Friday, January 18, 2013

THEY GOT IT WRONG FOR 237 YEARS!

It’s incredible that from the time of the framers of the Constitution until the present, the Supreme Court justices who administered the oath of office for presidents were all too dumb to understand the inherent lack of “inclusiveness” of the Bible.

Liberal politician and media persons are openly questioning whether the use of the Bible for the occasion is appropriate.

President BO (the amateur president), who has praised the Koran as a “holy book,” considers the Bible flawed and in need of modern revision. In short, he believes the Bible needs to be amended to be more inclusive.

I wonder what part of “whoever believes in Him…” (John 3:16) is not inclusive? It means anybody, regardless of race, national origin, or social standing may come to God through Christ…ANYBODY.

As I understand the word “anybody,” it means…well, it means anybody. That’s pretty inclusive.

Nevertheless, PBO (tap) is considering not using the Bible at his second inauguration.

He has also chosen a non-minister to deliver the “invocation” at the event – the widow of Medgar Evers.

He apparently thinks that for 237 years we have been doing it wrong! He seems to think it is time to secularize the proceedings.

His decision seems to be an attempt to the “lowest-common-denominator” class of society.

Just to prove his inclusiveness, he has named a Cuban-born homosexual to be the inaugural poet.

Nice touch.

President BO (the amateur president) originally named Louie Giglio to deliver the benediction. Then he found out that Giglio objects to the homosexual agenda. That’s when he reconsidered and dismissed Giglio in favor of finding a “gay-friendly clergyperson” or perhaps an atheist.

Although PBO (tcp) has not dropped the Bible from the ceremony, he is certainly blending the practices of the past with the revolutionary ideologies of the present.

In his mind, our founders got it wrong, their political descendants got it wrong, and, after 237 years, he’s going to help us get it right.

Who knows what he will do at the inauguration of his third term.

18 comments:

Craig said...

I'm trying to figure out what your beef is. What tradition is Obama omitting? He is using a bible, in fact two. Lincoln's and MLK's bibles will be used since he will be sworn in twice, on Sunday and Monday. Common practice when inauguration falls on Sunday.

Benedictions and invocations weren't a part of inaugurals until 1937, so that tradition isn't 237 years old. How does Obama "consider the Bible flawed"? He'd be correct if he did though.

I like your idea of "inclusive" meaning "anybody", that meets certain conditions, of course. I invite you, or "anybody", to believe in my liberal views and renounce your conservative heresy or spend the rest of your natural life and your afterlife in my torture dungeon. How's that for "inclusive"?

Joe, I hope you feel better now that this nit is picked.

Joe said...

"Joe-Joes comparing him Hitler, Mao, or Stalin is a bit much and is hyperbolic."

"The comparisons to Stalin, Hitler and Mao..."

I have NEVER done that here. You are the lying racist.

Joe said...

Craig: "I'm trying to figure out what your beef is."

Not so much a beef as it is an observation.

He, in fact, by his own words considered not using the Bible before he decided to use it.

President BO loves to incorrectly quote the Bible to prove his point, has openly desparaged the Bible and has openly praised the Koran.

That he is using two Bibles at his inauguration is irrelivant to my point (I actually appreciate that gesture).

"...Bible flawed"? He'd be correct if he did though."

Actually, he'd be wrong.

The invocation/benediction point was WHO he chose, not how long it has been done. The reference in the title refers to the Bible, which, since he considered not using, he must have had some issue with those who used it for previous inaugurations.

If he doesn't, there are plenty of liberals, especially in MSM, who do.

"... hope you feel better now that this nit is picked."

I cannot find words to express how I feel after your nit picking...none that I would use here, at least.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, can you provide any links to show where President Obama was considering not using any bible?

As Craig correctly pointed out, he is using two bibles for some specific reasons... that seems to say that he has been thinking about this for quite awhile.

Also if you could, please provide a link to where he says the bible is flawed... I'd like to read his reasoning and I have never heard him say that.

Here's a great link on his faith and bible choices this weekend from the WSJ, a pretty conservative publication.

A quick factoid from it... T Roosevelt did not use a bible for his swearing in. Interesting. Like you I assumed wrongly that all of our presidents had.

Dave Miller said...

Oops... here's the link

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324235104578243740146205394.html

Joe said...

DM: "Like you I assumed wrongly that all of our presidents had."

Actually, I neither assumed nor said that.

TR did not use a Bible. He and BO are two peas from the same pod.

Imagine The Impossibilities: said...

Joe said...

DM: "Like you I assumed wrongly that all of our presidents had."
Actually, I neither assumed nor said that.
TR did not use a Bible. He and BO are two peas from the same pod




Can we include Jimmy Carter in that duo? Jimmy Carter was incompetent. Obamantion is malicious and incompetent as well.

Shaw Kenawe said...

JJP: "TR did not use a Bible. He and BO are two peas from the same pod."

Let's see, Dave has provided a link from the Wall Street Journal that reported this:

"Theodore Roosevelt had a Bible-free inauguration in 1901, but from George Washington forward other American presidents have sworn their oaths of office with one hand in the air and the other on the Christian Scriptures. At Monday's inauguration, President Barack Obama will employ two Bibles: the Bible Abraham Lincoln used in 1861 at his first inaugural ceremony and a "traveling Bible" used by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'

And your response is that President Obama and President T. Roosevelt are two peas in a pod.

President T. Roosevelt did not use a Bible in his swearing in; President Obama will use TWO BIBLES in his second swearing in.

Now please explain how those two statements are like "two peas in a pod."

Or do you get off slandering people just for the fun of it?

ITI, aka Ralphie, doesn't even stick to the subject, but instead just deposits more waste products here.

Joe, I hope you have one of those blue plastic bags to clean it up.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, you stated that President Obama considers the bible flawed and in need of revision...

Can you provide any links to where he says that?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave, Joe can't provide any evidence because he made it all up.

President Obama never said the bible is flawed and in need of revision.

Joe gets off on making up stuff about President Obama [TFPSETWFOPOTVT]* in order to convince himself that Mr. Obama is demonic.

When we read the stuff he writes about this president, we can see that Joe is so obsessed with Mr. Obama that he now stoops to the nasty habit of making up lies about him.

So sad.

*[TFPSETWFOPOTVT]=The First President Since Eisenhower To Win Fifty-One Percent Of The Vote, Twice

Joe said...

DM: "Can you provide any links to where he says that?"

I'm the only link you need. You may quote me as your authority.

SK: " [TFPSETWFOPOTVT]*"

That gave me a good chuckle.

TR was the first in an unfortunate line of RINOs.

He was a leader of the Republican Party but wanting to "reform" it founded the first incarnation of the short-lived Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party of 1912.

Leftist liberals have adopted the progressive agenda, with which President BO [TFPSETWFOPOTVT], has aligned himself.

Ergo the pod from which both TR and BO have emerged.

Obama invoked Jesus to support same-sex marriage. He framed health care as a moral imperative to care for “the least of these,’’ Once he urged people to read their Bible but just not literally.

He once said, “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?”

In an ABC interview about homosexuality, Obama said, “The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule,"

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/21/to-some-obama-is-the-wrong-kind-of-christian/

Shaw Kenawe said...

IOW, Joe, President Obama, [TFPSETWFOPOTVT], never said the Bible was flawed and in need of revision.

And for your and everyone else's information, the ENTIRE QUOTE and its context is HERE.

It is incredibly dishonest of you to claim President Obama said the Bible is flawed and in need of revision.

Please read the link to understand why.

Joe said...

SK: " "And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles."

That's the quote you linked to. I had already read and the whole statement, and find it belittling, arrogant and condescending.

I stand by my original assertion and I'm sorry you choose to omit the things he has said concerning the Bible.

Joe said...

SK: "...Joe can't provide any evidence because he made it all up."

Actually, somebody else made it all up. I just copied it like a good little lock-stepper.

Isn't that what I'm supposed to do?

Shaw Kenawe said...

It is still a lie to say that President Obama said the Bible is flawed and in need of revision.

He never, never said that.

Lone Ranger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lone Ranger said...

So, the Rev. Louie Giglio, who, 25 years ago, stated the widely-held belief that homosexuality is a sin, is pushed off the stage. Not very inclusive.

It is hideously ironic that on MLK day, MLK would not have been allowed to give the benediction at Obama's inauguration. He was too Christian. He was not a community organizer, he was a Believer.

There would not have been an abolitionist movement without evangelical Christians to lead it. There would not have been a civil rights movement without Christian pastors like Rev. King, Andrew Young, Fred Shuttlesworth, Ralph Abernathy, Wyatt T. Walker, Joseph Lowery, and (God help us) Jesse Jackson to lead it.

And that would have suited democrats just fine, since they were the slavers and the segregationists.

The constitution and the Bible are two of the world's greatest documents that stand between the evils of the left and true,moral Americans.

Joe said...

XO: "There are, approximately, 41,000 different denominations of 'Christians'".

So what? Denominations mostly represent different ways to organize for worship, not the worship of different entities.

"Which one do we pick?" Which ever one suits your fancy.

"Who decides which ones are "real Christians?"

The test is what they do with Jesus. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't see Him as the Bible presents Him, and until recently didn't even pretend to.

Roman Catholics have the basics right, but, in my opinion (and yes, there are times when I recognize that my opinion is just that...an opinion...rarely, of course), their hierarchy diminishes His importance in favor of their own.

In the end, the Bible describes what a "real" Christian is: someone who trusts in, and only in, the finished work of Christ at the cross of Calvary.

How they express that trust is their business.