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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This is a step forward. I don't want a president in office that makes decisions based on faith whether its christian or other. I'm tired of religion playing any kind of role at all when decisions are made by any kind of official when it affects me too.




posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I'm confused why/how this thread turned into a religious dogma debate.

According to the Constitution, there is no requirement the Oath of Office be administered using any object, nor does it include the closing words "...so help me God."

Because of this, why do we worry ourselves about a hand on the Bible or not? Such dialogue only divides us further and leads to further parity.

We must all base our arguments dealing with our government in terms of Constitutionality.

In this case, the Constitution was upheld.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnnunakiX
Bible...

no Bible...

Big whoop.

We, as mere humans do not, and cannot make pure judgments on right or wrong on another human, eh? As we do not decide what is right or wrong in the eyes of "God", correct?

So, Bible vs. no Bible...whatever

Which god are we referring to? Christian god? Allah? Hebrew god? Sumerian god? Egyptian gods? American god(s), Walmart gods, etc, etc, etc.

Honestly, what difference does it make in the end? Do YOU know? Really? Prove it.

America is founded on MANY different faiths, religions, and such. What good would a Lincoln Bible, or any other bible, do in this case?


Very nice and well thought out post. You must have not read my other posts though. It's not about him not using a bible threw religious eyes. (In fact I DO think swearing on the Bible is unnecessary.) BUUUTTTT.... it's the fact that... well I'm not going to repeat my self again. Please read my posts through out this thread. You'll get my point.

Oh and this post by sarahganesh is a good one

"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."

And then one post from me in response to someone else:

"Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
Either way you look at it, he's taken the oath, something that doesn't require a silly little bible.


Me: You must not understand what I'm trying to say... maybe "they"/him doooo believe in God and the fact that he did not swear on the Bible gets them off the hook to not follow the constitution. So what if you don't think the Bible is a big deal.. (actually I don't either... I have my own views, the Bible is mostly just a bunch of stories and has been changed over the years anyways.) buuuuttt.... we already know that they don't care about breaking human laws but what if they don't like breaking God's laws... this would be a way to get around it. Just don't swear to God, then all you are doing is breaking a human law."

Still read my other posts though...

Later



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MOFreemason
 


Please read my above post... I wish I would have put this stuff in the first post, or that people would read the whole thread... but... your right.. I don't really see why there are mini arguments about religion here. "Christians are the only ones fit to be leaders." Bahahahha.. ya right. Like I said before a Buddhist would be much better in terms of peace.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by danman23
Very nice and well thought out post. You must have not read my other posts though. It's not about him not using a bible threw religious eyes. (In fact I DO think swearing on the Bible is unnecessary.) BUUUTTTT.... it's the fact that... well I'm not going to repeat my self again. Please read my posts through out this thread. You'll get my point.


Thank you.

And, yes, I read your other posts. I am more responding to the other folks who, more or less, turned this in to a philosophical/theological debate over the writings of...well, let's leave it at that.

Constitutionally, the swearing in appears to be quite legal. If it's not, let's let the lawyers figure that one out. LOL, if it were not, that would be quite poetic as Obama is a lawyer himself


For the record, and for all of you who wish to bash...I voted Obama from day one. Let's hope this all works out!



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
You guys are just looking for another conspiracy to talk about because the last one did not come true (i.e. Bush/Cheney). It is not a requirement that a bible be present for the swearing in and given the second swearing in was to prevent any legal challenges to Obama's presidency, it does not matter. Enough already. It is not "strange".



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Tentickles
 


You don't know that, your suggestive in your claim to know everything going on. you let your mouth open and form words, while in the back of your head you say I hope he's not.

Until Satan enters the person, you really will not know. Satan worked through Judas, Judas was counted as one of the followers of YAHUSHUA, one of the Disciple's of YAHUSHUA, Also he looked as if he was trusted because he held the money bag, My point is this, "your suggestive claim about somethinig you know nothing about."

You don't know who is or is not the Anti-Christ.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 

It's actually un-biblical to swear on the bible.
The bible says, " swear on NOTHING. Let your yes be yes and your no be no".
We should never swear on the bible or anything. see Matthew 5:37.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterRegal
You guys are just looking for another conspiracy to talk about because the last one did not come true (i.e. Bush/Cheney). It is not a requirement that a bible be present for the swearing in and given the second swearing in was to prevent any legal challenges to Obama's presidency, it does not matter. Enough already. It is not "strange".


What are you talking about? First of all a conspiracy is "An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action." So your statement "the last one did not come true" doesn't make sense. And if you think Bush and Cheney were involved in 9/11 then yes they were involved in a conspiracy... or how about invading Iraq.. that was a conspiracy.

You are right that it is not a requirement to a Bible be present... it was just done by everyone before him.

Whatever your opinion is of the whole matter you have to admit that it was strange he did not wait a few minutes while someone went and grabbed a bible. He actually made a conscious decision to do it without one. Like I said before.. it does raise an eyebrow a little.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by danman23
 

It's actually un-biblical to swear on the bible.
The bible says, " swear on NOTHING. Let your yes be yes and your no be no".
We should never swear on the bible or anything. see Matthew 5:37.



Thank you for a voice of reason in this nonsense.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Oh noes! He didn't use a Bible.

Screw the Bible. It isn't part of the Constitution and we do not promote or disparage any religion. We really need to take a hard look at what religion does to government. We have many examples. The DARK AGES for instance or the theocratic parts of the world..Like the Middle East.

www.usconstitution.net...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Case closed.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Tentickles
 


You don't know that, your suggestive in your claim to know everything going on. you let your mouth open and form words, while in the back of your head you say I hope he's not.

Until Satan enters the person, you really will not know. Satan worked through Judas, Judas was counted as one of the followers of YAHUSHUA, one of the Disciple's of YAHUSHUA, Also he looked as if he was trusted because he held the money bag, My point is this, "your suggestive claim about somethinig you know nothing about."

You don't know who is or is not the Anti-Christ.


Hmm... wow, interesting. I did not know that that. I have heard that the proposed "anti-christ" doesn't know who he/she is. He thinks he is doing good until, well he does something horrible. I mean.. if you think about it.. Obama is in the perfect position for that scenario. We are in a very very delicate time. What if Iran strikes Israel.. he may decide to hit Iran with a nuke.... which.. seems like that sure as heck would fully initiate world war 3...

Here's something interesting I just came across:

Armageddon (AR-ma·GED·don), the mount of Megiddo, according to the New Testament book of Revelation, is once again to host one of the world's major armies in a immense conflict between East and West (Revelation 16:16). The idea of Megiddo being the venue of humanity's apocalyptic finale, the "final" battle in this war called the "Battle of Armageddon", is a misnomer. The actual battle is to occur at Jerusalem and called "the war of the great day of God, the Almighty" (Revelation 16:14 NASB) or the "Battle of That Great Day of God Almighty" (KJV).

At the end of the age, in biblical prophecy, the valley of Megiddo, now known as the valley of Jezreel, will serve as the gathering place for an immense army which will engage the returning messiah, Jesus Christ, and his supernatural army in the Day of the Lord (Revelation 1:10; 16:12-16; 19:19; I Thessalonians 5:2; Joel 1:15; 2:11, 2:31).

Engaged in an all-out struggle for global dominion the armies of a Christian united Europe and its allies ready themselves for battle against a union of armies, probably Islamic nations and their Eurasian allies, from the East (Revelation 16:12). The setting is a time of warfare wherein nuclear exchanges between West and East had already occurred. In the aftermath of a surprise nuclear first strike by the West (Revelation 9:1-11), and a retaliatory nuclear response by the East (Revelation 9:13-21), both sides move major military forces into the Middle East.

Revelation states that it is Satan's demons, through influencing key political and military leaders, who are responsible for inciting this concentration of forces (Revelation 16:13-16). Absent the intervention of God, in the clash between these two great protagonists, the destruction of all living things would occur, presumably, in a final nuclear holocaust and its aftermath (Matthew 24:22)."

Maybe Obama (if he is going to be the anti-christ) isnt the only one. Maybe there are more than one as the above suggests.

Hmmm..

[edit on 24-1-2009 by danman23]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Oh noes! He didn't use a Bible.

Screw the Bible. It isn't part of the Constitution and we do not promote or disparage any religion. We really need to take a hard look at what religion does to government. We have many examples. The DARK AGES for instance or the theocratic parts of the world..Like the Middle East.

www.usconstitution.net...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Case closed.


Ya.. but the thing is.. what if the "powers that be" DO think the Bible means something.. and the fact that it wasn't used gets them off the hook in their minds to faithfully follow the constitution.. (Like I said before)

I personally am not offended at all that he didn't use a Bible.. I agree with you. But what if they do think it means something.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
This seems like would have been important not too botch the swearing in in front of millions of people.

Was someone not taking this serious I mean like this was suppose to be a special day let alone being the first half black President.

Could this have been done for of reason like the star were not right, and the second swearing in was better with stars.

I'm sure most know the date of 7/4/1776 was picked by astrologer, as best time with stars to be come a new nation.

And what was said on that great day "Your a Nation" you know urination, such a sign of high intellegence and patroitism.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
My advice would be to steer way clear of being called "God's Country". As the comedian Lily Tomlin once quipped.... "If the Jew's are God's Chosen People.... then I would sure hate to be His enemy".



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


It doesn't matter what they think of the Bible. They are government officials and they should know the constitution. If they don't then they don't belong in office. Period.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by danman23
 


It doesn't matter what they think of the Bible. They are government officials and they should know the constitution. If they don't then they don't belong in office. Period.


This is a good point, but.. one thing Im trying to say is that maybe he purposely messed it up so that they could redo it with out the bible.. its a stretch.. but anything is possible.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


Or it wasn't convenient to run off and grab the Lincoln bible to the ceremony that requires no Bible at all...Consider that the President has the busiest job on the planet right now. Convenience is paramount. Occam's Razor:

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

I know there is a tendency to see things in a conspiratorial nature..Considering the purpose of this website I can let that slide..But this falls FAR short of any conspiracy..Religious, governmental, or otherwise.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I know, like I said.. its a stretch, but they could have used any Bible, but he actually made the decision not to. Hopefully it is just a "doh!" thing and nothin more.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
At this point in time i think most of you are

reading too much into this one.

Lets give the man a chance until HE TURNS
INTO THE ANTICHRIST, he's only been in office a few days.

I am on the fence today, to tell you the truth. I also have picked up some bad vibes....but i still have hope.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join