Eric's Beijing Diary

Donald Trump is no doubt the only president in the history of the United States to take the oath of office without placing his hand on the Bible.

I first became aware of this watching a show called "Vantage" on the Firstpost network from New Dehli. The video they showed focused on his hand hanging limply by his side, as if the most important thing was to prove he did not have his hand on the Bible. But the news report was flawed, because it was almost all conjecture. So I did some research and found a Fox video (below) that shows a more complete view of the scene. The three people who matter are Melania, Justice Roberts, and, of course, Trump himself. Watch how each of them moves and tell me who you think is primarily responsible for this mishap.

But the larger question is, "Why does it matter?" To answer that question, I focus on three areas represented by the act of placing one's hand on the Bible while taking the oath of office:

1. Sentiment, or tradition
2. Principle
3. Law

Sentiment, principle, and law. Why do they matter? Which matters most?

Sentiment

Taking an oath on the Lincoln Bible is sentiment. It has to do with honoring tradition. Does that matter? After all, any Bible will do, rightd? Yes. So the purpose of taking an oath on the Lincoln Bible is not to imply that the Lincoln Bible is any more true than any other Bible. Or any more holy. But it is a tribute to a great man whom we view with respect as a man who wrestled with God. So while taking the oath of office on the Lincoln Bible doesn't make you more president than any other Bible, it deepens the experience by associating with one of the very best who have held this office.

Principle

The principle involved with placing one's hand on the Bible could be expressed as this statement: "As this book is true, so my words are true." Isn't that a bit presumptious. Yes, it is. But the presumption can be forgiven if it is a sincere attempt to be as committed to our oath as we are to the very Word of God. We keep the oath not because we are paid to, but because we honor God. But does not the act of taking an oath on the Bible imply that we actually believe what it says? So while only one president has failed to show proper regard for the Bible by failing to place his hand on it, Numerous others have openly mocked the Bible by placing their hand on it, and then regarding it's words with disdain and persecuting it's followers.

Law

The law specifies that words that must be agreed to in order to assume the office one has been given. This is right and proper. The holder of an important office should be required to make promises regarding loyalty to which they can be held for the duration of their term of office. If those words have been spoken and the promise has been made clearly, the demands of the law have been fulfilled. But a strictly legalistic approach to life is less than worthy of the man or woman of integrity that we all wish to see occupying high office.

So take a look at the video below and see if you can decide who should bear the most responsibility for this incredible mishap. What does it mean for Trump and his second term? Speaking as a Christian, I have mixed feelings about Trump and what he stands for. Part of me is frustrated by his tendancy to admire dictators and assgn to them far more humanity than I think they deserve. He did it with Kim of North Korea, Erdogan of Turkey, and now he seems to be ready to do it with Putin of Russia. This is not to say that he should not be talking to these individuals. And it's only fair to add that in spite of my frustration with his shallow approach to Zenensky and his grudging support for Ukraine, there is no question that the war there in Ukraine would never have happened if Trump had been in the White House.

Still, we should be wary of being used by autocrats to justify their mistreatment of their people. This requires the vigilence of every citizen.

Comments:       Facebook       LinkedIn

Labels: Donald Trump, Ukraine

Why is Russia always assumed to be the villain? The problem with Ukraine goes back to the huge earthquake that reverberated through the Communist world back in 1989. It began with a little known event in April of that year.

I will never forget it. I was washing dishes or something in my apartment, and the news was on in the background. I heard a brief news item that Hungary was dismantling the wall that separated Hungary from Austria. I was stunned. I thought, "That isn't going to work. Now people from all over Eastern Europe will just take a vacation to Hungary and walk into Austria." And that, is of course, what happened. Two years earlier, in June of 1987, Reagan had stood at the Brandenburg Gate and issued that famous line, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The State Department told him that he could in no way say something so provocative. They took the line out of his speech. Reagan put it back in. The State Department was insistant that he must not say that. But Reagan was more insistent. He said it, and CNN played that line over and over and over again. Gorbachev did not tear down the wall, but when people began pulling it apart in the end of 1989, he looked the other way.

In China, the 1989 revolution manifested itself in the Tiananmen protests which resulted in the party leaders bringing in the army to clear the Square. It was a disaster and a tragedy for the students, but not a defeat. I have often said that the students "lost the battle but won the war." But the significant thing about the "earthquake" as far as China was concerned was that there was radical change, but the Party stayed in power. Not so in Russia. The pre-1989 "Russia" was actually more than Russia, but mostly Russia. We always called it "Soviet Union," but the full name was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Russia was only one of those republics, but by far the largest one. I don't remember the exact chain of events, but basically what happened is that Boris Yelsin became president of the Russian Republic, which at that time was just one of the Soviet republics (although by far the largest one). Boris Yeltsin is sometimes now viewed and regarded as a bumbling idiot, but in fact, he showed extraordinary leadership in several key decisions/events which brought an end to the Soviet Union. The first was that the Russian Republic declared independence from the Soviet Union. Mikhail Gorbachev was the General Secretary of the Communist Party, which made him the effective leader of the Soviet Union. But what is the Soviet Union without Russia? It was completely ridiculous, but it worked. Boris Yeltsin resigned from the Communist Party (of the Soviet Union) and outlawed Communist activity on Russian soil.

Without going into all the details of how the Soviet Union fell, suffice it to say that it happened very fast, and so one by one, the former republics became independent countries. But as you can imagine, because of having been a part of the Soviet Union for many years, several of them, especially Ukraine, had lots of Russians in them. Also, if you look at a map, you can see that Ukraine is strategically important. I heard once where Putin said that if Ukraine became a part of NATO, Russia would be indefensible. So Putin obviously had a strong motive to keep Ukraine as a tributary of Russia.

Flash forward to the events on the Maidan in 2014. Ukraine was ruled by Viktor Yanukovych, who was viewed both as corrupt and as a stooge of Putin. Should the protesters have been satisfied with the calling of a new election? Perhaps. But that wasn't good enough. They were determined to overthrow his government. That presented a problem for the Americans. Americans tend to be sympathetic with the overthrow of repressive regimes. But they are queasy about supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected government. Anyway, it happened. At the time I was told that the first act of the Parliament was to downgrade the Russian language. This was done to emphasize that Ukraine was not going to be dominated by Russia. But it was a stupid thing to do, because eastern Ukraine is largely populated with ethnic Russians, and they were more worried about being dominated by Ukraine than by Russia. So civil war (strongly aided by Russians from Russia with or without official sanction) errupted, and Ukraine has not been the same since.

So where does Putin fit in all of this? When Crimea separated from Ukraine and became a part of Russia (an event I do not have time to go into right here), I went to YouTube and watched Putin's address to the Kremlin. He stressed that Russia had no designs on Ukraine, but that Crimea was actually part of Russia, so it's return was appropriate and normal. Subsequent events have caused me (and others) to question his sincerity on that point. He had quite clearly given his assent to support for rebels in Eastern Ukraine which obviously comes from Russia.

So now we have another incident between Russia and Ukraine. Given the history, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that Putin is up to his old tricks. But we should not be so hasty. If we examine this event by itself without burdening it with the history, does the evidence really show that this is an unprovoked attack? Watch the discussion, and see what you think.

Comments

Labels: Boris Yeltsin, Putin, Russia, Soviet Union, Ukraine

"For without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire and has no choice but eventually to try to join Europe, but on conditions of democracy and legality that Europe enshrines. But if Ukraine falters and is reabsorbed, then Russia is again an Empire, with all of the insecurities that it generates on the Eastern edges of Europe."

(Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a speech to the World Affairs Councils of America on January 30, 2004)

Pay attention, folks. While we are preoccupied with the Middle East, Russia is creeping up on us on the blind side. Russia cannot be an empire without the Ukraine, and can only be democratic if it is not an empire. Russia's interest in the current situation in Ukraine is certainly understandable. But the rest of us should be interested, too.

Labels: Russia, Ukraine