Trump Breaks Tradition By Omitting Bible During Inaugural Oath
In a break with tradition, President Donald Trump did not place his hand on a Bible when he took the oath of office on January 20, 2017. This decision sparked much debate, with some people applauding Trump for his separation of church and state, while others criticized him for breaking with a long-standing tradition.
History of the Bible in the Inaugural Oath
The tradition of using a Bible in the inaugural oath dates back to the first president, George Washington. When he took the oath of office in 1789, Washington used a Bible that had been given to him by his Masonic lodge. Since then, every president has used a Bible, with the exception of John Quincy Adams, who used a law book instead. The Bible used in the inaugural oath is typically chosen by the president-elect and often has special significance to them.
Arguments for Omitting the Bible
Some people have argued that Trump's decision to omit the Bible from the inaugural oath was a positive step. They believe that it is important to separate church and state, and that using a Bible in the oath sends the wrong message. Others have argued that Trump's decision was disrespectful to tradition and to the many Americans who hold the Bible to be sacred.
Arguments for Including the Bible
There are also many people who believe that it is important to include the Bible in the inaugural oath. They believe that the Bible is a symbol of our nation's heritage and that it is important to acknowledge our religious history. Others have argued that the Bible provides a sense of continuity and tradition to the oath, and that it helps to unite the country.
Conclusion
The decision of whether or not to use a Bible in the inaugural oath is a complex one. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue. Ultimately, it is up to each president to decide what is best for them and for the country.
Additional Information
