Comments on: I do solemnly swear...

I do solemnly swear...

twoleftfeet — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:39:05 -0800

Presidential inaugurations often invoke higher powers. President Obama will swear in on the Lincoln Bible, though the appropriate verse is unknown. When Harry Truman took the oath of office he kissed the Bible. Theodore Roosevelt was the only President not sworn in on a Bible. More Presidential Inauguration Trivia.

By: gman

gman — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:43:41 -0800

Lies. Obama will swear in on the Qur'an and pledge his allegiance to Allah.

By: dunkadunc

dunkadunc — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:47:06 -0800

Here's betting his first act in office will be to take away all the white people's guns and give them to black people.

By: Sticherbeast

Sticherbeast — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:55:42 -0800

Theodore Roosevelt was the only President not sworn in on a Bible. OH I SEE SO IT WAS HE WHO WAS THE MUSLIM SPY

By: rokusan

rokusan — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:55:48 -0800

Lincoln Bible? Fine. But I wouldn't want to be a mutant in DC if he ever gets his hands on the Lincoln Repeater. (That bastard can pop heads at 300 yards.)

By: East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:57:54 -0800

John Quincy Adams also did not use a Bible.

By: twoleftfeet

twoleftfeet — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:05:56 -0800

When John Quincy Adams took the oath of office he did not want to involve the bible in politics so he was sworn in with hand on a book of law and the Constitution. He did not use the Bible. Thanks. I stand corrected.

By: Auden

Auden — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:10:32 -0800

I find this whole weekend's forced pageantry and coronation very weird and off-putting.

By: topynate

topynate — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:34:02 -0800

Technically Franklin Pierce didn't swear his oath, but affirmed it; he used a copy of the constitution to do so rather than a Bible, however.

By: Guy_Inamonkeysuit

Guy_Inamonkeysuit — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:41:07 -0800

Then I guess you felt that way about all the other inaugurations, as well, Auden. Either that or the concept of "an occasion unique in American history" makes you uncomfortable.

By: East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:06:34 -0800

Lyndon B. Johnson used a Roman Catholic missal because a Bible was unavailble.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:14:35 -0800

I find this whole weekend's forced pageantry and coronation very weird and off-putting. I don't get why people are acting surprised/upset at the scope and cost of inauguration. It's not like a massive pitch was made to get people to come to it. "Forced Pageantry?" People want to do it. When Obama won there were spontaneous celebrations in the street; churches in Atlanta where I live have been talking about bus trips up to see the inauguration for the last two months. The simple fact is two million or so people are independently deciding they want to come up to DC to watch this. Expensive or grandiose as it is, if the government failed to acknowledge and accommodate this reality then it would have not been doing its job.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:15:50 -0800

Actually, I'm with Auden. The bits and pieces I have seen are all sort of Disneyesque creepy in that Superbowl Halftime Show way. Maybe it's just the media presentation, I dunno. No Mefite reporters on the ground yet?

By: rokusan

rokusan — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:17:48 -0800

(But that said, I'm all for two million people partying in the streets, and I wish I was there.)

By: ericb

ericb — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:23:40 -0800

He's an Arab.

By: jamstigator

jamstigator — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:28:42 -0800

It's kinda like doing two lines of primo coke after spending eight years being force fed downers. It's not just the historic nature of the first black man becoming president (although that's a big part of it, and it should be) -- the level of excitement is so high, in part, because the disparity between doltish cowboy-diplomacy Bush and intelligent and thoughtful Obama is so huge. You appreciate how good a plate of premium New York cheesecake is when you have a plate of steaming dog shit sitting right next to it.

By: gman

gman — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:31:08 -0800

He's an Arab. Sometimes my mother embarrasses the shit out of my family.

By: ericb

ericb — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:32:08 -0800

I find this whole weekend's forced pageantry and coronation very weird and off-putting. My sentiments are just the opposite. Heck ... I'm gonna really enjoy and take in these next few days. I'll be watching the "We Are One" concert at the Lincoln Memorial this afternoon on HBO, as well as being glued to the tube all day Tuesday.

By: ericb

ericb — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:33:27 -0800

BTW -- the HBO concert is free to everyone. You don't have to be a subcriber to watch.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:43:27 -0800

Woman: "He's an Arab." McCain: "No, ma'am. No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, citizen..." I see what he did there.

By: Fuzzy Monster

Fuzzy Monster — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:54:36 -0800

George W. Bush was sworn in on Geronimo's Skull. Or was he?

By: liza

liza — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:56:33 -0800

this whole bible/quran thing is so disgusting. makes me want to scream "leave your religion out of my government". Presidents should be swearing on the US Constitution to uphold it, not on some book of judgmental deities.

By: filthy light thief

filthy light thief — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:00:58 -0800

Though Teddy may not have been sworn in with hand on a bible, he is quoted as having said: "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." Then he also said "The American people abhor a vacuum." This was in reference to the general American public turning their backs on the new Hoover-machine, which was considered demonic by many. Great rallies were held to show support for the stoic broom and the ever-true mop, but electricity and dusty floors eventually wore away at the national resolve, and the vacuum (and it's insidious door-to-door salesman) wormed into most American households.

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:12:38 -0800

Hypothetically, what happens if the President-Elect or the Vice President-Elect refuses to take the oath of office? Or says it incorrectly?

By: Greg Nog

Greg Nog — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:13:51 -0800

Theodore Roosevelt was the only President not sworn in on a Bible. He instead swore his oath of office by placing his hand on a disembodied fist holding a bloody hoof, bellowing with laughter as he did so.

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:14:41 -0800

"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." Well... I kind of agree with that sentiment. It's difficult to have a good, liberal arts education and a minimal, cursory understanding of the history of the West - slavery, colonialism, racism, the underlying structures, pretty much all of it - unless you understand these narratives within the context of the Western church. I would include, in the U.S. at least, the Reformed church as well. So much of the stuff of our culture has been shaped by biblical narratives. For a ridiculously over-simplified example - would you presume to complete a degree in African American Studies without an understanding of the exodus narrative? Like it or not, the Bible has had a profound influence on the way our world (especially the Western Hemisphere) has developed. I just hope that including a Bible in the inauguration is only an acknowledgment of this, and not an endorsement.

By: felix betachat

felix betachat — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:17:28 -0800

Presidents should be swearing on the US Constitution to uphold it, not on some book of judgmental deities. Well, considering that when that book of judgmental deities was written one customary coronation ritual involved having the king grasp the hands of a cult statue and proclaim that he had become the deity's adopted son, I'd say we've come a long way.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:19:42 -0800

twoleftfeet: Thanks. I stand corrected. No, you don't stand corrected - that last link of yours, the presidential inauguration trivia link, stands corrected. And that's not the only thing it's wrong about. It also says that Washington uttered the "so help me God" addition to the presidential oath, but that's been disproven as a myth - the first attested inauguration where we know that the president said "so help me God" was Chester Arthur in 1881. The myth seems to stem from Washington Irving's biography of George Washington, which was written decades later; contemporary newspaper accounts lack that addition to the oath. (I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.) See here. So, given the fact that we already know of two errors there, I would question the accuracy of the trivia in that link.

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:27:42 -0800

Reflecting on what I said - even the advancement of technology has a biblical component to its history. Computer programmers - imagine what your art would be today had it not been for the violence done to science by the Western church during the middle ages? Or - think of where we'd be today if biblical literalism (a modern phenomenon) where not given credibility by the highest offices in our country? "Know thy enemy," and oftentimes it is the Bible itself that is used to halt important advancements in technology. I was just at a conference for community organizers from across the country - people who have been meeting with the transition team and working to get grassroots goals into the hands of the new administration. There must have been 70 people present and I was one of only two clergy people in the room. The organization prides itself on mobilizing churches to fight for social justice issues. And though they opened and closed all their meetings with benedictions and prayers, they used the language of politics. I felt that nearly none of them had even the most basic understanding of church functions. On the last day, an organizer from California approached me and asked if I would create a kind of cross-index - a list of organizing terms matched up with "church language." I agreed - but I find it stunning that so many people who are working so hard to make the basic advancements that are necessary to overcome the evil that has been at work in the country for the last eight years - so many of these people haven't even the most fundamental understanding of doctrine and the Bible. I think... even a 101-level community college course on the history of the Christian faith would empower these individuals to do so much more, to reach across fences and make incredible gains in their work as community organizers. And I think that goes for almost all professions. Doctors, technicians, lawyers, teachers - all of us are, in some way, directly affected by the work of the church. And for far too long the response has been - "Keep your creepy hateful sky-god away from me." I think a more reasoned response grounded in scholarship and a basic understanding of history would go much further. It's not about evangelism, it's about meeting people where they are. And for as long as the ecclesiastic hierarchy controls that information, they get to set the tone and setting for the dialogue. Take that power away from them by learning a little bit about the church. Because the church has been studying you, and especially how to control you, for the last two thousand years.

By: PlusDistance

PlusDistance — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:30:04 -0800

Hypothetically, what happens if the President-Elect or the Vice President-Elect refuses to take the oath of office? Or says it incorrectly? Article II, Section i of the Constitution: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It's one of the very few specific rules laid out in the Constitution (which is more a framework for government than a list of laws).So the president has to: a) take the oath and b) say it as written. Presumably, a slip of the tongue during the oath wouldn't disqualify him. Although it would probably make the "where's Obama's REAL birth certificate" people lose what's left of their minds. I don't see anything about the VP taking an oath, so presumably Biden could go catch a movie if he wanted to. Here's a pretty good NPR piece about the oath of office.

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:32:03 -0800

Yes, I know he has to do it. I'm asking, "what if he doesn't?"

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:44:21 -0800

biblical literalism (a modern phenomenon)

This is either oversimplistic or using a very inclusive definition of "modern". For (a famous) example, Galileo Galilei was put on trial, with the death penalty as a possible outcome, for contradicting the strictly literal interpretations of such Biblical verses as "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose" and "the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." Of course there were people who didn't take the Bible literally. Augustine is a famous example. But that doesn't mean that there weren't people who did, and in fact there were such people - a lot of them, some of whom were in positions of high power.

By: dunkadunc

dunkadunc — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:51:20 -0800

You appreciate how good a plate of premium New York cheesecake is when you have a plate of steaming dog shit sitting right next to it. Not at all. I can't properly enjoy my cheesecake until the dog shit has been flushed and disposed of. Who wants their nice meal ruined while there's a piece of crap in the room?

By: rokusan

rokusan — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:51:59 -0800

Digression but: Fundamentalism is the modern phenomenon you're looking for, I think. Literalism is only a part of fundamentalism, and as Flunkie says, not a modern one.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:54:05 -0800

There is no real, definitive answer for "what it he doesn't," because he will. This is sort of like asking "What if we discover after the fact that the winning presidential candidate is actually a space alien" or "What if we elect a person whose mentality has been copied to several instances of itself -- are they all president?" So in the event of this ridiculous circumstance: If he doesn't, then he's not president yet. Presumably, in this extraordinarily unlikely event, this would be treated as a temporary incapacity, and somebody else would act as president without actually being president until he took the office. To answer the next question, if he was so deranged that he clearly and distinctly stated that he would never take the oath, nobody knows what would happen. Either the acting president would continue to act, or it would be treated as an actual vacancy in the office and whoever was acting would take the oath and become president. To answer the third question in this line of reasoning, Jesus could in fact microwave a burrito that was so hot that even he couldn't eat it. But he could use his power to cool it if he wanted to. About the only reasonable circumstance where this could happen would be if illness or other disability prevented him from taking the oath at the appointed time, in which case whoever the highest person in the line of succession who had taken their oath would act as president until he got well enough to take the oath.

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:55:59 -0800

I never said anything about it being "reasonable". In fact, I said "hypothetically".

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:36:13 -0800

My favorite piece of trivia: John Quincy Adams: First president sworn in wearing long trousers.

By: waldo

waldo — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:27:08 -0800

Chester A. Arthur was sworn in (for the first of his two, separate terms) in his own home, without employing a bible. Rutherford B. Hayes was likewise sworn in for his second term without a bible.

By: Seekerofsplendor

Seekerofsplendor — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:34:47 -0800

I always found it a supreme irony that President Kennedy was sworn in by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the man later put in charge of the reality-challenged Commission set up to investigate JFK's assassination. I think that somewhere deep in the bowels of the netherworld, Lee Oswald is still laughing.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:43:58 -0800

Inaugural concert not gonna make me cry at all oh look there's Bruce Springsteen with a choir god damn it.

By: Seekerofsplendor

Seekerofsplendor — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:48:01 -0800

@Baby_balrog who wrote: Because the church has been studying you, and especially how to control you, for the last two thousand years. As you say you're a member of the clergy (in what capacity?), how do you conclude this and justify it? I appreciate your intellectually rigorous post response, (other than literalism being a modern phenomenon -- a factually incorrect assertion, as someone else here pointed out). However, one must ask what so you mean by the term "the church"? The Evangelical component? Mainstream Protestantism? Fundamentalists? The last three are of course, all quite different from each other. Then there is the Roman Catholic Church and other orthodoxies. And who is "controlling" whom?

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:19:57 -0800

Chester A. Arthur was sworn in (for the first of his two, separate terms) in his own home, without employing a bible.

Chester Arthur had a single term (well, less, actually). Regarding the "two, separate terms", you're thinking of Grover Cleveland. Perhaps you're also thinking of Cleveland for the "non-Bible" portion? I have no opinion on that, as I don't know who was sworn in on what, but I'm just guessing it might be a possibility based on the fact that you're definitely thinking of Cleveland for the "separate terms" portion.

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:25:24 -0800

As you say you're a member of the clergy (in what capacity?) I'm a congregationalist pastor in the United Church of Christ. When I say "the church" I'm referring to the historical work of evangelism that has taken place on behalf of Christianity since Paul. And, while I'm not interested in taking the time to lay out a huge defense for my earlier claim that biblical literacy is a modern phenomenon, I can clarify a few points. I suppose I should have used the term "biblical innerency" though it is my belief that the Charismatic churches invented this term when it was demonstrated to them that their adherence to what they term "literalism" is, in fact, a modern construction. "Literalism" and its accompanying hermeneutic have only been taught in U.S. seminaries for the past 40 years, and - to the best of my knowledge - never in European schools. When Cardinal Wosley had Tyndale arrested (and subsequently burned alive) for translating the Bible into English - the charges leveled at him were "invoking heresy and misrepresenting the canon to the common people" - in other words, the anti-Lutherans of the age did not want the Bible translated precisely because they were afraid that the laity would interpret it literally. Aside from all this - open the Talmud and see how "literally" centuries of Rabbinic scholars have interpreted scripture. It's simply not there. It wasn't written to be interpreted literally - in fact, most of the Hebrew locations passed down by the Masoretes don't correspond to geographic locations, rather, they correspond to historical events and popular mythologies. Roman Catholic opposition to Copernicus came not from an official doctrine of inerrency or literalism, but rather because it challenged a very, very central theme in church doctrine - namely, the divine structure of the spheres and the Earth's centrality in creation. It wasn't rejected because of it contradicted some single Bible verse. The Catholic's have always held that scripture is God's word expressed in human language. As for "who is controlling whom" - I think a fairly basic understanding of the development of Europe through the past ten centuries would demonstrate, at least, the power the church has held throughout history. ffs the outgoing president thinks God made him king of America and told him to invade Iraq. Where do you think he got that idea?

By: Baby_Balrog

Baby_Balrog — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:31:29 -0800

Ah - I kind of missed your point there on the first question - I apologize. As a congregationalist I reject all forms of ecclesiastic/divine hierarchy. I believe all Christians are cassocked and collared in God's eyes. The title "pastor" or "clergy" is a simple office - the bearer of this office carries out no special tasks. They are simply a member of the community who has been set aside to do the work of church on a full-time basis. "The Church" - or any man-made structure claiming divine authority - is the enemy of the true Christian and this goes all the way back to the deals Paul cut with Peter. So, to answer your question, I can't justify this behavior on behalf of the church. Indeed, it seems more and more likely that my life's work is about confronting and dismantling these power structures. And Obama with his hand on a Bible makes me nervous. But, as of yet, I trust him. I trust that he'll view it as an acknowledgment of history and not as a contractual obligation to an (important) collection of stories.

By: chmmr

chmmr — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:35:51 -0800

A scenario comparable to what Flunkie outlined did occur during an 'eviction' episode of the Australian Big Brother show. The evictee Merlin taped his mouth shut and refused to speak for the entirety of the show, in order to draw attention to the abuses of the human rights of refugees perpetrated by the government of the time. It was an unprecedented situation that the powers-that-be had no protocol in place to cope with. This is comparing mountains and molehills of course, but there's a parallel. It would be dickish of Obama though.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:39:13 -0800

I never said anything about it being "reasonable". In fact, I said "hypothetically". Sure, but "hypothetically" refusing to take the oath of office is up there with "Hypothetically, what would happen if we were watching the inauguration, and right there in the middle of taking the oath all the subatomic particles of his body moved around and, just by sheer quantum randomness, he turned into what is, to the limits of human detectability, ADOLF HITLER?!?!?!!?"

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:19:47 -0800

I'm sorry, Baby_Balrog's posts have been fascinating, but can you guys please stop this discussion of the history of Biblical literalism, the Bible, etc? Though arguably (veyr) tangentially related, its a huge derail in a post about interesting Presidential history.

By: topynate

topynate — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:16:50 -0800

Technically this is a post about interesting Presidential inauguration Bible-usage history, which is a tough one not to derail from.

By: Seekerofsplendor

Seekerofsplendor — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:44:25 -0800

Sangermaine: Your point is well-taken. Baby_Balrog is quite articulate and intelligent, and certainly makes a thought-provoking case. I hope, with his premission, to continue this discussion in email.

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:10:18 -0800

Sure, but "hypothetically" refusing to take the oath of office is up there with "Hypothetically, what would happen if we were watching the inauguration, and right there in the middle of taking the oath all the subatomic particles of his body moved around and, just by sheer quantum randomness, he turned into what is, to the limits of human detectability, ADOLF HITLER?!?!?!!?"

Oh, please. It is not. I'm sorry that I apparently touched some sort of nerve here, but all I was asking, essentially, was if there's some sort of law in place that deals with this possible contingency, and if so, how. Then you come along and guess, while making it your self-imposed mission to sarcastically and snidely equate an idle musing to speculation that Barack Obama is actually several clones of space alien Adolf Hitlers from other dimensions riding Jesus turtles. Then you do it again. Well, good for you, I guess; mission accomplished. Congratulations.

By: topynate

topynate — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:52:13 -0800

The 20th Amendment states:

Section 1 The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

The Constitution states "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:", etc. The implication is clearly that the President-elect becomes President at noon of the 20th, whether he takes the Oath or not; but he cannot legally exercise the power entailed until he takes the Oath. There's room to argue what it means if he attempts to exercise it anyway - are his actions to be treated as invalid, or is he merely impeachable for them? There's no wiggle room to argue that he isn't President immediately after noon the 20th, though.

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:15:21 -0800

Actual case of a President-Elect of the United States being several clones of space alien Adolf Hitlers from other dimensions riding Jesus turtles.

By: thsmchnekllsfascists

thsmchnekllsfascists — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:16:01 -0800

I wonder what Rick Warren would do if Obama took the oath on The Jefferson Bible?

By: twoleftfeet

twoleftfeet — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:21:21 -0800

Obama takes presidential oath - again An "abundance of caution."