Obama to be sworn in on Lincoln’s Bible

Victory in war is not allowed anymore.

There may never be another clearcut wartime victory for a democracy.

 

And you don't? It's good you're admitting you none of us know for sure if he is Christian, muzzlim, or shinto... fascist, socialist, communist....

 

Obama told anyone that's paying attention what he believes.

I hope his relationship with Rick Warren blossoms and Rick can lead him to Christ.

 

BTW, The US didn't start out as a democracy. We started out as a representative republic ("I pledge alliegance to the flag, and to the REPUBLIC which which it stands.........").

One of the reasons we're in such a mess is that about 150 years ago we started on the process of becoming more and more a democracy [the majority RULES ...no matter what!].

At least one thing you can say about our politicians, they're the best politicians money can buy!!

 

A common crossover.

But I really don't believe any freedom loving democracy or republic will be allowed to win a clearcut wartime victory again.

 

We're not swearing in a Pastor, we're swearing in a secular leader.

 

Nowhere in my post did I indicate that the POTUS is a biblical office subject to the requirements that the NT specifies for that of a pastor.

I do however believe that one's moral compass should at least be something that ought to be taken into consideration if one seeks such a high office of that of POTUS.

Like it or not, the private lives and the moral values of our national leaders are things that many young people will emulate as role models for themselves and their peers.

After all, as their line of reasoning often goes, "If the person who holds the highest constitutional executive office does it, why can't I do the very same thing?" That may be flawed logic, but many people--lacking any real personal moral bearings of their own--will look to such leaders as a standard by which their own lives ought to acted out.

One's personal moral character as a leader of people ought to be at least be one consideration--maybe perhaps not the ONLY thing to be thing to be considered--but neither should it be [as the tone of your post might suggest] totally ignored.

Oh, and, BTW, why not comment on the totality of my post?

By your outright failure to comment on the remainder of my post leads me to believe that what I commented on in that portion of my post is of absolutely no concern to you whatsover.

If I'm wrong in my estimation of what's important to you, then correct me by posting your comments on what else I posted.

Fair enough?

 

I've never understood the use of the Bible to invoke truthful testimony, or illicit vows of allegiance to the constitution, to those who don't believe in Christ.... A Christian, it could be shown, would have reason to pay keener attention to these matters after swearing on the Bible, but a non-believer? Doesn't make much sense..

 

In response to my original post (#20 @ 12/24/08 12:04) in which I made a passing editorial comment questioning how closely POTUS #42 complied w/ a portion of the contents of Exodus 20 that one would assume was found within the contents of the Bible on which POTUS #42 twice placed his hand and repeated the words found in Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 6 of the US Constitution---a document that I spent close to 22 years defending on 3 different continents as a member of both the REGAF's 4453d CCTW (Tactical Air Command) in AZ [2 yrs] and both the 26th TRW & 38th TRS (USAFE) [2 yrs in Europe] as well as some 16+ years in the TN ANG's 118th AW (Air Mobility Command) [which for several months comprised a significant operational portion of the 438th AEW {deployed} some 5 yrs ago in SW Asia]

However, if one will read the entire contents of Post #20, one will readily note that the bulk of Post #20 dealt w/ topics of far more important nature.

But LeBuick purposely chose to completely ignore all of what I posted in #20 and proceeded to focus solely on that one sentence that commented on POTUS #42. From his yellow pulpit [which leads me to wonder if his pulpit's color belies the nature of the one standing behind it] he (in Post #26 @ 12/24/08 05:50 PM) proceeded to chastise me for failing to recognize that the office of POTUS is a secular [hence "un-biblical"?] office and not one subject to the rigorous criteria imposed by the NT's requirement of the office of pastor.

What follows was my response to his Post #26 (dated 12/24/08 05:50 PM), which upon my hitting the "Submit" button, became Post #27 with the time & date stamp of 12/25/08 02:17 AM --

Some two whole days have now taken place since I've invited LeBuick to rise up in his righteous indignation and stand behind his yellow [!] pulpit---thus declaring his court of solidly reasoned opinions as again being in session to parse and scrutinize the all of posts on BB [a right that, here again, ktn4eg has spent a good third of his life protecting and defending] to insure that each and every said BB post passes his rigourous litmus test of his notion of PC'ness.

It only took LeBuick a few hours to point out the blantant errors he found w/in one sentence of my Post #26.

But, for some reason--yet to be explained by the Honorable Judge LeBuick--it's taken at least 2 days for his one-person judge and jury to come up with his verdict of the remaining 98.6 + % of my Post 20.

Thus it falls upon the defendent in the case of the Right Honorable Judge LeBuick vs the Unpatriotic and Totally-Negligent-in-the-Cause-of-Upholding-LeBuick's-Standards-of-American-PC'ism ktn4eg to demand his 6th Amendment rights in the above-cited case.

O Judge LeBuick..........Wherefore art thou?

 

Do the Obamas not have a Bible in their family? Previous Presidents have used their own Bibles.

 

Considering how closely past presidents have "defended the constitution from enemies within and without", it really doesn't make any difference what book, if any, is used!!

Sad, but true.

 

Sometimes, but not in most cases as far as we can tell. CLICK HERE

 

He'll also use his middle name...

which was strictly off limits during the campaign.

 

The last president elected who did not supply his own Bible was Warren G. Harding.

 

Not according to the link I cited from the Capital Architect. What is your source?

e.g. for Eisenhower in 1953:
Psalm 127:1 (Washington Bible) and II Chronicles 7:14 (West Point Bible)

 

Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies Inaugural Web Site

"his own personal "West Point Bible,""

 

So we have 2 government sources that appear to not synch up. Oh well!

However, even the source you cited shows that the bible used by LBJ aboard Air Force One in Dallas is unknown. I would doubt it was his family bible, however, given the circumstances. Still it is important to remember that no bible is required to be used, nor is the phrase "So help me God". They could use the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the latest issue of The Amazing Spiderman. Or no book at all.

 

You guys are great !!!!!

A mystery for the ages, this one. Someone should research it....

 

There is no discrepancy. The "West Point Bible" was Eisenhower's own treasured Bible, presented to him by his parents at his graduation from West Point.

 

No, check some of the others. I wasn't talking about Ike's.

BTW that was you post #666! Beast! :tongue3: