RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Code Pink Activist And Taliban Sympathizer Kyrsten Sinema Refuses To T - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Code Pink Activist And Taliban Sympathizer Kyrsten Sinema Refuses To T Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,662
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 06 January 2019 - 09:54 PM

Code Pink Activist And Taliban Sympathizer Kyrsten Sinema Refuses To Take Oath Of Office On Holy Bible




https://www.teaparty.org
January 6, 2019



Article:


Newly-elected Democrat Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, was sworn in on Thursday and refused to take her oath on the Holy Bible.

Ms. Sinema opted to be sworn into office by placing her hand on a copy of the US Constitution and the Arizona Constitution, reported AZ Central.

On Thursday, U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat, took her ceremonial oath of office using a copy of the Constitution rather than a religious book, as most members usually do.

By contrast, U.S. Sen. Martha McSally, a Republican, took her oath using a Bible recovered from the USS Arizona, which sank during the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.



Short Story

0

#2 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,727
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 06 January 2019 - 10:12 PM

I really don't care what they swear in with. None of them are held to their oaths anyway. Sinema using the Constitution is nothing more than bad political theater since she is so plainly at odds with the document. I'm just surprised she didn't burn when she touched it. :whistling:

This post has been edited by grimreefer: 06 January 2019 - 10:13 PM

0

#3 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,610
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 06 January 2019 - 10:23 PM

Krysten Enema can swear all she likes, everybody knows she got there through corrupt means and outright criminal acts and while she's in office she will conduct herself like the anti American criminal she is, so... swing away, you vile sow.
0

#4 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,438
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 06 January 2019 - 10:33 PM

All of them should swear on the constitution.
0

#5 User is offline   Censport 

  • @CensportRacing
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,874
  • Joined: 13-August 03

Posted 06 January 2019 - 10:55 PM

View Postgrimreefer, on 06 January 2019 - 10:12 PM, said:

I really don't care what they swear in with. None of them are held to their oaths anyway. Sinema using the Constitution is nothing more than bad political theater since she is so plainly at odds with the document. I'm just surprised she didn't burn when she touched it. :whistling:

I too expected a *whoosh* and some flame. Just surprised she didn't swear on a copy of The Communist Manifesto.

To be fair, I'd probably swear on the U.S. Constitution. I'm not a particularly religious person, and I'd be swearing in as a U.S. Senator or Congressman, not a pastor or priest.

0

#6 User is offline   LongKnife 

  • Don't start none, won't be none.
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,887
  • Joined: 10-November 04

Posted 06 January 2019 - 11:02 PM

View PostLadybird, on 06 January 2019 - 10:33 PM, said:

All of them should swear on the constitution.

Some of the new ones coming in swear at it.
0

#7 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,910
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 07 January 2019 - 12:13 AM

View PostLadybird, on 06 January 2019 - 10:33 PM, said:

All of them should swear on the constitution.

Ah. So no choice allowed, huh.
0

#8 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • I'm dethpicable
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,447
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 07 January 2019 - 02:21 AM

View Postzurg, on 07 January 2019 - 12:13 AM, said:

Ah. So no choice allowed, huh.


I'm with Ladybird on this. The Constitution is the governing document of the land, not the Bible.

I'll go down shooting, gun in hand, to protect neighborhood displays of Christmas, the presence of crosses at memorials, In God We Trust on our money and the like, but to limit the swearing in to a Bible I think is averse to the idea of a secular government and religious freedom.
0

#9 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,643
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 07 January 2019 - 05:59 AM

View PostTicked@TinselTown, on 06 January 2019 - 10:23 PM, said:

Krysten Enema can swear all she likes, everybody knows she got there through corrupt means and outright criminal acts and while she's in office she will conduct herself like the anti American criminal she is, so... swing away, you vile sow.


:exactly:

McCain, from the deep pits of Hell, is cheering Enema on.
0

#10 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,910
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 07 January 2019 - 06:18 AM

View PostHowsithangin, on 07 January 2019 - 02:21 AM, said:

I'm with Ladybird on this. The Constitution is the governing document of the land, not the Bible.

I'll go down shooting, gun in hand, to protect neighborhood displays of Christmas, the presence of crosses at memorials, In God We Trust on our money and the like, but to limit the swearing in to a Bible I think is averse to the idea of a secular government and religious freedom.

Why not limit all freedom of speech you don’t like then? And remove all prior traditions you don’t like?

Note very carefully that I didn’t say one couldn’t use the constitution. You and LB are saying use ONLY the constitution. No choice.

This post has been edited by zurg: 07 January 2019 - 06:19 AM

0

#11 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,058
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 07:57 AM

View PostTicked@TinselTown, on 06 January 2019 - 10:23 PM, said:

Krysten Enema can swear all she likes, everybody knows she got there through corrupt means and outright criminal acts and while she's in office she will conduct herself like the anti American criminal she is, so... swing away, you vile sow.


The untold story of the 2016 midterm elections. The spotlight was on Coward county in Florida. There was little mention of the shenanigans in Arizona.
0

#12 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,438
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 07 January 2019 - 08:57 AM

View Postzurg, on 07 January 2019 - 06:18 AM, said:

Why not limit all freedom of speech you don’t like then? And remove all prior traditions you don’t like?

Note very carefully that I didn’t say one couldn’t use the constitution. You and LB are saying use ONLY the constitution. No choice.

I wrote “should”. The “No choice” are strictly your words.
0

#13 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,910
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:07 AM

View PostLadybird, on 07 January 2019 - 08:57 AM, said:

I wrote “should”. The “No choice” are strictly your words.

Should is defined as “indicating obligation, duty, or correctness”.

I took the meaning to be “obligation” in the context, because you didn’t specifically allow for swearing in on the Bible. “All should use the constitution” was in the context of going against using a Bible.

If you didn’t mean that, and instead meant that it would be the “correct” choice, I still disagree because the “correct” choice should be a private decision. But at least you aren’t then proposing removal of choice. Do I now understand correctly?

This post has been edited by zurg: 07 January 2019 - 09:07 AM

0

#14 User is offline   Bubbajoebob 

  • M dwarf stars
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 560
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:51 AM

I wonder where the idea originated that a promise was more binding if you said it while touching something considered holy. It feels a bit like idolatry to me. Just make your promise and be bound by it, whatever the circumstances: Matt 5: "33 Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 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 swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."
0

#15 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,807
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:52 AM

View PostHowsithangin, on 07 January 2019 - 02:21 AM, said:

I'm with Ladybird on this. The Constitution is the governing document of the land, not the Bible.

I'll go down shooting, gun in hand, to protect neighborhood displays of Christmas, the presence of crosses at memorials, In God We Trust on our money and the like, but to limit the swearing in to a Bible I think is averse to the idea of a secular government and religious freedom.

View Postzurg, on 07 January 2019 - 06:18 AM, said:

Why not limit all freedom of speech you don’t like then? And remove all prior traditions you don’t like?

Note very carefully that I didn’t say one couldn’t use the constitution. You and LB are saying use ONLY the constitution. No choice.


It makes sense to me for one particular reason: The same clause in the constitution that requires them to be sworn is the same clause that prohibits any religious test for office.

"...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
-Article VI, US Constitution

Two prior Presidents - John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law rather then a bible

As a Quaker, I'm aware I'm supposed to "Affirm" rather than "swear" but that doesn't really bother me. The two Quaker presidents, Nixon and Hoover, DID swear on a bible. Nixon used TWO bibles, but then he needed all the help he could get from the Almighty. The one president to actually say "Affirm" rather than "Swear" was Franklin Pierce who was not a Quaker but an Episcopalian.

If *I* ever get sworn in to office, I probably won't use a Bible, but for a completely different reason: I grew up around WAY too much bickering and demagoguery about what the only "right" translation of the bible is and anyone who even glances at anything different will burn in hell; I just know that any number of people from my childhood would make an issue of it: "OMG! Did use see that? He used a Revised Standard Version, that heathen.""No, it was a New International Version. He must be some sort of globalist." LOL.

Besides, when I joined the Navy, our oath of enlistment wasn't that much different than the congressional oath. I think the first half is even word-for-word identical, and we didn't need a bible for that.
0

#16 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,910
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 07 January 2019 - 11:02 AM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 07 January 2019 - 10:52 AM, said:

It makes sense to me for one particular reason: The same clause in the constitution that requires them to be sworn is the same clause that prohibits any religious test for office.

"...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
-Article VI, US Constitution

Two prior Presidents - John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law rather then a bible

As a Quaker, I'm aware I'm supposed to "Affirm" rather than "swear" but that doesn't really bother me. The two Quaker presidents, Nixon and Hoover, DID swear on a bible. Nixon used TWO bibles, but then he needed all the help he could get from the Almighty. The one president to actually say "Affirm" rather than "Swear" was Franklin Pierce who was not a Quaker but an Episcopalian.

If *I* ever get sworn in to office, I probably won't use a Bible, but for a completely different reason: I grew up around WAY too much bickering and demagoguery about what the only "right" translation of the bible is and anyone who even glances at anything different will burn in hell; I just know that any number of people from my childhood would make an issue of it: "OMG! Did use see that? He used a Revised Standard Version, that heathen.""No, it was a New International Version. He must be some sort of globalist." LOL.

Besides, when I joined the Navy, our oath of enlistment wasn't that much different than the congressional oath. I think the first half is even word-for-word identical, and we didn't need a bible for that.

If using the Bible is the person’s choice, and not the government’s, how is the government imposing a religious test?
0

#17 User is offline   searcher 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,641
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 11:13 AM

View Postgrimreefer, on 06 January 2019 - 10:12 PM, said:

I really don't care what they swear in with. None of them are held to their oaths anyway. Sinema using the Constitution is nothing more than bad political theater since she is so plainly at odds with the document. I'm just surprised she didn't burn when she touched it. :whistling:


My thoughts too. They all seem to forget the oath after being there a while.

Mark
0

#18 User is offline   USNRETWIFE 

  • Tiki Barbie
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Joined: 02-April 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 11:29 AM

View Postzurg, on 07 January 2019 - 11:02 AM, said:

If using the Bible is the person's choice, and not the government's, how is the government imposing a religious test?

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/yeahthat.gif Why should others have a choice, but not people who believe in the Bible?

Quote

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion.......

0

#19 User is offline   Oathtaker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 21-August 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 11:39 AM

View PostLadybird, on 06 January 2019 - 10:33 PM, said:

All of them should swear on the constitution.



US Senate Oath of Office:

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

Perhaps they should have to read the Constitution before taking the oath so they actually know what they are swearing to uphold.

Maybe a test like those who are being naturalized take as well....
0

#20 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 14,418
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 01:04 PM

The entire issue is really about how it reflects on the deterioration of out culture. If it were a rare one time glitch it would not matter. It's not, it has become more common and even approved by many of our citizenry. Sexual deviation and cult like heathen lifestyles have replaced traditional values.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users