Catholic Online Forum

The first interactive Catholic Forum on the web
It is currently 21 May 2013 14:17

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2013 22:25 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14648
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
A fairly straightforward affair, the oath is only 34 words and takes all of 30 seconds to recite. But that didn't stop both president-elect Barack Obama and chief justice John Roberts making mincemeat out of it in 2008. Several lawyers were of the view that that he should take the oath again to ensure there was no challenge to the legitimacy of his presidency. (Given the bizarrely resilient "birther" meme, and the more recent calls for Obama's impeachment due to his stance on gun control, it is probably a good thing he did.)

This time around the words flowed well enough, but the president still had to do it twice. As January 20, the constitutionally mandated day for beginning of the presidential term, fell on a Sunday this year (and Sundays are apparently not good for day-long celebrations), Obama gave the oath twice, the "real" one in a private ceremony on Sunday and a second one for the rest of us earlier today, Australian time.

There aren't too many ways for a president to send any signals with the way he recites the oath. The words are pre-ordained (though in 2009 and 2013, Obama, like most presidents, did add "so help me God"), and convention dictates the individual who will administer it (the chief justice of the Supreme Court).

One way to make your mark is with the Bible you use, and here, Obama excelled in both inaugurations. In 2009, he swore on the Bible that Abraham Lincoln had used in 1861, sending a powerfully symbolic message. It was both a nod to the president he wished to emulate and a tribute to the presidency without which an African-American could not have been elected to America's highest office almost 150 years later.

This year, in the second recitation, Obama doubled down on such potent symbolism with a two-Bible oath: the 1861 Lincoln Bible and that owned by slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, on whose public holiday the 2013 public ceremony falls. (For the first swearing in, Obama used his wife Michelle's grandmother's bible.)

Obama isn't the first president to use a previous president's Bible but, perhaps surprisingly, he is the only one to have chosen Lincoln's. George Washington's has been used in three inaugurations other than his own: Warren G Harding's, Jimmy Carter's and George HW Bush's, which took place on the 200th anniversary of Washington's swearing in.

Obama is also not the first president to use two Bibles. Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George HW Bush, all doubled up. While in both inaugurations Obama chose closed Bibles, many presidents have sworn on a Bible open to a particular verse. John Quincy Adams is the only president we know of who did not use a Bible. He used a law book instead.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-22/d ... on/4477656

He used a law book? Is that legal?

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2013 22:31 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008 20:47
Posts: 3591
Location: Southwestern PA
He used a law book? Is that legal?


Sure. As long as it was a Catholic Canon Law Book. :)

_________________
Pax et Bonum


Schultzz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 04:44 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 16:17
Posts: 11508
Location: Enjoying the sight and aroma of blooming lilacs on a marvelous day in May …
Seamas O Dalaigh wrote:
Quote:
A fairly straightforward affair, the oath is only 34 words and takes all of 30 seconds to recite. But that didn't stop both president-elect Barack Obama and chief justice John Roberts making mincemeat out of it in 2008. Several lawyers were of the view that that he should take the oath again to ensure there was no challenge to the legitimacy of his presidency. (Given the bizarrely resilient "birther" meme, and the more recent calls for Obama's impeachment due to his stance on gun control, it is probably a good thing he did.)

This time around the words flowed well enough, but the president still had to do it twice. As January 20, the constitutionally mandated day for beginning of the presidential term, fell on a Sunday this year (and Sundays are apparently not good for day-long celebrations), Obama gave the oath twice, the "real" one in a private ceremony on Sunday and a second one for the rest of us earlier today, Australian time.

There aren't too many ways for a president to send any signals with the way he recites the oath. The words are pre-ordained (though in 2009 and 2013, Obama, like most presidents, did add "so help me God"), and convention dictates the individual who will administer it (the chief justice of the Supreme Court).

One way to make your mark is with the Bible you use, and here, Obama excelled in both inaugurations. In 2009, he swore on the Bible that Abraham Lincoln had used in 1861, sending a powerfully symbolic message. It was both a nod to the president he wished to emulate and a tribute to the presidency without which an African-American could not have been elected to America's highest office almost 150 years later.

This year, in the second recitation, Obama doubled down on such potent symbolism with a two-Bible oath: the 1861 Lincoln Bible and that owned by slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, on whose public holiday the 2013 public ceremony falls. (For the first swearing in, Obama used his wife Michelle's grandmother's bible.)

Obama isn't the first president to use a previous president's Bible but, perhaps surprisingly, he is the only one to have chosen Lincoln's. George Washington's has been used in three inaugurations other than his own: Warren G Harding's, Jimmy Carter's and George HW Bush's, which took place on the 200th anniversary of Washington's swearing in.

Obama is also not the first president to use two Bibles. Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George HW Bush, all doubled up. While in both inaugurations Obama chose closed Bibles, many presidents have sworn on a Bible open to a particular verse. John Quincy Adams is the only president we know of who did not use a Bible. He used a law book instead.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-22/d ... on/4477656

He used a law book? Is that legal?

James, there is no requirement that a Bible be used. The president is swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to fulfill the duties of the president.

In fact, in eight of the first nine inaugurations before JQA, including Washington's second, the particular Bible used is listed as "unknown", so it could be that a Bible was not used at all? Who knows with any certainty a couple of centuries later?

And the statement above that John Quincy Adams, is the only president known not to use a Bible is untrue. Theodore Roosevelt also didn't use a Bible.

After President Kennedy's assassination, Lyndon Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic Missal found on Air Force 1.

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 04:45 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 16:17
Posts: 11508
Location: Enjoying the sight and aroma of blooming lilacs on a marvelous day in May …
Inadvertent duplicate

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Image


Last edited by retsinab on 23 Jan 2013 04:46, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 04:45 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2002 16:17
Posts: 11508
Location: Enjoying the sight and aroma of blooming lilacs on a marvelous day in May …
Inadvertent triplicate! :oops:

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 06:00 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008 20:47
Posts: 3591
Location: Southwestern PA
Nice avatar pic Jim.

_________________
Pax et Bonum


Schultzz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 06:51 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2779
SCHULTZZKOPF wrote:
He used a law book? Is that legal?


Sure. As long as it was a Catholic Canon Law Book. :)


Considering his disregard and abuse of that oath, I'd prefer he not use a Bible at all.

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 11:28 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2002 16:21
Posts: 15600
Location: Los Angeles, CA
retsinab wrote:
James, there is no requirement that a Bible be used. The president is swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to fulfill the duties of the president.

He is not required to swear an oath either, as that is against the religious beliefs of some Christians. Instead of swearing I belief the phrase "I affirm" can be used.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 11:32 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2002 11:50
Posts: 18862
Location: USA
Quote:
Considering his disregard and abuse of that oath, I'd prefer he not use a Bible at all.


LOL me too.

How can he Swear an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution, that he tries to tear apart with his every action

_________________
Bob C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 11:41 
Offline
Proficient Member
Proficient Member

Joined: 11 Sep 2009 10:31
Posts: 959
Location: Roman Catholic (OblateSB)
I misread this as Swearing the President Out of Office.

I was cussing like a sailor for over an hour before I re-read the title :oops:

_________________
-Lou (Louis)
Image
ORA et LABORA
Totus Tuus
Cacciatore/Fungaiolo
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 11:43 
Offline
Forum Staff
Forum Staff
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2002 11:50
Posts: 18862
Location: USA
LOL,,, did it work?

_________________
Bob C


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 14:36 
Offline
Proficient Member
Proficient Member

Joined: 11 Sep 2009 10:31
Posts: 959
Location: Roman Catholic (OblateSB)
BobC wrote:
LOL,,, did it work?



Doesn't look like it, @#W#R$#W@@#$%!

_________________
-Lou (Louis)
Image
ORA et LABORA
Totus Tuus
Cacciatore/Fungaiolo
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 15:20 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14648
Location: Sydney, Australia
Lou,

LOL.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 15:22 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14648
Location: Sydney, Australia
David,

Quote:
the phrase "I affirm" can be used.


Yes, I think all Western countries allow for an affirmation or a solemn declaration for non-believers.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 15:35 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14648
Location: Sydney, Australia
Jim,

Thanks, that's precisely the sort of historical detail that interests me. This is very interesting. Here in NSW there is provision for an affirmation (see above). But the law requires if an oath is sworn it must be on a Bible or a New Testament or an Old Testament.

In a fairly recent change other options have been removed. When I was in my late 20s the Oaths Act (NSW) (1900) included a schedule for the oaths of non-Christian religions. There were instructions on how court officers were not to handle the Koran, which was always to be kept in a velvet bag and removed and handled only by a devout Moslem. There were also detailed descriptions of how to accomodate the Chinese (these must've gone back to the Gold Rush days). A candle could be handed to the witness who would light it and then blow it out. Another Chinese ritual was for a saucer to be smashed.

Using only a Bible for oaths is a Sixteenth Century Protestant novelty. Previously, Catholics could swear while placing the right hand on anything sacred - a relic, a rosary &c.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 16:41 
Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2009 15:57
Posts: 2779
Seamas O Dalaigh wrote:
Jim,

Thanks, that's precisely the sort of historical detail that interests me. This is very interesting. Here in NSW there is provision for an affirmation (see above). But the law requires if an oath is sworn it must be on a Bible or a New Testament or an Old Testament.

In a fairly recent change other options have been removed. When I was in my late 20s the Oaths Act (NSW) (1900) included a schedule for the oaths of non-Christian religions. There were instructions on how court officers were not to handle the Koran, which was always to be kept in a velvet bag and removed and handled only by a devout Moslem. There were also detailed descriptions of how to accomodate the Chinese (these must've gone back to the Gold Rush days). A candle could be handed to the witness who would light it and then blow it out. Another Chinese ritual was for a saucer to be smashed.

Using only a Bible for oaths is a Sixteenth Century Protestant novelty. Previously, Catholics could swear while placing the right hand on anything sacred - a relic, a rosary &c.


All pretty tame considering the original method of "Testifying" (the origin of the term).

_________________
BobA

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2013 18:30 
Offline
Master Member
Master Member
User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2003 01:07
Posts: 14648
Location: Sydney, Australia
Bob A,

Quote:
testify (v.)
late 14c., "to serve as evidence of," from Latin testificari "bear witness," from testis "witness" (see testament) + root of facere "to make" (see factitious). Biblical sense of "openly profess one's faith and devotion" is attested from 1520s. Related: Testified; testifying.



http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=testify

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group