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
I have never had to swear an oath of this nature, but if I did, I would not use any religious text. As an atheist, no religious text holds any meaning to me. I have read several religious texts, what better way to reinforce my beliefs than to read what other crazy people believe. I like the suggestions of either the Constitution or the phone book, but would be just as happy to swear on “Elementary Principles of Chemical Processes” or the “CRC Handbook”. I also own a copy of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” that I could use. In the end, I find swearing an oath on a pile of cellulose and oil based ink to be silly, no matter what the book. I also have a copy of the Gospel of the FSM, wouldn’t that be fun!
Time for some pagan sun god worship. Happy holidays.
“such a non-issue to anyone with two sides to his or her brain”
Steve sez anyone that disagrees with his enlightened opinion must be stupid or brain damaged.
No discussion needed; just ask Steve!
KC, thanks for finally seeing the light: be reasonable and do it my way.
Now, go back to Pleasantville and ironing your dollar bills and boxer shorts.
This is such a non-issue to anyone with two sides to his or her brain that the only comment I have is that everybody knows the real god was a white dude born somewhere in lower Manhattan.
“..departure from American true culture and values”
False.
one can only presume you find the backlash disturbing turley because you are ignorant of the history of Islam.
Really disturbing news. Are we giving up our cultural values? Seems Sharia will be creeping into this country from New York.
Shocking departure from American true culture and values.
The Quran sound be obligatory reading in our schools from
which we would get a a complete understanding of what this
document contains.
America has betrayed our Founders.
Shame.
You can obey either the US Constitution or the Koran.
The latter demands negation of the former.
Choose one.
Online sources say she attended a historically black college (Lincoln U in PA), then NYU law school. She followed a typical career path for black attorneys: Mediocre college to top 20 law school, followed by two years at top rated law firm, then bounced down to government attorney for a few years, then bounced down further to attorney for “community organization.” I ranked attorney applicants for a federal agency a while back, and saw this pattern over and over. I hadn’t realized before that how common it was. In any event, it appears from online info that she became a Muslim upon marriage. Statistics bear out that those who convert to another religion for purposes of marriage very rarely stay with it should the marriage dissolve. Moreover, she has chosen to not take an Arab name, and her head covering is very minimalistic. All in all, I think this woman is ‘Muslim lite.”
The BarkinDog Oath:
“Put your left paw on the Good Book, raise your right paw and repeat after me: I (bark your name), hereby swear to bite and defang any beast which defames, bites or barks at the Supreme Dog. I further swear that I will protect, defend our dog territory and poop on any invader of our dogpac premises. Amen.”
We as a nation are tolerant of other religions and over the top tolerant of Islam. The fact that she is a judge being sworn in with her alliegence to the quran worrisome because Sharia laws are based on the quoran just like American laws are based on the bible.
Will she base her legal decisions on the quran/sharia or the rule of law.
Theres always some agitator who do things for attention like this judge who chose to act like a child and advertise her disdain of American laws by being sworn in over a guran. No quran should be used to be sworn in for anything. It’s not a religion, it’s a cult.
Our muslim president wouldn’t be president if we knew his true loyalties are for muslims and not Americans before the elections. He’s a disgrace, a world disgrace. I’m embarrassed by obama.
The “Oath of Office” loyalty oath generally only applies to their job duties and exercising their job authorities.
For example: a police officer is required to operate within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court) while on duty. It doesn’t apply on Sundays when the officer attends Church or not operating under color of law.
If the officer is using police authorities “off-duty” the oath does apply. For example, it is a federal crime for a police officer to cell-phone track his daughter’s new boyfriend or his ex-wife using police authorities even during off-duty times.
Officers that claim to be “always on duty” are always bound by the oath to follow the U.S. Constitution as are judges.
Olly, Amen brother.
Nice to see the RW Christian nut jobs losing their minds over this. We should have everyone swear in on try Constitution like this mayor did:
http://www.wlos.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Mayor-Swears-In-But-Not-On-the-Bible-241429.shtml#.VnK9XP6DnCQ
Forcing public officials to swear their honesty in a format that they reject, is counter-productive. They are starting out with a lie about their thinking. Normal people, as opposed to religionists, tend to be naturally honest, innately having the required integrity to enforce human rights. Bringing religion into the mix imposes a counterproductive narrow, ancient, false, and misguided framework for a multicultural society.
The last line in the oath is option (it can be omitted). If the oath-taker includes the last line, it generally means “as God my witness” – they make a promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The oath itself is not pledging allegience to any God or any religion.
Remember “theocracy” is the polar opposite of “religious freedom”. The United States supports religious freedom for all (including non-Christians) not theocracy where the government imposes religion onto you in spite of your freedoms.
Alan Greenspan took his oath on The Talmud. (Beware: Judaics have two “Torah,” one is the O.T., the other is The Talmud.)
From The Talmud: “Even the best of the Gentiles deserve only death.” I challenge any Zionist, especially Zionist Christian, to post a verse from the Quaran that states point blank that “every one except Muslims deserve only death.”
I have no affection for either book. I know more about the Talmud, which should be either banished (as the Pope did at one time) or the Rabbis forced to edit it.
Good. I don’t care what she places her hand on when she takes her oath; I care that she honors it. For all this outrage, we have plenty of officeholders that swore their oath on the Bible but use the constitution as a floor mat. How about some outrage for them?
Did anyone check the books Obama swore on during his inaugurations? This is a joke.
The Islamic Supreme Council of America. Judges and Fatwa.
Most importantly, a fatwā is not by definition a pronouncement of death or a declaration of war. A fatwā is an Islamic legal pronouncement, issued by an expert in religious law (mufti),
pertaining to a specific issue, usually at the request of an individual or judge to resolve an issue where Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), is unclear.
Typically, such uncertainty arises as Muslim society works to address new issues – issues that develop as technology and society advance. “Can a Muslim be involved in cloning?” for instance.
We might compare a fatwā to the legal ruling of a high court or the Supreme Court, depending on the authority of the mufti behind it.
However, a fatwā is not binding as is the verdict of the secular courts; while correct and applicable to all members of the Muslim faith, the fatwā is optional for the individual to respect or not.