Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States, but sparked controversy and concern when he did not place his hand on the Bible during his oath of office. Social media users shared their mixed reactions, with some expressing fears of Trump's intentions to not follow the Constitution and become a dictator. Others made comments about the rushed nature of the ceremony and the significance of Trump's use of two Bibles.
On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. However, his inauguration sparked controversy when he did not place his hand on the Bible during his oath of office.
Traditionally, presidents have placed their hand on the Bible when taking the oath of office. This practice is not required by law, but has been observed by every president since George Washington in 1789.
As Trump recited the oath of office, he held his right hand up and placed his left hand on a stack of two Bibles. The Bibles were held by his wife, Melania, and his daughter, Ivanka.
The decision to not place his hand on the Bible drew immediate criticism from some quarters. Evangelical leader Franklin Graham called it "a slap in the face to every Christian in America." Others expressed concern that Trump's actions were a sign that he did not respect the Constitution or the rule of law.
Some supporters of Trump defended his decision, arguing that it was not a religious ceremony and that he was free to take the oath in any way he chose. Others pointed out that Trump had taken the oath on a Bible in the past, including during his inauguration as president-elect in November 2016.
It is unclear why Trump chose not to place his hand on the Bible during his oath of office. However, the decision has been widely interpreted as a symbolic move. It could be seen as a sign of his willingness to break with tradition and challenge the status quo. Alternatively, it could be seen as a sign of disrespect for the Bible and for America's Christian heritage.
1. Is it legal to take the oath of office without placing your hand on the Bible?
Yes, it is not required by law.
2. Why did Trump not place his hand on the Bible?
The reason is unknown.
3. What was the significance of Trump using two Bibles?
The Bibles were the same ones that Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama used during their inaugurations.
4. What were the reactions to Trump's decision?
The reactions were mixed, with some expressing concern and others defending Trump's decision.
5. What does this incident reveal about Trump's presidency?
It is unclear what the incident reveals about Trump's presidency. It has been interpreted by some as a sign of his willingness to break with tradition, while others see it as a sign of disrespect for the Bible and American Christianity.
After the devastating terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, India has suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. This decision was made during a key meeting chaired by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, with discussions on potential actions being taken against Pakistan. As tensions between the two countries continue to escalate, Indian leaders have condemned Pakistan for their involvement in the attack and have vowed to take strong measures in response.
The Indian Army made its first major move since the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, as they killed top Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) commander Altaf Lalli in an encounter in Jammu and Kashmir's Bandipora district. The security forces are on the hunt for the terrorists responsible for the brutal killing of 26 civilians and have launched a massive anti-terror operation. In other developments, Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi visited Srinagar for a security review meeting and the authorities demolished the houses of two suspected terrorists involved in the Pahalgam attack.
In a hearing at the Supreme Court, the bench rebuked Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his "irresponsible" comments about freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The judges highlighted the need to show respect for India's freedom fighters and questioned whether Gandhi was aware of his grandmother and Mahatma Gandhi praising Savarkar. The court also stayed an Allahabad High Court order that refused to dismiss a lower court's summons against Gandhi over his alleged remarks about Savarkar.
The Supreme Court has stepped in to warn Congress MP Rahul Gandhi over his comments about India's independence activist Veer Savarkar, staying a trial court's summons to the politician. The top court emphasized that Savarkar is a highly respected figure in Maharashtra and stated that no one would be allowed to make derogatory remarks about freedom fighters. The court also pointed out that Gandhi's family has had a history of praising Savarkar and Gandhi himself has been warned that the court will take suo motu cognizance of any such remarks. Additionally, the article also mentions an attack in Jammu and Kashmir that has led to heightened tensions between India and Pakistan.
In a successful operation by the security forces, a Lashkar-e-Taliba (LeT) terrorist associate, identified as Altaf Lalli, was killed in an ongoing encounter in the Bandipora district of Jammu and Kashmir. The encounter began after the security forces received intelligence about the presence of terrorists in the area. Two security personnel have also been injured in the exchange of fire and are currently undergoing treatment at a nearby hospital. The clash highlights the continued efforts of the security forces to combat terrorism in the region.
The Telangana-Chhattisgarh border is a hotbed of tension as security forces step up their efforts to root out Maoist activity from the region. Top Maoist leader Hidma is the target of current high-security operations, with forces strategically advancing through previously inaccessible areas. With mounting pressure, sources indicate that the hold of the Maoists in the region is gradually weakening, making for a tense and critical situation.
As the nation grapples with the aftermath of a terror attack in Pahalgam, security forces are undertaking a massive operation in the dense Karregutta hills forest to eliminate the heart of Naxal command. This operation, involving 7,000 personnel and cutting-edge technology, aims to strike a blow at Naxalism by targeting top leaders of the PLGA Battalion No. 1. This bold move by the CRPF, with the Director General personally overseeing the operation, marks a turning point in the fight against Maoist insurgency. With five Naxals already killed and more likely to come, the operation is being hailed as a decisive victory and could potentially spell the end of Naxalism in India.
The US Government has publicly criticized The New York Times for its reporting on the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, calling attention to the difference between the newspaper's use of "militant" instead of "terrorist." This choice of words is not only misleading but also minimizes the severity of the attack, which was claimed by a Pakistan-based group with links to Lashkar-e-Taiba. The US House Foreign Affairs Committee took to social media to point out the error and highlight the real nature of the attack, noting that it has significant implications for regional security.
Right-wing Hindu groups VHP and Bajrang Dal have given an ultimatum to a housing complex in Mumbai to remove their Kashmiri Muslim security guards within 48 hours, citing them as a potential threat to the residents. If they are not removed, the groups have threatened to take matters into their own hands. The police are investigating the situation while the security company handling the complex's security is considering its response to the threat. The letter from the Hindu groups also cites recent incidents of Hindu killings in Jammu and Kashmir as a reason for demanding the removal of the security guards.
Two-time Olympic medallist Neeraj Chopra faced backlash after inviting Pakistan's Arshad Nadeem for the Neeraj Chopra Classic. Chopra clarified that the invitation was sent before the tragic Pahalgam attack and was purely based on Arshad's achievements as an athlete. He expressed his anger at being questioned about his patriotism and his family being dragged into the matter. Adding that his country and its interests will always come first, Chopra extended his condolences to the families of the victims and called for justice to be served. He also urged people not to believe false narratives created by certain sections of the media and stated that his love for his country cannot be doubted.