It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barack Obama sworn in again, but without a Bible

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Is this really an issue? On the first occasion, publicly , in front of the worlds media, he took the oath on the Bible. The most telling element of the second swearing in was his rather abrupt attitude to John Roberts. I don't blame him. Roberts should have read the Oath and not tried to recite it from memory.




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


The whole reason a bible is used is to swear before god. If it were not important why do we have it in courts?

This is the second time he was not able to do this properly.

I see deception.

But he is the president and I wont dispute that.

mmmmm



[edit on 23-1-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 04:37 AM
link   
I certainly do not see a problem here...

Since God is imaginary, imagining that Bible was actually there (even if it really wasn't) seems appropriate



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
On the surface the fact that Obama did not have his hand on a bible is not a big deal. Also, on the surface the fact that Obama did not correctly take the oath at the Inauguration is not a big deal. These might be tiny details to some but you have to understand that every little detail matters to the cult running this planet currently. For this to make sense you first have to understand that there are people in positions much higher than Obama making decisions and giving Obama orders. You can call them the elite, the Illuminati, the secret government, the oligarchy, etc. The fact is that they have more power than Obama and they command his and his administrations every move. To them, everything is symbolic and the fact that Obama's second taking of the oath was screwed up means that they are off the hook and free to do exactly what they want.

Ok so what is the big deal about not swearing in without his hand on the bible. It is the fact that the utilization of a bible is a long standing tradition used in swearing in ceremonies. It is used in the courts and it means that you will tell the truth. It is a ceremony that binds you to act properly. When you swear in with a bible you essentially have to play fair from that point on. Additionally, a bible is the closest thing most people identify with god in the physical. God, the all knowing and all good being. If Obama did not pledge his allegiance to god meaning, if he did not pledge his allegiance to being just and good then he is not bound to being just and good.

Here is a Youtube user's opinion of Obama not swearing on a bible the 2nd time.


This one is 2 video clips in one. The first reporter blows off them not using a bible. The reporter being interviewed in the 2nd clip makes a good point about a bad taste left in the mouth (in regards to the 2nd taking of the oath ceremony not being announced to anyone. done in secrecy) after Obama promising a new period of transparency.


Then again, I can see this as a fresh break from tradition but, I feel this fresh break from tradition may lead to the implementation of something so huge and terrifying. Some event or series of events that could claim many peoples' freedoms and/or lives.

One thing I seriously fear is the powers that be using climate control technology to further heat up the Earth in order to prove to the public that new measures must be taken. If you did not know, most people in the world now believe that global warming is a fallacy. I have done a bit of research recently and realize its true.

article
network.nationalpost.com...

video
Great Global Warming Swindle

If people believe they are problem, it will be much easier for them to willingly give up their human rights and even more willing to die. This could all be tied into a population control program to eliminate 90% of world population. Not to improve the environment and climate but to easier control people.



[edit on 23-1-2009 by sarahganesh]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by sarahganesh
 


The devil is in the details.

Not a one liner.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
There seems to be censoring regarding what I have to say but I'll try again (as are millions of other patriots). Here we have an example of anal attention to legal detail over the placement of one word in the oath of office and yet looming larger every day is the question of who is this guy? He most likely is not Constitutionally qualified to be President. He is still fighting us and despite his declarations of "openness" and "transparency", we have none. When the truth comes out, and it can't be stopped, something most foul will hit a fan. The economy and then a Usurper will be more than a fragile society can stand. This is much bigger than Watergate. Soetorogate is huge.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The way I see it. So what if he didn't use the bible to swear in. Personally he is not Swearing to God to run the country and perform his duties. he is swearing to the people!

I fail to understand how swearing on a some holy book is going to make him any better of a president then NOT swearing on one. weather it's the Koran, The many different Vers. of the holy bible. or L. Ron Hubbards' Dienetics.


If he fails in his duty as president, it doesn't bother me one bit weather he fails in the eyes of God, it matters more that he failed in the eyes of the people he was elected to serve.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Look, I will say this right now to all the people who think it's no big deal...The former president said he didn't believe the Bible was literally true or factual. So look what a person who doesn't believe in the Bible does.

You can fake being a Christian, like Bush, but most people who are true Christians, are much more suited to running a nation in the best interest of the people.

Why? Because they are generally of a much higher intelligence, and have some morals directing their decisions. Yes, I believe that Christians are the best leaders in any circumstance.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TH3ON3

You can fake being a Christian, like Bush, but most people who are true Christians, are much more suited to running a nation in the best interest of the people.

Why? Because they are generally of a much higher intelligence,


I am curious, do you have anything to back that statement up with? Something that clearly shows that Christians are more intelligent than for instance buddhists or atheists?




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
at 12:01 on the 20th of january, he became president, even if he was sitting in a bathtub at the time, ...picking nits on this president, as opposed to how close we came to martial law with the last president defies logic. tell me, how many democrats would have become "enemy combatants" if the SHTF in the last presidents reign.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sarahganesh
On the surface the fact that Obama did not have his hand on a bible is not a big deal. Also, on the surface the fact that Obama did not correctly take the oath at the Inauguration is not a big deal. These might be tiny details to some but you have to understand that every little detail matters to the cult running this planet currently. For this to make sense you first have to understand that there are people in positions much higher than Obama making decisions and giving Obama orders. You can call them the elite, the Illuminati, the secret government, the oligarchy, etc. The fact is that they have more power than Obama and they command his and his administrations every move. To them, everything is symbolic and the fact that Obama's second taking of the oath was screwed up means that they are off the hook and free to do exactly what they want.

Ok so what is the big deal about not swearing in without his hand on the bible. It is the fact that the utilization of a bible is a long standing tradition used in swearing in ceremonies. It is used in the courts and it means that you will tell the truth. It is a ceremony that binds you to act properly. When you swear in with a bible you essentially have to play fair from that point on. Additionally, a bible is the closest thing most people identify with god in the physical. God, the all knowing and all good being. If Obama did not pledge his allegiance to god meaning, if he did not pledge his allegiance to being just and good then he is not bound to being just and good.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by sarahganesh]


This is what im trying to get at... he never did it right... and if you watch the first swearing in. Roberts corrects himself before Obama repeats him, but Obama still said it backwards, which makes it void. And like you said.. the fact that he did not "swear to God" the second time gets them off the hook.. technically speaking.

Oh and about the global warming thing you're speaking of... I think you are more right than you know, but anything is possible. I really really really hope Obama is the end of the corruption. Buuuttt... him speaking at the Bilderberg meeting in june is not a good indication.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TH3ON3
Look, I will say this right now to all the people who think it's no big deal...The former president said he didn't believe the Bible was literally true or factual. So look what a person who doesn't believe in the Bible does.

You can fake being a Christian, like Bush, but most people who are true Christians, are much more suited to running a nation in the best interest of the people.

Why? Because they are generally of a much higher intelligence, and have some morals directing their decisions. Yes, I believe that Christians are the best leaders in any circumstance.



I think you should have worded that better... instead of saying "but most people who are true Christians, are much more suited to running a nation in the best interest of the people." you should have said "but most people who are true followers of their beliefs, are much more suited to running a nation in the best interest of the people."

As to the rest of your post... that is just pure opinion... I do agree with the guys above... why wouldn't a Buddhist be as good if not a better candidate. They are much more peaceful people than Christians. (I was raised Catholic btw) .. but that is all off topic to this thread.


[edit on 23-1-2009 by danman23]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

This is strange... Why would you go to the trouble of redoing it and not use a bible? It may have just been a careless mistake, but you have to think back to all those people saying Obama is the anti-christ.


wow....



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989

This is strange... Why would you go to the trouble of redoing it and not use a bible? It may have just been a careless mistake, but you have to think back to all those people saying Obama is the anti-christ.


wow....


Ya, I know.. if you read the rest of the thread though you'll see the concern. I thought poppycock about the Antichrist stuff when I first heard it.. but this really raises an eyebrow.
Read this post at least www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Does the US Constitution require him to take the oath of office with his hand on a bible?

Or is it another relgious add on like the words "Under God" in the pledge?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Novastar824
Just to let you guys know, it was videotaped. Saw it on tv (cnn) earlier today.

Second Line.


The video you watched was a still picture with the audio recording behind it. Don't see how you could have thought that was actuall footage...



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Does the US Constitution require him to take the oath of office with his hand on a bible?

Or is it another relgious add on like the words "Under God" in the pledge?


Not legally required, but every President before him has done it.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


It's "...one nation under God...", not "...one nation under the bible..."
(not one liner)



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


Which would be the point. The Constitution has clear rules for transition. Quibbling about the oath of office has zero bearing on the legality or intent of the administration.

It could, in fact, be done away with altogether and have no bearing on the operation of government... were it not for the ignorant masses who would scream that the NWO has finally taken over.

EDIT: Given that the Oath is symbolic and not a legal process, I think it's a much better argument that the Oath is the symbolic swearing of fealty to the Zeitgeist-movie-style-powers-that-be and perhaps it was repeatedly flubbed to not be beholden to some ancient Egyptian religion.


[edit on 23-1-2009 by cogburn]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
AND WELCOME BACK TO THE O'REILLY FACTOR!

Oh wait, this is ATS, got confused there for a sec, because like the MSM, you were all talking about s*** that doesn't matter.

He is the 4th president to have to do this. It is not a big deal. He is our president, bottom line.

And like another poster said, it was videotaped.

Oh by the way, families are losing their homes and 18 year olds are building debt they'll never be able to pay.. But you all keep arguing rhetoric!



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join