Krysten Simena sworn in on copy of Constitution, not Bible

[Virginiá]

Similarly LBJ was sworn in on a Catholic missal because that's all that was available.

Theoretically this problem would not exist today: One could just be sworn in on a smartphone with a Bible app on it.

Imagine how much lobbying and campaign cash there would be from Apple and Samsung

[Crumpets]

IIRC, someone once swore in on a picture of their family, which is probably what I would do if I ever had to take an oath of office.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As an agnostic, I'm deeply ashamed to be represented by Kyrsten Sinema.

You're not represented by her. You're a French citizen who does not reside in Arizona, I am not represented by non-denominational Christian Senators from states other than Minnesota.

"Representation" can mean many different things, BRTD.

[Koharu]

Frankly, swearing on the Bible strikes me as sacrilegious.

Agreed. "Just say a simple, ‘Yes, I will,’ or ‘No, I won’t.’ Anything beyond this is from the evil one." Matthew 5:37. I never understood swearing in "on" something. If I had to use an item, I would likely imitate Sinema and use the Constitution, but I would prefer to just let my yes mean yes.

[Ban my account ffs!]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-kyrsten-sinema-takes-oath-of-office-on-an-law-book-instead-of-the-bible/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this a first, for someone to be sworn into the Senate on the constitution?

Also, will this be a good indicator of what Simena's voting record will look like?

Do you purposely call her Krysten Simena or do you notinow her name is Kyrsten Sinema?

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-kyrsten-sinema-takes-oath-of-office-on-an-law-book-instead-of-the-bible/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this a first, for someone to be sworn into the Senate on the constitution?

Also, will this be a good indicator of what Simena's voting record will look like?

Do you purposely call her Krysten Simena or do you notinow her name is Kyrsten Sinema?

Ohh...so that's where the R and M should be in her name. I'll remember that next time I mention her.

[lfromnj]

This is the way it should be. Every officeholder should be sworn in on the constitution and not a religious book.

I don't have a problem with a religious book despite my lack of belief because of the idea people are swearing on what they trust the most.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Funny thing is, prior to 2007, virtually everyone swore in on a generic copy of the Bible. Even Jews, Mormos and Catholics (despite it being a Protestant translation.) It wasn't particularly controversial though because the Torah is part of the Bible as well and the Protestant Bible is virtually exactly the same as a Catholic Bible anyway and Mormons also value the Protestant Bible even without the Book of Mormon (in fact I believe a Mormon Bible is just the King James version plus the Book of Mormon.)

But then Keith Ellison intended to take the oath on the Koran, something that irked conservatives, so like Tlaib he ended up using Thomas Jefferson's Koran. That kind of broke that precedent, and then Jews started swearing on the Torah, the Hindus in Congress have all sworn in on some Hindu sacred text, same with Buddhists*, Catholics now often use Catholic Bibles, Mormons use ones with the Book of Mormon and even Protestants have started using family heirlooms or other special Bibles instead of just a generic one. Which frankly is pretty cool, so props to Keith Ellison for that and setting that new precedent!

*There were actually two Buddhists elected in the 2007 Congress too, but both swore in on the Bible then, stating it was OK because Buddhism teaches that there exists paths to the Truth in all religions.

[danny]

Funny thing is, prior to 2007, virtually everyone swore in on a generic copy of the Bible. Even Jews, Mormos and Catholics (despite it being a Protestant translation.) It wasn't particularly controversial though because the Talmud is part of the Bible as well and the Protestant Bible is virtually exactly the same as a Catholic Bible anyway and Mormons also value the Protestant Bible even without the Book of Mormon (in fact I believe a Mormon Bible is just the King James version plus the Book of Mormon.)

You don't seem to know what the Talmud is, it certainly is not part of any Bible, And it would be strange for a Jew to use it rather than a Jewish bible.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Funny thing is, prior to 2007, virtually everyone swore in on a generic copy of the Bible. Even Jews, Mormos and Catholics (despite it being a Protestant translation.) It wasn't particularly controversial though because the Talmud is part of the Bible as well and the Protestant Bible is virtually exactly the same as a Catholic Bible anyway and Mormons also value the Protestant Bible even without the Book of Mormon (in fact I believe a Mormon Bible is just the King James version plus the Book of Mormon.)

You don't seem to know what the Talmud is, it certainly is not part of any Bible, And it would be strange for a Jew to use it rather than a Jewish bible.

Ack! Yeah, its the Torah I meant.

[MarkD]

Sinema is agnostic, so she uses the consitution instead of the Bible. Nothing to see here. As for her future voting record, she has served in the house for six years, so her views are not really a secret.

And, as Kirsten Gillibrand will kindly remind people, voting records change from the House to the Senate.

Add Bill Nelson and Mike DeWine too.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

She's swearing on the Constitution that she will uphold the Constitution?   Isn't that sort of circular?

No. Just logical.

"If I ever kill myself may God strike me dead."

[Del Tachi]

She's swearing on the Constitution that she will uphold the Constitution?   Isn't that sort of circular?

No. Just logical.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "swearing upon" something.  To swear upon the Bible to uphold the Constitution means that not upholding the Constitution becomes tantamount to defacing the Bible. 

To swear upon the Constitution to uphold the Constitution doesn't make any sense.  Using a book of law or history is at least more defendable because it can be argued that the Constitution is derived from centuries' worth of sacrosanct legal precedent, theory and history, so you're in essence swearing upon the body of collective human knowledge concerning the law and democracy.

Also, in what way is giving members of Congress a choice to swear upon religious texts in their inaugurations an endorsement of a state religion?  There's nothing remotely religious about what is occurring in this context.  Leftists are crazy for wanting to scrub even passing mentions of religion from our society.

[emailking]

For President, they technically don't even have to swear. They can just affirm the oath.

[GeorgiaModerate]

For President, they technically don't even have to swear. They can just affirm the oath.

And "affirm" has been used at least once (Pierce).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Is this a first, for someone to be sworn into the Senate on the constitution?

I doubt it. We even had a president do this in the 1800s (Pierce) - Imagine the reaction from the Evangelicals today if President O'Rourke or Harris or whoever did that in 2021!!

Although given how badly Pierce's presidency went for both him personally and the country, maybe that was the catalyst for God to go full Old Testament as revenge.

As an agnostic, I'm deeply ashamed to be represented by Kyrsten Sinema.

As an agnostic, I am deeply ambivalent and cannot state a definitive opinion on Kristen Sinema.

[Badger]

She's swearing on the Constitution that she will uphold the Constitution?   Isn't that sort of circular?

No. Just logical.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "swearing upon" something.  To swear upon the Bible to uphold the Constitution means that not upholding the Constitution becomes tantamount to defacing the Bible. 

To swear upon the Constitution to uphold the Constitution doesn't make any sense. 

No?