Oh, Do I Get Email »« Will Makes Bork Up to Look Pretty

Wingnuts Freak Out Over Brennan Not Using a Bible

A friend of mine posted a link to this Facebook page of a group called Unite the USA where people are freaking out about the fact that new CIA director John Brennan was sworn in on a copy of the Constitution rather than the Bible. Actually, no one bothered to mention what he did use, only that he didn’t use a Bible. Let the pearl clutching begin.

Did you know that John Brennan refused to use a Bible during his swearing in as CIA Director? This is seriously disturbing.

Willard J Casey immediately said, “he (sic) is a muslim (sic) and could not put his hand on a bible (sic).” I’m guessing he ran out of capital letters by using them randomly on words that don’t require them so he didn’t have any left to use them where they do belong.

Priscilla Harbin said, “Sounds like a Muslim to me.” Of course, this is the same kind of person who likely believes that all Muslims believe that you can lie to a non-Muslim, so why would Brennan hesitate, if he were Muslim, to put his hand on a Bible and swear an oath he didn’t mean?

Bruce Wm. Trakas replied, “Didn’t hear about that in the “state sponsored” media.” Really? Then you must not have read Politico. Or the USA Today. Or The Atlantic. Or Yahoo News. Or The Guardian. Or MSNBC. You see, if you don’t actually read anything other than wingnut websites, you’re not going to see anything reported outside of there.

Christine Humphrey Baker said, “He is a Muslim. Converted while in Afganistan (sic).” She can’t even repeat the lie correctly. The claim, absurd as it is, was that he allegedly converted while he was a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia.

Rob Combs Sr said, “well (sic) it’s harder to lie when your hand is on a Bible.” It is? Why? Especially if it’s someone he no doubts considers a liar anyway.

Comments

  1. Michael Heath says

    Well, if Muslim politicians are more apt to swear on the Constitution and then actually defend it, they’re far more prone to get my vote than orthodox Christians swearing on a Bible they’ll defend the Constitution. Especially given the latter’s record on where their loyalties lie, in spite of taking an oath to do the opposite.

  2. says

    Well, according to wingnuts people can’t lie while under torture.
    Now, I’m not suggesting that all members of Congress, at the beginning of their terms, should be waterboarded repeatedly, kept in a cold cell with no clothes on and have Ozzy Osbourne played at unbearable volume 24 hours a day until the swore to protect the ‘Murcan Constamitution and really meant it.
    But it might just be something to look into.
    At the least it sure would weed out the people who really aren’t serious about running for Congress.

  3. says

    Everyone knows that if you lie with your hand on the Bible, your soul is instantly transported to Hell. So, obviously, Brennan couldn’t do that.

    BTW, didn’t they try this lie with Hagel, too?

  4. Ellie says

    I’ve never understood the idea that a liar would be less likely to lie with his hand on a book.

    I also do not understand why anyone who wants a person to “swear on a Bible,” can be so ignorant of what that book says about swearing oaths (fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew).

    I thought swearing on the Constitution (if one’s personal beliefs allow such an oath) was a pretty darn good thing. That’s the document government officials should be concerned about when it comes to running the government.

  5. matty1 says

    Swearing on something is kind of a weird medieval hangover. I seem to recall stories of kings making people swear allegiance on the bones of saints (or at least bones they said were saints) as a way of scaring them into obedience.

  6. Didaktylos says

    Apropos of nothing – apparently the origin of raising one’s right hand when swearing an oath in court is that in Medieval England, one of the penalties for perjury was to be banding upon the right palm. By displaying the right palm, a witness was confirming that they had not previously committed perjury.

  7. jamessweet says

    I’ve never understood the idea that a liar would be less likely to lie with his hand on a book.

    It turns out people (not pathological liars, but average people) are marginally less likely to lie if you get them to affirm that they won’t lie. Go figure, eh? But it doesn’t matter what the affirmation is: Hand on a book, hand on the Constitution, simply making them say “I totes promise not to lie ‘n’ shit”…

  8. iangould says

    Jesus (sorry, Issa) is the second most import prophet in Sunni Islam. (In Shia he comes third to Ali.)

    The Muslim view of the Bible is that Jesus’ disciples got a lot of stuff wrong -like the whole Son of God thing – but it’s still viewed as a sacred text.

    Saying a Muslim wouldn’t swear on a Bible is like saying a Christian wouldn’t swear on the Old Testament.

    Of course if he HAD sworn on the Bible that’d be Taqqiya and we’d have the same people saying “He should’ve sworn on the Qu’ran then at least he might have meant it.”

  9. synkron says

    I’ve also read wingnuts freaking out online because he used the original draft of the Constitution — the one without the Bill of Rights. Oh noes, he’s gonna help take away our guns…

  10. matty1 says

    If he swore on the original constitution does that mean the CIA only has to obey the President three-fifths of the time?

  11. slc1 says

    Re iangould @ #12

    Muslims also think that the Christians got the crucifixion all wrong too. Their position is that the man who was executed was Judas Iscariot, not Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth. Apparently Islamic scholars aren’t too clear about what happened to Yeshua afterwards, although it is my information that some think he hied himself off to Damascus, possibly accompanied by Mary Magdalene, after being told by Pontius Pilate to get out of town.

  12. Ichthyic says

    Everyone knows that if you lie with your hand on the Bible, your soul is instantly transported to Hell.

    if that worked, it would indeed be a drastic, but effective, way of dealing with world overpopulation.

    probably even better than the “Flood”.

  13. Ichthyic says

    oh, and I object to the headline of this Post.

    Wingnuts certainly do not understand how to get their freak ON to begin with, let alone be able to out their freak.

Leave a Reply