Obama's Second Oath

#4
#4
even if challenged by some idiot it would have ended up in Roberts court anyway. Which way do you think he'd vote?
 
#5
#5
I actually meant him not having a Bible the second time?

I can pretty much guess what most of you will say but still curious.
 
#6
#6
JZVOL said:
I actually meant him not having a Bible the second time?

I can pretty much guess what most of you will say but still curious.
Click to expand...


I think he did it without a Bible because he is in reality a Muslim terrorist anti-Christ.

But that's just me.
 
#12
#12
i think the oath should be taken on the constitution, since the president is sworn to protect and defend it....
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Forgive me. I was trying to be pointedly sarcastic that the absence of a Bible does not diminish the solemnity of the oath.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't Obama make a big hullabaloo about taking the oath with Lincoln's Bible?

Then he forgets it?



All I know is that if GW had done that exact same thing a YouTube video set to the Benny Hill theme would be getting 5million hits a day.
 
#15
#15
DC Vol said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't Obama make a big hullabaloo about taking the oath with Lincoln's Bible?

Then he forgets it?



All I know is that if GW had done that exact same thing a YouTube video set to the Benny Hill theme would be getting 5million hits a day.
Click to expand...


To my knowledge, he didn't say a word about it.
 
#17
#17
lawgator1 said:
To my knowledge, he didn't say a word about it.
Click to expand...

That's why I said "maybe I'm wrong" but I thought I did recall hearing him say he was taking the same path Lincoln took, and given the symbolance of Lincoln's time in office, it's a quasi-brilliant move on his part.


Not that it actually matters anyway.
 
#18
#18
DC Vol said:
Well, a copy of it.

But you and I are in agreement there.
Click to expand...

yah, it wouldnt be easy to do with the oringial copy. I am a some what religious person, but i understand and respect the seperation of church and state, it serves a purpose (prevent a single church from dominating a country ie medival europe) i just think its funny these people are raising a stink about prayer in schools, but yet the bible being used to swear in the president... hrmmm
 
#19
#19
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
yah, it wouldnt be easy to do with the oringial copy. I am a some what religious person, but i understand and respect the seperation of church and state, it serves a purpose (prevent a single church from dominating a country ie medival europe) i just think its funny these people are raising a stink about prayer in schools, but yet the bible being used to swear in the president... hrmmm
Click to expand...


Not that I totally disagree with you that in the big picture there are some inconsistencies there, but just in terms of your comparison there are about a hundred differences between those two situations.

Well, maybe not a hundred. But a few, and big differences, at that.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
Not that I totally disagree with you that in the big picture there are some inconsistencies there, but just in terms of your comparison there are about a hundred differences between those two situations.

Well, maybe not a hundred. But a few, and big differences, at that.
Click to expand...

well in im undergrad i took a ton of history classes, and revolutionary america was my era of choice, and from various things i read, that was an original intent of the seperation, as with many things the POV has changed over the years. But i see what you are saying about it being to protect religious minorites etc.
 
#21
#21
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
well in im undergrad i took a ton of history classes, and revolutionary america was my era of choice, and from various things i read, that was an original intent of the seperation, as with many things the POV has changed over the years. But i see what you are saying about it being to protect religious minorites etc.
Click to expand...


The debate over the intent in the Establishment Clause has been going on for over a century and ain't going to get resolved on Volnation today, lol. Suffice it to say reasonable people disagree on it.

But my point was that the scenarios are different in many ways. Main difference between those, IMO, is that the issue with school prayer is an instruction to pray. Or, in the case of so-called "voluntary" school prayer, the enormous pressure on 10 year olds to conform and not stick out, such that it is not truly voluntary.

Whereas Obama putting his hand on a Bible to take the oath does not implicate anyone else's religious rights.
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
The debate over the intent in the Establishment Clause has been going on for over a century and ain't going to get resolved on Volnation today, lol. Suffice it to say reasonable people disagree on it.

But my point was that the scenarios are different in many ways. Main difference between those, IMO, is that the issue with school prayer is an instruction to pray. Or, in the case of so-called "voluntary" school prayer, the enormous pressure on 10 year olds to conform and not stick out, such that it is not truly voluntary.

Whereas Obama putting his hand on a Bible to take the oath does not implicate anyone else's religious rights.
Click to expand...

right, the debate on the est. clause is always gonna change based on the times and whos making the arguement. I wasnt trying to making a direct correlation with the two subjects, it was more of a borad comparison. To me, someone swearing on the bible means nothing if that person doesnt value it, thats one of my arguements for the Oath to be taken on the constitution,,,

im not trying to imply anything about Obama or whatever.

And in schools, i know what you mean, if its something the class wants to do, great, IE my football team, i leave the locker room before games and they Pray, thats something they do on their own. forcing it on someone is wrong, but also someone making a stink about something that student led is also wrong.
 
#23
#23
lawgator1 said:
But my point was that the scenarios are different in many ways. Main difference between those, IMO, is that the issue with school prayer is an instruction to pray. Or, in the case of so-called "voluntary" school prayer, the enormous pressure on 10 year olds to conform and not stick out, such that it is not truly voluntary.
Click to expand...
The "prayer in school" issue is absolutely ridiculous.

For the anti-prayer people, what difference does it make? If they do not believe in a higher being that deserves worship, then who are they offending if they simply participate halfheartedly? If they do believe in a higher being, yet a seperate being, then why don't they agree to the compromises and give in to a "moment of silence"?

For those who are proponents of prayer in school, what difference does it make if it is taken out? If "prayer" is that important, then say a prayer with your own children in the morning before taking them to a public school. If you feel that is simply not enough, then you should probably be sending your children to private, religious schools.

The fact that this is somehow an issue of national importance is baffling.
 
#24
#24
therealUT said:
The "prayer in school" issue is absolutely ridiculous.

For the anti-prayer people, what difference does it make? If they do not believe in a higher being that deserves worship, then who are they offending if they simply participate halfheartedly? If they do believe in a higher being, yet a seperate being, then why don't they agree to the compromises and give in to a "moment of silence"?

For those who are proponents of prayer in school, what difference does it make if it is taken out? If "prayer" is that important, then say a prayer with your own children in the morning before taking them to a public school. If you feel that is simply not enough, then you should probably be sending your children to private, religious schools.

The fact that this is somehow an issue of national importance is baffling.
Click to expand...


woah, you mean parents spend time with their kids? no way, i thought it was a teachers job to raise them...
 
#25
#25
therealUT said:
The "prayer in school" issue is absolutely ridiculous.

For the anti-prayer people, what difference does it make? If they do not believe in a higher being that deserves worship, then who are they offending if they simply participate halfheartedly? If they do believe in a higher being, yet a seperate being, then why don't they agree to the compromises and give in to a "moment of silence"?

For those who are proponents of prayer in school, what difference does it make if it is taken out? If "prayer" is that important, then say a prayer with your own children in the morning before taking them to a public school. If you feel that is simply not enough, then you should probably be sending your children to private, religious schools.

The fact that this is somehow an issue of national importance is baffling.
Click to expand...

Thank You!

This whole debate should be a non-issue.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top