Barack’s Bible and Lincoln’s Legacy

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office, he will swear on a special Bible. A Bible no other president has used since 1861. But what’s so special about this Bible?

Is it the fact that it was published in 1853 by the Oxford University Press? Is it the burgundy velvet binding and heavily gilded edges? Perhaps the gold-washed white metal rim around the three outside edges of both covers and the the front cover with its golden shield over white metal with the words “Holy Bible”?

Of course not. It’s the fact that the first person who used it 148 years ago was one of the greatest American presidents in history.

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, was a great man who did many great things. But greatest of all, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, beginning the end of slavery.

But before freeing the slaves from their metal shackles, he had to unchain his countrymen from their mental ones. Because for more than 200 years, his countrymen have been victims of an irrationality the Holy Bible has perpetuated, if not created. They believed that slavery was OK, because the Bible was OK with it. Yes, the scriptures condone slavery, as long as it follows some rules (see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html for more):

Exodus 21:2 — If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Ephesians 6:5 — Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
Titus 2:9-10 — Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

These words are written in the same book Lincoln swore to. But did swearing on the Bible mean he agreed with it? How could someone who believed the passages written above even think of ending a practice that has persisted for more than two centuries? How could Abraham Lincoln free others from their mental shackles if he himself was in the same chains?

The answer: he wasn’t. Abraham Lincoln was not a Christian and he did not believe in the Bible:

“…he did not believe in special creation, his idea being that all creation was an evolution under law; secondly, that he did not believe that the Bible was a special revelation from God, as the Christian world contends; thirdly, he did not believe in miracles as understood by Christians; fourthly, he believed in universal inspiration and miracles under law; fifthly, he did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, as the Christian church contends; sixthly, he believed that all things, both matter and mind, were governed by laws, universal, absolute and eternal. All his speeches and remarks in Washington conclusively prove this. Law was to Lincoln everything, and special interferences, shams and delusions.”

– from a letter that appeared in 1870 in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio, and edited by Francis E. Abbott

Lincoln couldn’t have made his proclamation had he based his presidency on scripture. But what would happen if a president decided to base his policies on his religion?

I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true. One, I believe there’s an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody’s soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free.

That, of course, was George W. Bush. With his manifest destiny, he invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, waging wars that cost not only thousands of lives but billions of dollars, money the US desperately needs to save itself from one of the worst financial crises it has faced.

Tired of irrationality and yearning for change, Americans elected a rational man. Unlike Bush, Obama tempers his religion with reason:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

– Barack Obama’s Call to Renewal keynote address

Although Obama is a Christian, his parents are not — his father is an atheist (formerly Muslim) his mother, a skeptic of organized religion. And neither are the millions around the world whose lives will be changed by his presidency. So tonight, although he will swear on a Christian Bible, bear in mind that Obama holds reason, above all, as the basis of his presidency.

No wonder he chose the Lincoln Bible.