I, for one, will welcome our new State Religion


Robert Garcia, a newly-elected Democratic representative, has chosen the book upon which he will swear the oath of office, and it is not a Bible.

Like any other lawmaker, Rep.-elect Robert Garcia will swear his oath of office on a foundational text. He chose the US Constitution over the Bible or another religious book, and when the time comes, he’ll also take his oath with three sentimental items, including the first edition comic of Superman.

“I’ve read almost all genres, but Superman is always the character that stood out and spoke to me the most,” Garcia, a Democrat from California, told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday.

Reporters on Tuesday spotted the vintage comic book among the items laid out in the House of Representatives in preparation of the swearing-in of newly elected members. In a tweet, Garcia, who describes himself as a comic book nerd in his Twitter bio, acknowledged it was for him. He said he will be sworn in to Congress with the Constitution as well as a photograph of his parents, who both died during the pandemic; his naturalization paperwork from when he became a US citizen; and the first edition of Superman, which he borrowed from the Library of Congress.

I’m happy to see that someone chose something wholesome, rather than that archaic book of misogyny, racism, and violence. Immigrants have to stick together, too.

Comments

  1. microraptor says

    Golden Age Superman fought union-busting business owners, corrupt politicians, and the KKK.

  2. says

    microraptor@3: “Golden Age Superman fought union-busting business owners, corrupt politicians, and the KKK.”

    Yep. In his very first issue, that being Action Comics #1, Superman saved an unjustly convicted death row prisoner; stopped a wife-beating jerk; and decided he was gonna do something about a corrupt war-profiteering lobbyist.

  3. larpar says

    “Truth, Justice and the American Way”

    “One of these things is not like the others,
    One of these things just doesn’t belong,
    Can you tell which thing is not like the others
    By the time I finish my song?”

  4. Larry says

    @4

    In his very first issue, that being Action Comics #1, Superman saved an unjustly convicted death row prisoner; stopped a wife-beating jerk; and decided he was gonna do something about a corrupt war-profiteering lobbyist.

    Who’d of ever guessed. Superman, woke from the very beginning!

  5. John Morales says

    So the “oath of office” has to be sworn upon some “foundational text”?

    (How quaint!)

  6. Tethys says

    @JM #12

    It’s not required, you can simply swear the oath without any books. However, most elected officials do opt to swear their oath of office using some personally meaningful text.

    How many times in a life does anyone have ceremonial access to any document or rare book held by the National Archives? IIRC, some Muslim congressional members have used Thomas Jefferson’s Koran, while Natives have chosen to swear in on a tribal law text.

  7. chigau (違う) says

    The last time I had to swear for a Government job, I was given a choice to do it on a holy book or to “afirm and avow”. I chose the latter.

  8. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    I hope they’re keeping a close eye on that comic. It’s worth over $100,000 and up to $5.2 million depending on condition.

  9. StevoR says

    @ larpar :

    “Truth, Justice and the American Way”

    “One of these things is not like the others,
    One of these things just doesn’t belong,
    Can you tell which thing is not like the others
    By the time I finish my song?”

    Truth – because unlike the other tow it is at least theoretically possible to determine what the truth is objectively rather than subjectively with both “Justice” and the “American way” relying on subjective opinion? I.e. what some consider “Justice” will vary widely and individuals will have differing views on what constitutes the “American way” but the Truth can be objectively measured and discovered using science and logic and maths and evdence.

    Or, I guess, you were thinking of the American way since rather than an abstract universal idea; the American way is restricted to a set of connected continents in the broader sense of the word and more usually taken as referring to only the USA’s national “way””which is raises of the obvious questions of what exactly is meant by that term – liberty and opportunity for all to pursue happiness? American culture and ideals generally? Capitalism, USA form representative “democracy”* and US political & cultural hegemony?

    Actually, I guess if it could be both Truth and the American Way in this Odd One Out scenario then that eliminates them both and means the odd one out here has to be Justice by a process of elimination? Which, ironically, might arguable mean that Justice isn’t eliminated since it now could be the odd one out and so all three are, the same~ish, kinda and there IS no odd one out – except any one of those three by the logic already discussed above?

    (/Sophistry?)

  10. John Morales says

    … thus denying a “One vote, One value” rule …

    Nah, the Electoral College only elects the President and the VP, and it has 538 electors. Each elector indeed has one vote.

    (Hint: there are more elected officials than the P and the VP in the USA)

    [OT]

    Also, StevoR. Why do you take their claims at face value?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_the_Americas_by_population

    Or: “the American Way” is a misnomer; it’s actually the USAnian way.
    The USAnian way is to appropriate the demonym for itself.

  11. StevoR says

    @ ^ John Morales : The POTUS is the ehad of state -the leader oand effectiove ruler of the USA tho… so if the vote for the nations’s leader isn’t democratic then it isn’t reallya Democarcy is it? Settingasdie the complexituies of the Congress (which doesn’t work), the SCOTUS which POTUS’es get to pick, the gerrymandering and voter suppression etc ..

    Which claims am I taking at face value and why woudn’t they be taken at face value btw?

  12. John Morales says

    StevoR, ahem.

    … so if the vote for the nations’s leader isn’t democratic then it isn’t reallya Democarcy is it?

    Australia does not vote for the nation’s leader; party members decide who is the leader. It follows Australia is not really a democracy, by your own claim.

    (Don’t cast stones in a glasshouse)

    Which claims am I taking at face value

    Was I too subtle, again?
    For one, that the American way is the USAnian way.

    Not very democratic, that, is it?
    They’re around a third of the population of the Americas, but say their way is the American way.

  13. jo1storm says

    @John Morales

    StevoR, ahem.

    … so if the vote for the nations’s leader isn’t democratic then it isn’t reallya Democarcy is it?

    Australia does not vote for the nation’s leader; party members decide who is the leader. It follows Australia is not really a democracy, by your own claim.

    (Don’t cast stones in a glasshouse)

    Being a petty arse again, I see. Australia doesn’t have presidential government. The president in Australia doesn’t have any executive powers and is more of a figurehead, there to give military decorations and lead the country in times of war. What you want to look for there is prime minister. Unlike USA where president actually has executive power.

  14. John Morales says

    jo1storm:

    Being a petty arse again, I see. Australia doesn’t have presidential government.

    With all due respect to your evidently intimate knowledge of petty-arsedness, I used the very same term that StevoR used. And I’m pretty sure he wasn’t referring to the King.

    (Care to actually dispute what I wrote, instead of some straw dummy?)

    Again: Australian citizens do not elect the Prime Minister, the Governor General, or the Monarch. Whichever you imagine is the Head of State (that would be the King).

  15. jo1storm says

    Except they do except for the Monarch, by voting for the party and/or coalition with them on top of the list:

    Again: Australian citizens do not elect the Prime Minister, the Governor General, or the Monarch. Whichever you imagine is the Head of State (that would be the King).

    We are not talking Head of State, we are talking head of executive branch.

  16. jo1storm says

    In practice. Not in name.

    In USA, that’s the president. In Australia, that’s Prime Minister.

  17. John Morales says

    jo1storm:

    Except they do except for the Monarch, by voting for the party and/or coalition with them on top of the list:

    Voting for a party or for a coalition is not voting for a Prime Minister.
    Nor is it voting for Governor General.
    So, no.

    See, the PM is head of government, but there need be no vote whatsoever among the populace — this happens regularly — in order to select a new one. That’s the point. It’s happened enough times in recent years! No voting.

    As for who is the actual boss, put it this way; the PM can be dismissed by the GG, but the converse is not true.

    BTW:

    The monarch is represented through the governor-general, who has the executive power granted in the Constitution,[1] as well as rarely exercised reserve powers.[2]

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis#Constitutional)

    We are not talking Head of State, we are talking head of executive branch.

    Ahem. What we are talking about is what is evident in the comments hitherto.
    I repeat: “I used the very same term that StevoR used”.

    And you damn well quoted me quoting him, so you should have known that.
    Here, I’ve put emphasis on it for your apprehension:

    @John Morales

    StevoR, ahem.

    … so if the vote for the nations’s leader isn’t democratic then it isn’t reallya Democarcy is it?

    Australia does not vote for the nation’s leader; party members decide who is the leader. It follows Australia is not really a democracy, by your own claim.

    Anyway, this is about the wondrous thing that swearing on things other than the Babble represents in the USA, not about Oz. Sorry for the digression.

  18. jo1storm says

    Oh, I see. So it is how you define nation’s leader that you are petty arse about. Carry on.

  19. John Morales says

    jo1storm:

    So it is how you define nation’s leader that you are petty arse about.

    Again:
    (1) It’s not how I define it; I used the exact same term as StevoR, remember?;
    and
    (2) you very clearly define the nation’s leader as the PM.

    I’m happy to argue on that basis.

    Fact is, the populace does not elect the PM, it elects MPs who then sort out between themselves how to choose a PM.

    There is no such thing as a vote for PM in Australia; only a vote for MPs.

    Once again: “Australia does not vote for the nation’s leader“.

    Want to dispute that claim?

    (Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Liberal_Party_of_Australia_leadership_spills )

    At least in the USA they vote for Prez, and their votes then influence the actual Electors of the College whose votes actually determine who is the Prez.
    Thus the recent shenanigans to choose an alternative electors over there.

    There, I’ve carried on.

    (It’s nice being correct; no need to bluster. You should try that sometime)

  20. jo1storm says

    Fact is, the populace does not elect the PM, it elects MPs who then sort out between themselves how to choose a PM.

    But they do elect PM. Indirectly. You can be certain that PM won’t be some random dude on the street, but one of the elected MPs. Right? Key word here is elected.

  21. StevoR says

    @23, Jhn Morales :

    Australia does not vote for the nation’s leader; party members decide who is the leader. It follows Australia is not really a democracy, by your own claim.

    (Don’t cast stones in a glasshouse)

    Why not? Its too hot already.. Let’s get some cooler air in..

    Yes. Australia’s system has its issues and flaws. Time we became a Republic was decades ago already. Single member elctorates and safe seats and the GG and the f’n King of England as symbolic head’o’state and all.

    Which systems is better tho’? Ours or the USA’s? I’d take ours anyday.

    For one, that the American way is the USAnian way. Not very democratic, that, is it?
    They’re around a third of the population of the Americas, but say their way is the American way.

    Assuming that’s what Superman meant by the “American way” which I don’t think he ever specified & as noted already in my #18.

    PS I write USA rather than US because, you know, Mexico (Estados Unidos Mexicanos).

    I use USA over US preferentially because it avoids confusion with capitalised US vs THEM – the latter apparently being ants as opposed to giant aunts so ..yeah. fair enough. New World vs Old World tho’ somewhat archaic in useage may also be apt & a better option here.

    Again: Australian citizens do not elect the Prime Minister, the Governor General, or the Monarch. Whichever you imagine is the Head of State (that would be the King).

    I’d say the PM was our de facto head of state versus the symbolic, ceremonial GG & British hereditary Monarch. But again, long overdue we became a Republic and properly so. With maybe an First Elder chosen by our Indigenous People only in place of both GG & Britain’s King in my view.

    Voting for a party or for a coalition is not voting for a Prime Minister.

    True – but nor do we have the equivalent of an Electoral College which says the votes of, say, Tasmania, count for triple the votes of say Victoria. Even though our states and federal systems leave a lot to be desired and WA is, like, a third of our nation and all.. No, we could do with some changes but also no we ain’t nowhere near as bad and undemocratic and messed up as the USA. Also, we have an independent non-partisan elcetoral commission..

  22. StevoR says

    @32. John Morales :

    At least in the USA they vote for Prez, and their votes then influence the actual Electors of the College whose votes actually determine who is the Prez.

    Their votes “influence” .. but much more so by triple plus if they are living in f’n Wyoming than California, etc.. that seem fair & ok to you? Don’t to me.

    I’d take our occassional Canberra bubble leaderspill spills even the SkyNews Coups over the shit Murdoch & his RepugliQons ull continuslally inthe US 0of A anyday,.

    On a somewhat related note Thank Fk and the Aussie public’s rationality & sense that Scummo & his crew are now well and truly out of power and the toxic rotten potato unlikely to ever regain it.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply