In recent rant by MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell, he made a case for why President Obama should not swear his oath of office on the Bible in the upcoming inauguration ceremonies.
“As I’ve pointed out … no one accepts all of the teachings of the Bible. No one. … Still, the president, following one of our most absurdist traditions in the government that invented the separation of church and state, will put his hand on this book filled with things he does not believe – filled with things that no one in the United States of America believes – and with his hand on this book he will recite the oath of office. ”
While I personally don’t agree that “no one in the United States of America believes” in what is in the holy book, nor that swearing on it is an “absurd tradition,” I did find an interesting argument somewhere in the 9 minute video for why Obama should not use the revered book for his oath if he does not believe in what is in it. O’Donnell suggested the president should consider swearing the oath on his daughters, instead.
“Now, wouldn’t it be better if the president’s hand was on the shoulder of one of his daughters, suggesting that he was honoring the oath of office as much as he honors Sasha and Malia?”
Latest posts by Michele Kirk (see all)
- ‘Hillary groped me’ hashtag beats libs at their own DISGUSTING game - October 16, 2016
- You’ve been doing it all wrong! Here’s how you should be watching the 2016 presidential debates - October 11, 2016
- Dear Hillary: Hi, it’s me . . . one of the ‘deplorables.’ Just wanted to let you know . . . - September 10, 2016