Congresswoman did not swear oath on a Bible

[cleanhippie]

Kyrsten Sinema was sworn into Congress Monday, but with a twist: She didn’t swear on a Bible. The newly elected representative for Arizona’s 9th district swore her oath of office on a copy of the Constitution instead. Sinema refuses to confirm she is an atheist, as many believe, saying merely that she is “not a member of a faith community” and that all Americans deserve both “freedom of religion and freedom from religion.” Keith Ellison of Minnesota also bucked the Bible trend in 2007 when he decided, as the first Muslim elected a member of the House, to swear on Thomas Jefferson’s personal copy of the Quran.

http://m.now.msn.com/kyrsten-sinema-sworn-into-congress-without-a-bible

Bravely Done!

[TDale313]

1. Good for her. n/t

[2naSalit]

2. OMG!!

The baggers are gonna be all over that with a litany of crap to spew at her for that.

I think it is appropriate since this isn't really a "christian" nation after all.

[Skittles]

3. it will be a quandary for Teabaggers

they misinterpret the Constitution as much as they misinterpret the Bible

[2naSalit]

6. So true!

[Control-Z]

57. Stop it!!

Don't you dare say such a thing!! This is a Christian nation! This is a Christian nation! This is a Christian nation! La, la, la, la, la. I can't heeeeear you!!!!!

(Do I need this? )

This should not be news. This should be understood, and nothing more than an exciting day for a newly sworn in member of the House of Representatives.

'Americans deserve both “freedom of religion and freedom from religion.”' - Rep. Kyrsten Sinema

[2naSalit]

63. LOL!!

I saw her on MHP last week-end and she will be awesome, represent her constituents properly (by engaging in independent cognitive functioning) and actually do her job! She's smart and she listens when someone has something different to consider in a conversation. Wish she was my Rep. but I live in a red state surrounded by red states.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

70. the horror, the horror

[rug]

4. Representative Tulsi Gabbard used the Bhagavad Gita.

[progressoid]

43. Amurica a going to hell in a handbasket!!!11

[darkangel218]

51. lmao!!11 nt

[tomm2thumbs]

60. (swearing in myself with my hand on an actual handbasket) 11

to be fair, it contained a nice packed lunch

[riqster]

79. Brilliant! (Nt)

[calimary]

62. Excellent!

I love what she's wearing!

I'm so sick and tired of these thoroughly UN-Christian assholes shoving their narrow, hypocritical, tyrannical, meddling brand of religion in my face and down my throat! GOOD FOR HER!!!

[Dont call me Shirley]

111. I love Tulsi (Holy Basil) tea. Glad there's some Tulsi in the House :-)

[LARED]

5. Do you really believe swearing in on a copy of the constitution

constitutes bravery?

Seems to be a fairly risk free activity unless paper cuts are a possibility. On the other hand being that close to Boehner is risking the potential of serious amounts of stupid rubbing off on her.

[2naSalit]

7. Perhas that's why she chose

that document, if he got uppity, she had the reference right there.

[cleanhippie]

19. No, not using the bible and risking the ire of those like you was brave.

But you know that already.

[rug]

30. What would be braver is simply stating she is an atheist, if indeed she is.

[TheMadMonk]

54. What business of yours is anyone's privately held belief system?

What I find far, far more offensive are those who INSIST on ramming thier personal brand of woo-woo down my throat.

Anyone who wants to know about what someone else believes in the absence of evidence, does so only in order to determine if they agree or not.

[rug]

55. It was her answer, and an evasive one at that.

Frankly, had she, rather than you, said "none of your business", I would hve applauded. She didn't.

[TheMadMonk]

56. Polititian's stock in trade is non-definitive answers.

Wouldn't expect her to answer any other way.

Yes she could have said NOYB, and been excoriated for it by the press.

[Moonwalk]

116. Wow. It seems to bother you a lot that she didn't declare herself an atheist nor said that...

...it was no one's business. Why is that? You seem really bothered that someone thinks her brave, and really intent on proving that she's not. Why? There was a woman who refused to leave her bus seat and many consider that simple act very brave. Maybe this is similar--a small act that may have larger consequences than you know.

I don't know much about her state or constituents or what she might face for not using a Bible, do you? If not, then many just not using a Bible was very brave of her. Maybe just being ambiguous, a "not" as it were rather than declaring herself an atheist is brave enough for now--or maybe it's honest. Maybe she hasn't yet decided. Or perhaps she isn't so brave.

I do know that you are trying to define your way to victory by deciding what is and is not brave--and I'm not sure that's right as bravery differs from person to person and action to action. For some people it takes great bravery just to get out of bed. Perhaps her swearing on the constitution--actions, after all, speak much louder than words--is what shows her bravery here. Are you really so certain it doesn't?

[2ndAmForComputers]

91. You know such a thing would instantly vaporize her political career.

Would you want that to happen? [font color="#FFFFFF"]That question was rhetorical. The answer to it is, of course, "yes." I don't have to be a telepath to be 100% sure of that. You would like nothing more than purge atheists out of... well, everything. You and your bigot buddies LARED, humblebum, the Family From Hell, and others. Fuck you. Fuck you all with the largest, spikiest object you can possibly imagine. I'm fed up with you bigots.[/font]

[rug]

94. No, I don't know that.

Since when do you believe in self-fulfilling prophecies?

[2ndAmForComputers]

100. Where is the "self" part in that prophecy?

Me publicly guessing that her political career will suffer if she does X, will make it suffer more if she actually does X?

That doesn't make sense.

[rug]

107. You didn't guess, you predicted.

I daresay there will be politician soon, if it is not her, that will have no qualms about stating whether he or she is an atheit. When that day comes, I will donate to that show of integrity.

[2ndAmForComputers]

133. I still don't get how what I said here is in any way, shape , or form, a "self-fulfilling prophecy."

[LARED]

53. Ire of those like me? You are seriously mistaken if you think that true.

But you already knew that.

[cleanhippie]

88. I can only infer your character and opinion from your posts.

Based on your history, there seems to be no mistake.

Have a nice day!

[LARED]

122. Your inference meter is busted.

or seriously out of calibration.

[cleanhippie]

124. That, or I have it just right.

Yeah, its the latter.

[LARED]

129. The problem is you need an external standard to determine proper calibration

Based on your history you can't judge for yourself the level of busted.

[cleanhippie]

130. One look at your posts is all one needs to see to know what busted is all about.

You have a nice day.

[LARED]

131. Well, irony is your best material. nt

[LARED]

123. It's been a few days now and I can find hardly a negative word on the Internet about her not

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

swearing in on a bible. A few, but hardly enough criticism to merit applauds of bravery for using the Constitution.

Seems you're projecting your paranoid fantasies about hoards of theocrats around each corner overrunning America. Not surprising.

Have a great day.

[cleanhippie]

125. You keep telling yourself whatever you need to feel good.

It what you do best.

[LARED]

126. Facts are facts, how I feel makes no difference. NT

[cleanhippie]

127. Hi

Did you say something?

[2ndAmForComputers]

132. You're right. Here's one: humans descend from non-human primates.

How you feel about that makes no difference indeed.

[merrily]

72. Bucking a univeral trend is never any risk at all for a politican.

[LiberalFighter]

8. They should all take their oath on the Constitution.

[DavidWD72]

12. That would be fitting.

Consider that the founding fathers wanted no government endorsement of any religion. Swearing in any government employee would make sense using the Constitution.

[deafskeptic]

24. Agreed.

And not just for atheists either. The government should not favor any religion be it Wicca, Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion nor any denomination (say Southern Baptists) of any of the religions .

[cleanhippie]

20. I agree.

[TahitiNut]

21. Agreed.

It's obvious that as many don't really believe in it as don't believe in their self-proclaimed 'Holy Book.'

[Heather MC]

22. +1000

If they want to swear to uphold the word of God they can become priest. No Religious Document should be part of that Ceremony

[demokatgurrl]

103. much agreed

Same with swearing-in at court. Why does God have to enter into it? There are penalties for committing perjury, just as there are penalties for not doing the job of elected office. No oath needed.

[JDPriestly]

29. I agree. They should take their oaths on the Constitution.

[Angry Dragon]

35. +30,076

[kestrel91316]

40. BINGO

[Jeevus]

44. The Bible = Christianity = Christmas

Christmas = Gifts
Gifts = Consumer Spending
Consumer Spending = Profit
Therefore,
The Bible = Profit

[merrily]

73. Yes, but not putting their hand on anything written should be ok too.

They are swearing to uphold the Constitution.

Don't know why they have to put their hand on anything at all.

Courts did away with swearing on the Bible but saw no need to replace it with another writing.

They ask only that you raise your right hand--another pointless gesture.

For that matter, some sects believe that swearing itself violates the New Testament.

What would be wrong with simply asking people if they will uphold the Constitution and letting them say yes with both hands at their sides?

Not enough hocus pocus?

No matter what, no one is goiing to say, "No, my district better hold a special election ASAP to replace me."

The oath never prevented Congress from passing unconstitutional laws anyway.

The whole thing is silly.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

84. I know what you mean but it's a human thing

Humans need ritual to mark important events. Ceremonies are a ritual with frozen texts and actions. It gives us a connection between the inner mind/emotions) and outer (environment/tangible world/other people)

Ceremony and ritual incorporating venerated objects and specific activities gives an anchor and a point of connection for all those involved, as well as a acting as a continuum to generations before and into the future.

[merrily]

87. I am not saying that rituals are unimportant, nor am I urging

that we abolish or modernize all rituals.

When something in American connects church and state, though, because we are preserving customs that have taken on a life of their own in RW minds, I think it may be time to recognize that the particular ritual may not have made perfect sense when it began centuries ago and makes even less sense in a country that is having a lot of problems around church/state issues.

To the extent that which book or writing people are swearing a relatively meaningless oath on (or, even sillier, taking a staged photo with) can either gain or cost them re-election votes, I say, let's substitute something more meaningful.

For one thing, if the oath is a requirement of taking office, it should be administered before a candidate goes on the ballot, not after a state has gone through the expense of electing a Senator or representative.

And, need I mention that whether someone swears on a holy book or not is not typically an issue that Democrats use against Republicans?

If i ruled the world, I would find a way of changing this without spelling out every detail of every reason I have to change it. Rather, I would focus more on making the oath more meaningul by administering at a more appropriate time. Noone is going to cover swearings in by all candidates in fifty states, so it will cease to be a media issue and therefore cease to be focus.

There are lots of rituals for people arriving to a new Congress. If they are not enough, add more. Just don't get into any new religion traps. There are too many as it is.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

108. ah I see; very much agreed. Separation of church and state--

seems we've forgotten all about that.


Doing the ritual--swearing an oath is just for show anyway, for some legislators. Anyone can say whatever they have to in order to pass muster.

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. Raising the right hand appears to be Scottish; perhaps the US combined the Scottish and English form

because in England, religious people just hold their holy book.

2. The person taking the oath shall hold the appropriate Holy Book in his uplifted hand and shall say, or repeat after the person administering it, the oath provided in Part 2 of this Appendix for that category of person.

3. If any person to whom an oath is administered desires to swear in the form and manner in which an oath is usually administered in Scotland, he may do so with uplifted hand and saying, or repeating after the person administering it, the Scottish oath provided in Part 3 of this Appendix.

4. If none of the forms of oath provided in this Appendix is appropriate to the religious beliefs of the person taking the oath, an oath may be administered in such a form and manner as the person taking the oath declares to be binding on his conscience in accordance with his religious beliefs.

5. A person making a solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath shall say or repeat after the person administering it the affirmation provided for in Part 4 of this Appendix.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/judge-advocate-general/procedure-guide-vol-2.pdfl

[adieu]

9. I wonder if...

I were elected to Congress, could I swear with my hand atop an iPad with the web browser set to wikipedia or something?

[tridim]

10. FINALLY! Thank you Congresswoman Sinema.

[struggle4progress]

114. She's hardly the first elected federal official to forego the Bible

John Quincy Adams placed his hand on a law book; and Teddy Roosevelt similarly did not swear on a Bible

Deborah Wasserman Schultz used a Tanakh in 2005. Keith Ellison used Jefferson's Koran in 2007

... There is no requirement that members of Congress hold any text when they take their official oaths of office on the chamber floors or when they take a photo of the ceremonial oath afterward. However, many do—in fact, the Library of Congress provides a range of items to use: Protestant and Catholics bibles, Hindu texts, Buddhist verses, Qurans, and copies of the U.S. Constitution. Some members bring their own books and texts; some members hold nothing at all ... In this 113th Congress, Tulsi Gabbard is the first Hindu elected to Congress. The Representative from Hawaii and Iraq war veteran used her copy of Bhagavad-Gita for her swearing-in, which she said contained words that had brought wisdom and taught her to be a servant-leader. Other members used the Torah, different versions of the Bible, and the Quran ...

http://atheists.org/Congressional-swearing-in

[alfredo]

11. Good for her.

[madrchsod]

13. it should be the constitution but....

the book would probably burn their hands....

[Fuddnik]

14. David Vitter used the Kama Sutra.

On a diaper.

[eridani]

34. Wonder if someone has time to start up the DUzy awards again

[paleotn]

36. Ha!

[DRoseDARs]

39. Larry Craig took his on a bathroom stall. nt

[Rozlee]

140. If I were ever being sworn in, it would have to be on Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide.

And if they made a fuss about that, I'd chose as my alternative The Call of Cthulhu.

[Tx4obama]

15. All of those individual photos are mock-swearing-in PHOTO-OPS 'after' the real swearing in...

The House has one main swearing in - all of The House members are sworn in all at once,
then later they do mock-swearings so they can have their photos taken with Boehner.

Perhaps they all put their hand on 'books' while in The House chamber when the group swearing in takes place but I don't know about that.

Remember in 2010 when that one congressman wasn't in The House chamber and was watching the swearing in on TV and a photographer took a photo of him with his hand up as he watched on TV? That didn't count! LOL

[Ineeda]

25. Probably only tradition to swear on anything at all.

I know that in a court of law one does not have to swear on anything. A simple statement that you promise to tell the truth suffices, and the 'so help me god' part can be omitted also. I don't know about swearing in public officials, though. I don't see why it would be any different, legally.

[ReRe]

16. I'm liking that lady more...

K&R

...and more as time goes on. If I was in her position, even though I lean Christian, I might opt for the Constitution. Either that or the New Testament. Congratulations to Kyrsten Sinema!

[Curmudgeoness]

17. I have always wondered what I would do in that situation

whether it is just for school board seat or for president. As an atheist, it would mean nothing to me, one way or the other, to swear to god, or on a Bible. I would be more concerned if they made me cross my heart and hope to die. So.....what would be the point of swearing on a Bible. Or why would I give a shit.

But I am impressed by the choice that she made.

[2naSalit]

64. I worked for

the 2010 decennial census and had to swear in lots of workers and we didn't have any left hand on anything but down along their sides, essentially the same oath, but they did have to raise their right hand and repeat the oath verbatim, as did I every time I was sworn in (that happened a number of times during the year). And for those non-christians, myself included, there was an alternate oath that had a "fill in the blank" sort of line instead. I'm guessing that the same thing was made available for them since most federal workers take the same oath, pretty much.

[Curmudgeoness]

121. That makes sense,

and I don't know why they would want to have an oath that an atheist would not take seriously anyways.

That "fill in the blank" thing is funny though. I have no idea how I would fill in the blank. No god or krishna or allah or buddha. Not even Satan, although I have had people assume that this is the choice if you don't believe in god. Tsk.

[2naSalit]

128. Actually it's a modified oath

that allows for those who object to more than the "So help me God" part.

The original standard federal oath of office:

I, (name), do solemnly swear, or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

(There may be extra stuff about confidentiality of the information observed or gathered relative to Title XIII and the Privacy Act that follow but the above is the general oath of office that all federal employees take)

Unless they object to: the word "swear" or "affirm" or refuses to sign the Oath for religious reasons, then the "Modified Oath" is used:

I, (name), do sincerely affirm that I will not violate, undermine or bear harm to the Constitution of the United States; that I will support and remain true to the mission of the same; that I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and dependably discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. I affirm.

And that's that. There may also be additional oaths of secrecy relative to specific committee appointments like defense and security that may ne administered upon the opening of new committee session but I don;t know what those might be but probably something similar only a little more specific using terms like "national security" and such. these oaths are good to know in case you ever need to confront a federal employee about their subordination in the service of ""we the people" as all officeholders who take this oath are, in officially, public servants.

So there you have it.

[auntsue]

66. to be a poll worker

you have to swear...........to defend the constitution and the rules established for the election, not on any book.............but to give your solemn word. We take that oath in training and again right before we open the doors. Maybe that would be better.......for congress.

[Curmudgeoness]

119. I can deal with that.

I would give my solemn word. That is as good as I have.

I remember recently that one of the boroughs in my area would not allow a man elected as a town council member to have the seat because he refused to swear to god. They had their clocks cleaned by their lawyer and the courts telling them to use a different oath....but they still had that that oath.

[Harry Monroe]

85. Don't forget "stick a needle in your eye"

[rhett o rick]

18. Very good. nm

[Happyhippychick]

23. Amen sistah!

[elleng]

26. Just what I would do!

[WillyT]

27. HUGE K & R !!!

[dimbear]

28. Have you seen those copies of the Constitution where the outdated parts are crossed out?

We ought to have Bibles like that.

[jmowreader]

118. The whole thing would be crossed out

I should come out with a teabagger version of the bible. Since the only parts of the Bible teabaggers care about are John 3.16 and the prohibitions against gay sex, a teabagger version would fit on a matchbook cover.

[flamingdem]

31. Great! n/t

[Thor_MN]

32. I've been hoping for years that someone would ask if I swear

so I could reply "Every damn day."

[underpants]

33. None of them take their oath on any book. Those are staged pictures.

they take their oath in groups on the House floor.

[whistler162]

37. Technically neither did Calvin Coolidge when he

took the oath of office after Harding's death.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/coolidge.htm

"The Bible which had belonged to my mother lay on the table at my hand. It was not officially used, as it is not the practice in Vermont or Massachusetts to use a Bible in connection with the administration of an oath."

[LittleGirl]

38. Yippeee!

Way to go. I'm loving this.

[burrowowl]

41. Great!

Good job!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

42. Cool.

Good for her.

[AzDar]

45. Go, Kyrsten!

[ck4829]

46. Right wing freak out in 3... 2... 1...

[2ndAmForComputers]

92. Happened already.

Closer than you think.

If you know what I mean.

[SunSeeker]

47. Everyone should be sworn in with a copy of the Constitution.

That is what they are sworn to uphold, after all, not the Bible or the Quran, etc.

[darkangel218]

52. +1000

[quaker bill]

48. The Quaker practice of not swearing oaths might be a challenge here n/t

[merrily]

74. It is not only Quaker.

Forbearing from swearing is based on two New Testament verses (one in Matthew, one in James) that admonish people not to swear. So, for those who interpret those verses that way and believe it is the word of God, not swearing is far more than just a tradition.

[Bluenorthwest]

102. Way more than an admonishment. The teaching says don't swear any form of oath, at any time

and moreover it says that one is to speak always with proactive honesty. Let your yes be yes, your no be no, Jebus said and then he said "for anything more comes from EVIL'
So it is not a suggestion, it clearly says swearing oaths and lies are from evil. Same passages condemn the practice of prayer in public or out loud, the command is to ONLY pray in private, and that command is also direct and very detailed.
This is why it amazed me that last Inauguration Christians said that in order to honor Jesus, they had to swear oaths and have Rick Warren pray in a most public way. Jesus said 'do not do these evil things' and they said 'fuck you, we will do as we please, and then we will say we did it for you, you worthless hippie!'

[merrily]

75. WDRND? What did Richard Nixon do? He claimed to be a Quaker.

He may have just misspelled it, though.

[quaker bill]

81. Nixon was birthright - not practicing

Beyond that his parents were a rather different sort of Quaker.

[merrily]

82. Birthright? Does that mean that he himself was not raised a Quaker and never attended

Quaker services?

If so, then he should have said simply that his parents were Quakers.

I understand that we know that at least one of his parents was a Quaker. But, do we also know for certain that he did not attend services or otherwise practice himself?


In any event, he self-identified as a Quaker while Vice President and never identified as a member of any other religion.

Beyond that his parents were a rather different sort of Quaker.

My comment was based on believing his claim to be a Quaker himself, not on his parents' beliefs. (Doh! Who believes Nixon?) But, unless we know that the sect to which his parents belonged had a different view on oaths, the kind of Quaker they were would not be relevant to my question, would it?

The Constitution does require that the President take an oath--the only oath mandated by the Constitution. Does that mean a true Quaker (whatever that means) can never be President?

[quaker bill]

120. Quakers encompass a very broad range of faith

The Evangelical Friends in California and the southwest are very much more like Pentacostals, they are fundamentalists of the strictest sort. Words often used to describe them include "severe". They view the "unprogrammed" Friends you are likely more familiar with in the harshest terms. We do not get along. They are none the less called "Quakers".

Birthright Friends are simply that, just as it sounds. They are members by right of birth to Quaker parents. One never even needs to attend a Meeting to have and keep this status. The importance of this has declined among "unprogrammed" Friends by the practice still exists, and indeed my daughter is a member recorded by "birthright". She will remain a member unless she renounces it and the Meeting minutes its acceptance of this statement. Alternately, a Meeting may "write someone out of Meeting". This is a very rare practice these days, but Nixon's Meeting attempted it, however could never reach unity on this. So he was in fact a "Quaker" who never darkened the doorway of a Meeting.

I do not think he found swearing oaths to be a challenge at all, and it would seem that violating the oaths sworn posed little challenge for him either.

[struggle4progress]

146. The Constitution explicitly says "swear (or affirm)" and "by oath or affirmation"

[Mister Ed]

49. She seems like a very truthful sort

I guess that's what you call Sinema verite.

[dimbear]

143. Ha ha..........one of those slow to soak in jokes! Good one. n/t

[mountain grammy]

50. How it should be if we are what we say we are: exceptional and equal.

And if Christians insist we are a "Christian Nation," maybe we should start acting more like Jesus, which would also be what we say we are: exceptional, equal, charitable, humble, peaceful, and umm, Christian.

[Adsos Letter]

58. "...all Americans deserve both 'freedom of religion and freedom from religion.'”

Right On Congresswoman Sinema!!! What an example, indeed.

[tomm2thumbs]

59. One step in the right direction

[poverlay]

61. We partied with her once, or twice.

She is quite a firecracker. The Republicans won't know what hit them. She is wicked smart, funny, and deeply devoted to her ideals. A concept which will stymie all of the self absorbed, hypocrites that she will be wading in on Capitol hill.

[JohnnyRingo]

65. Bravo. n/t

K&R

[Nanjing to Seoul]

67. Hmmm. . .must be religious to be elected? Say who? Oh yes, Fixed Noise

What happened to my country?

[cartach]

68. I only swear on DU,

everywhere else they tell me to shut up or delete my posts.

[cyclezealot]

69. Boner swearing in new congress members.

I'd find that contemptible. Must a congress member be sworn in by Boehner. I thought they were sworn in , in one mass swearing . I'd rather pass up the photo op with Boehner.

[merrily]

71. Is she the first not to swear on one "holy' book or another? That is real political courage.

Arizona, no less. Not California or the northeast.

I'm going to pray we get more like her.

[Moonwalk]

115. She is not the first, as mentioned in #114 by Struggle for Progress. However...

...that she didn't swear on a religious book given the ultra-Christian climate that was around four years ago (questioning the President's Christianity, etc.), is a "good for her." It's one thing not to swear on a religious book when no one will notice or care, quite another when it will shake things up and show that the congress is going in a new direction.

Which is why those swearing on other books are equally "good for them" as it emphasizes that we are finally moving into the 21st century where one belief is not going to dominate, no matter how much Faux Bullies insist that it should.

[DeSwiss]

76. K&R

[bowens43]

77. Good for her!!

[liberal N proud]

78. That should short circuit some right wing fundies

[SummerSnow]

80. I'd like to see someone get sworn in with a copy of the book Fifty Shades of Grey.

[exboyfil]

83. Matthew 5 - Jesus said the following:

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.[g]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV

I affirm - I do not swear, and I would not use a Bible. I am a Christian and attend a Lutheran church.

[rock]

86. There is no reason to include "of" and "from"

"of" covers them both.

[cleanhippie]

89. One would think, but believers seem to disagree on the "from", as it prevents them

from oppressing others while they enjoy their freedom "of".

[Iggo]

90. I think I'm in love.

[BlueNoteSpecial]

93. Is the Constitution...

...like the "bible", also a great work of fiction? I doobie wonderin.

[yellowcanine]

95. Swearing on the Constitution is just as idolatrous as swearing on the Bible.

Either way it is a somewhat meaningless symbol in any case. What the person does is what matters.

[corkhead]

96. Personally, I would use the Boo Hoo Bible

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Neo-American-Church-Catechism-Handbook/dp/0960038817

[dynasaw]

97. Forget Sacred Books Take the Phallic Oath

In ancient times men took what was known as the phallic oath.



Just being facetious!

[Stainless]

98. All oaths should be sworn on the Constitution

Kudos to the honorable Congresswoman!

[chimpymustgo]

99. Absolutely!! Swear on the Constitution.

[brooklynite]

101. Actually, she didn't do it with the Constitution either...

I've been to one of these "private" swearing in ceremonies (my wife and I got dragged along to the ceremony with Gabby Giffords when she entered the Congress in 2007). This is purely ceremonial for the cameras; the actual oath of office is taken en masse on the floor of the House Chamber.

[cleanhippie]

104. You may be missing the larger point here.

[PoliticAverse]

135. I commend you for injecting a dose of reality into the theaterical... n/t

[Heathen57]

105. This is the way it should be

after all, they are not swearing to uphold the bible. If everyone was sworn in on the Constitution, maybe, just maybe, they would keep that oath. (Wishful thinking, I know).

[Zen Democrat]

106. The number of crooks and liars who have sworn an oath on the Bible must be huge.

[texshelters]

109. All Congress members

should swear on the Constitution, for that is what they are charged with defending.

Swearing on the Bible or any religious text seems contrary to an original ideal of our government, Separation of Church and state. And yes, we are far for the founding principles in many ways.

Moreover, some of those original items in the Constitution, tacit support of slavery, lack of voting rights, etc, weren't great either.

Good for the Rep from my home state!

PTxS

[penndragon69]

110. I look forward to the day,

that we FINALLY have an ATHEIST president!

One giant step for reason and logic.

[dbackjon]

112. Bravo - she is MY Congresswoman!!! I helped elect her ;)

ALL Congresscritters should be sworn in on the constituion.


You OATH of Loyalty is to the Constitution, not some 2-4K year old book of myths that are used to hate and kill people.

[Ikonoklast]

113. If elected, I am commanded to be sworn in on that great and terrible book of dread written by

Abdul Al-Hazred, the "Mad Arab".






Mere mortals are driven to insanity just by gazng upon it.

[Joey Liberal]

117. I'm proud of her

The Bible is fiction.

[PoliticAverse]

134. NPR story on her...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/08/168362011/sinema-first-openly-bisexual-member-of-congress-represents-changing-arizona

[davidpdx]

136. I didn't know Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Quarn

That is interesting.

[xfundy]

137. Oh NO!!

We're gonna have to throw a virgin into a volcano now to appease the gawds!

Or nail someone to wooden boards, or burn them at the stake, etc., or any of the other absurd, cruel, violent things our Loving God™ commands.

Oh noooooes!

Not my turn! It's YOURS! Do it SAVE the rest of us from the HELL our Loving God™ created!

/sarc

[RedstDem]

138. Bout F'n Time

Don't ya think

[Jeevus]

141. What's up with Boehner's stupid face?

Seriously. What is he doing? Durrrrr

[rug]

142. He's checking with Cantor to see if he raised the right hand.

[Iggo]

145. It's stupid.

[DesertDiamond]

144. I LOVE this! They should make this the law!!