thus indicating the sacred witness through their action: such an oath is called corporal. However, the chief purpose of such an act is for ceremony or solemnity, and the act does not of itself make an oath.[citation needed] In Western countries it is customary to raise the right hand while swearing an oath, whether or not the left hand is laid on a Bible or other text. This custom originated during the Medieval period when convicted felons were often branded on the palm of the right hand with a letter or mark indicating their conviction. Since felons were disqualified from making declarations under oath, an oath-taker would display their right hand to show that they were free of convictions and therefore able take an oath.[1] There is confusion between oaths and other statements or promises. The current Olympic Oath, for instance, is really a pledge and not properly an oath since there is only a "promise" and no appeal to a sacred witness. Oaths are also confused with vows, but really a vow is a special kind of oath. In law, oaths are made by a witness to a court of law before giving testimony and usually by a newly-appointed government officer to the people of a state before taking office. In both of those cases, though, an affirmation can be usually substituted. A written statement, if the author swears the statement is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is called an affidavit. The oath given to support an affidavit is frequently administered by a notary public who will memorialize the giving of the oath by affixing her or his seal to the document. Breaking an oath (or affirmation) is perjury. If you are not willing to take the oath over a bible, you have the right to be affirmed instead, which again, Obama would not do because it would reveal his secret that he is not a Christian. So was the first attempt of the oath taking purposely flubbed so that he could take office under circumstances that hid his true religious identity? Take that, and the fact that he supposedly went to church every Sunday before becoming president, but now can’t seem to pick a church to attend? That he didn’t got to Church but twice since taking office? What are you hiding, POTUS?   -- Xavier