There is a rather bizarre controversy out of New York where people appear outraged by a minor municipal ceremony to swear in Brooklyn Civil Court judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo. It turns out the Walker-Diallo is a Muslim so she naturally took her oath on a Quran (Koran). One would think that the public would want the oath of office to taken over the book that the jurist considers a binding moral code or through affirmation without a religious book. Yet, many were horrified.
Walker-Diallo has joined Brooklyn’s 7th Municipal District and the photo from the swearing in ceremony was posted after she was sworn into office.
On her campaign page, she makes reference to her faith.
“All is praise (sic) is indeed due to the Most High! I am humbled that my community has entrusted me with the immense responsibility of ensuring that EVERYONE has notice and a FAIR opportunity to be heard in the halls of justice.”
The oath is perfectly valid for a candidate to “swear or affirm” an oath. There are certainly many who would prefer to require a neutral affirmation for everyone. Yet, that has not been our tradition. I find the backlash to this photo to be highly disturbing.
What do you think?
Source: NY Daily
Taking the oath with the Quran just feels like someone promising something with their fingers crossed behind their back.
SHARIA, HERE WE GO.!
Surely, if she swore on the Islamic Bible…….that is where her loyalties are….
Is this the first time this has happened in the U.S.?
Could a citizen of the U.S. become a Judge in Saudi Arabia and use their own Catholic Bibles.?
Every day we lose more and more rights as individuals, in this country now.
When are the people going to notice.?
MERRY CHRISTMAS, WHILE WE ARE STILL ALLOWED TO SAY IT.!!!!!!!!
Reblogged this on L'horreur islamique à l'âge des ténèbres ن.
Talk about tempest in a tea cup. We have so many issues. The Bible doesn’t recognize the Consitution either. Neither does the Book of Morman. People really need to get a grip.
Fascinating post and some fascinating discussion
The science geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
Where’s the outcry when our officials swear on a bible: as if the “laws” of Leviticus coincide with American law. And how many Evangelicals for instance whine about never placing manmade law over “God’s” law. The hypocrisy is blinding.
Every public official should really swear or affirm with his or her hand on the Constitution in book form, but as private citizens I think it’s fine if they choose for themselves. They can swear on a photo of their kids for all I care. What matters is loyalty to our nation and its actual laws, expressed by the oath. Not where a hand is, during.
Rep. Keith Ellison swore on Jefferson’s qur’an to much controversy several years back. It was a faux controversy then, as well.
In the end the individual can choose for himself or herself, much in the same way that technically, when being sworn in, one can say “So help me God” by choice, though it shouldn’t be put forth by the public official administering the oath (wherein such words are absent).
Someone said that the Quran does not recognize the Constitution. It is hard for a book written thousands of years before the Constitution to recognize it. In fact, the Bible doesn’t recognize the Constitution either. The Bible is also, if taken literally, not reflective of the values of our society and our Constitutional order. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, can easily be read as calling for theocracy. People have taken oaths on all kinds of religious and non-religious texts in the past, and some have taken an oath using no text at all. It is a sign of our politically correct times (because political correctness is a weakness of the right as well as the left) that this is a story at all.
She told the police she received TWO threatening phone calls. There is no evidence of the calls, other than her statement. In that so many reported “hate crimes” turn out to be hoaxes, perpetrated by the alleged victim, I would prefer to wait and see if there is any objective evidence that these threats ever really occurred.
I thought the swearing was to the constitution and the book was to indicate, roughly, the importance of and commitment to the swearing held by the swearer.
If the book indicates the values the swearer is commuting to then we certainly don’t want them using the bible – not unless they are swearing to be an executioner or something like that.
I propose we start swearing on a phone directory to remind us all of the diversity that enriches and strengthens this great nation.
Yep, if I ever again swear an oath let it be on a phone directory.
This woman is obviously full of shit–and it appears to me that this woman gained her position under NYC’s misguided affirmative action, diversity, and quota system where NYC insists on a Crayola box full of judges sitting on the bench to accommodate the varied colors, shades, nationalities, religions, and deities of those miscreants appearing before them!! Will each defendant or litigant be able to choose the proper level of color, flavor, religiosity, ethnicity, experience, or devotion to satisfy their own particular search for justice?? And will this woman follow her Koran, our Constitution, or The New York Code of Criminal Procedure? A most vexing problem is being opened by this Politically Correct foolishness intended to intentionally split and divide our Beloved USA !!!!
DMD JD ’65 NYU LAW
The Quran calls for theocracy, commands it by any means in fact. Islam is antithetical to democracy and commands the use of violence, deception, lies, all without qualifications. Islam is not a religion of peace if the Quran commands otherwise, which it does to the lowest extreme.
I am confused between the oath she took as it relates to which is of higher importance. The US Constitution is what the law of the land is acted on. Is this new judge accepting that. The Quran does not recognize the Constitution as the higher basis for our law does it? So how can she be a judge then?
Burn the damn Quran. The words Eve heard are in that book. Tremble at the words I type for they are true. Whoever relies on that book is possessed of Satan who is a gem studded gold covered angel who impersonates heavenly beings. Those that obey him now will follow Satan when he stands on the earth trying to prove that he is God. God does not have to prove anything.
Burn the damn Quran. The words Eve heard are in that book. Tremble at the words I type for they are true
Let’s just objectively review what she has placed her hand upon here, while simultaneously swearing to uphold the laws of the land and promising to deliver justice under the law, shall we? It’s a given that po is going to stroke out over anything that he feels is offensive to Muslims, but an objective view, regarding this judge, placing her hand upon a book, which combined with other Islamic texts, is the very antithesis of all that we, in the United States, hold dear, should alarm all of us. She is, in essence, cloaked in her black robe, swearing to uphold, among other things, the following: that a woman’s testimony is not equal to that of a man in a court of law and is to be given less weight and credibility than that of her male counterpart; that Christians, Jews and other assorted infidels are to be converted or murdered; that Christians, Jews and other assorted infidels are to be deemed second-class citizens; and, of course, the list goes on and on. Islam is simply incompatible with the laws of this country, and her taking an oath, upon a set of laws and rules which are contrary to every freedom and right that we hold precious, is an abomination. Plain and simple. I strongly suspect that if JT every took the time to actually study what the various Islamic texts actually demand and expect of Muslim adherents, he would be singing a different tune. I won’t hold my breath.
Does anyone really want any official swearing in on a book they don’t believe in?
Darren, is there a difference between the oath congressmen take and the one judges take? Keith Ellison did swear his oath on the quran too, and i don’t recall it raising such a stink…or perhaps it is just these times.
It would interest me and others to know how long this woman has been a “moslem”? DMD
I know already what everyone will says, but let’s frame this according to some rules:
Either the issue is about secularism vs religion, separation between church or state or it isn’t.
Anyone who supports the swearing in on the bible, has NO right to condemn the swearing in on the quran,
Unless you believe Islam has no place in this land, and that the judge will be judging according to shariah law and, as chicken little, are running around yelling the mooslems are coming, the mooslems are coming…in which case you are operating outside of the norms of rational debate.
I am not schooled in New York State case law but I did find this which can serve as an example of the applicability of using a Koran vs. a Bible.
The City of New York, 200 N.Y. 53: The Court of Appeals, by Judge Haight, considered the requirements of an oath which they define as follows:
I believe this type of precedent is common in various states as it effectively mirrors that of the ones I have dedicated time to review. We have to also look upon the times within which such writings occurred in so far as having more deference to a more religious society. But never the less there were provisions even then for differing faiths to perform as this judge has with the Koran and for those not choosing to be involved with a religion these opinions have carried still toward applicability in today’s judiciary.
The important factor truly is requiring a person to take an oath in such a way that it will be respected and followed by that individual since there can be the ability to also violate it without detection and ultimately when it is too late to correct the malfeasances.
Historically in European society oaths and similar forms of pledge relied upon promises of biblical or divine retribution for breaking one’s pledge. At the very least it formed as a basis for oversight made possible by the individual himself when testimonial evidence was used in greater proportion than what we have available from physical evidence today to derive perjuries and false affirmations.