President Trump took his oath of office without placing his hand on the Bible, causing a stir among political observers and sparking online debates over adherence to inauguration protocols.
The New York Post reported that the incident unfurled as Trump raised his right hand, foregoing the tradition of resting it on the Bible, while First Lady Melania Trump held the holy books.
The two Bibles, a personal family Bible and the Lincoln Bible — a historic artifact utilized by Abraham Lincoln in 1861 and by Barack Obama — were present but unused in the ceremonious manner many expected.
Observers quickly took to social media to voice both support and criticism following the ceremony. Some attributed the break in tradition to Chief Justice John Roberts, who administered the oath.
Speculation arose suggesting that Roberts' haste during the proceedings may have played a role, leading to discussions about the ceremony's logistics.
One user argued that it appeared Chief Justice Roberts initiated the oath before Melania Trump took her position, leading to an incomplete arrangement.
"Because Chief Justice Roberts started the oath before Melania got there, so they just went with it," a commenter noted. This sequence of events continued after Trump had already committed to the stance.
Another strongly worded critique attributed lapses in past ceremonies to Chief Justice Roberts, drawing comparisons with Barack Obama’s first inauguration.
This user remarked that during Obama's inaugural ceremony, Roberts mumbled through sections and necessitated a redoing in the Oval Office to ensure its validity. The commenter concluded that Roberts' repeated missteps affected this year's ceremony.
While some disagreed on the matter's significance, others maintained that the presence of the Bible held symbolic weight. A supporter contended that Trump's decision to include the Bible, despite not physically swearing on it, signified his commitment. "If he chose the Bible to be present, that means he's swearing upon it," they explained.
Not all reactions focused solely on the logistics, with some delving into theological implications. Reflecting on Christian teachings, an evangelical commentator questioned the oath's essence.
They referenced biblical scripture from Matthew 5, suggesting adherence to integrity over ceremonial practices. "Let your yes be yes and your no be no," they pointed out, emphasizing the potential disconnect between past presidents' words and actions.
The practice of swearing on a Bible during presidential inaugurations is steeped in tradition, tracing back to George Washington.
Among the Bibles in question, the Lincoln Bible carries its own storied past, embodying continuity between past and present presidencies. Its role in inaugurations symbolizes a lineage connecting different eras of American leadership.
By choosing both the family and Lincoln Bibles, Trump joins the ranks of past presidents who have leveraged historical artifacts to underscore their vision. Supporters argue this selection mirrors his dedication to upholding America's heritage, even if the ceremonial aspect fell short of full execution.
Amid contrasting opinions, observers continue to debate whether the perceived deviation impacted the solemnity of the occasion.
The internet remains a battleground where opinions clash over the relevance and impact of such protocols on political norms.
The broader discourse underscores how deeply traditions resonate with citizens and their expectations during pivotal transitions of power. Even as ceremonial elements seem smaller in the context of global leadership challenges, they hold profound symbolic value, encapsulating a nation’s values and continuity.
