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
Good post Diogenes.
True Christians believe themselves morally bound to follow the strictures of political office when they swear
on the most solemn oath they possibly can. They promise to fulfill the legal duties (imposed by Federal and
state law) on the office they are about to assume. And they call on the Deity they believe in to witness what they do or do not do afterward, and apparently believe they will be held to account by Him in the afterlife.
Thus a Christian swears on the Bible, a Jew swears on the Talmud, a Muslim swears on the Quran, and an
Atheist swears or solemnly affirms his or her undertaking on dire peril to his or her immortal soul, in the first three examples f they foreswear, regardless of the legal consequences. I don’t know what perils an atheist might face. As a true believer, I might risk breaking the law and running afoul of civil authority. But, would I risk my fervent faith in and hope of the afterlife?
From my observations, I have never heard of a Muslim taking an oath on the Quran and breaking the vow.
I have heard and read about many Christians and Jews and Atheissts who do so with impunity. This lady professes her faith publicly, and is willing to swear a public oath before witnesses on the most holy book of her faith, a solemn and weighty undertaking for any “true” believer.
Come to think on it, when have you ever heard of any Muslim swear on the Quran to do or not do some-
thing, then fail to do or not do it? They do take their faith very seriously.
Lighten up people.
I swore the oath several times throughout my Navy career and not once were we required to put our hand on anything. To borrower from my other passion; Golf, “Swear for show, honor for dough!”
Well Nick
I have to agree with you there.
Can anyone help me here? What is this madness attributable to?
Pick one:
1. Abraham Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” and consequent nullification of the American founding documents.
2. An imperceptible, covert and insidious subsumption of America by the sinister, surreptitious and
progressive forces of Karl Marx et al.
(the frog that didn’t jump out of the pan because it was boiled by gradually-heated cold water).
3. The 19th Amendment.
Is any form of corrective action, as disruptive as it might be, available?
P.S. I’ll bet that frog was really ticked off.
This is a show by this woman. I’ve been sworn to uphold the Constitution twice, and I have been sworn in to testify in court hundreds of times. NEVER was a book involved. This was a “LOOK AT ME, I’M A MUSLIM” moment. It’s more about the narcissistic culture in which we live than it is about the Constitution, religion, or anything else. She KNEW this would get news coverage and prescribes to axiom, “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”
Notice the nice photo? What a set up. 13, 14 15…times up!
Wow. Another shot at 15 minutes, I suspect enhanced by some sponsor or the media. Who gives a damn? How many various government and judicial officials have sworn on what ever texts then violated every facet of them? I agree with ….
Justice Holmes at December 17, 2015 at 5:13 am.
Talk about tempest in a tea cup. We have so many issues. The Bible doesn’t recognize the Constitution either. Neither does the Book of Mormon. People really need to get a grip.
I care that the judicial officers and government officials abide with the Constitution and the laws of the United States and each locality. Swear in on a brick for all I care about the ritual. Have to agree with…
philat at December 17, 2015 at 8:51 am (extracted)…
We should have everyone swear in on try Constitution…
Period.
Or a brick. :-))
Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “a republic, if you can keep it.”
Ben Franklin, 2015, we gave you “a republic, if you can take it back.”
Ben Franklin’s republic:
A restricted-vote republic deliberately precluding a vote of the “working masses.”
Distinctly not a one man, one vote democracy
Franklin’s Vote Criteria – Male, European, age 21, 50lbs. Sterling or 50 acres
Alexander Fraser Tytler –
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”
Mr. Franklin, can you help stop the madness?
The truth be known,
freed slaves and their ancestors are citizens of no country. Slaves were legal “property,” by recorded deed, under British law for 250 years. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, the “Reconstruction Amendments,” are unconstitutional. The legal course for illegal aliens is deportation or compassionate repatriation to their countries of origin.
It is unconstitutional for the government to effect the confiscation of private property by proclamation or any other means.
“Property,” foreign citizens, citizens of no country and non-U.S. citizens have no standing under the constitution.
No law or amendment may be brought for the benefit of property, foreign citizens, citizens of no country and non-U.S. citizens.
No person may vote who is not a legal citizen under the constitution.
Before government is established, government has a natural or God-mandated requirement to establish borders and control immigration. A country is not a country and government is not legitimate if it does not establish borders and control immigration. Immigration policy and citizenship status may not be set by two foreign citizens effecting the birth of a child of said foreign citizens, on U.S. territory. No person may benefit from a criminal act or be a subsequent beneficiary of a criminal act.
The unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments” were ratified without a quorum, through coercion, effected by corruption and under the duress of war or its residual effect. If the Confederate States had been allowed to avail themselves of their legal, God-given right to secession (as were Catalonia, Scotland, West Virginia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the entire USSR), there would have been a quorum. If the Confederate States were not allowed to secede and remained part of the U.S., there was not a quorum.
Sorry, Your Honorette, you appear to have submitted erroneous and falsified documents with your employment application.
The Good Book can be The Joy of Cooking. It could be the Hounds of Baskerville or The Trump Bible. Not the Sears Roebuck Bible. That one defames the Sixth Commandment.
What one uses to wipe the arse with in the outhouse is also relevant. Sears Roebuck Catalogue or Sears Roebuck Bible. They are one and the same, ask me again and I am PuddinTain.
Remember America was created due to primarily Christians persecuting other Christians.
21st Century England is a great nation today, but in the 18th Century it was a Christian Theocracy that punished and killed other Christians. Americans supported religious freedom, 18th Century England did not.
Since we have this so-called “War on a Tactic” after 9/11 shouldn’t the FBI Director be Muslim-American also? We need some on the U.S. Supreme Court also.
pernicious,
If you looked at the link philat posted at 8:51 you would see someone did just that. Have them place their hand on the head of the children their spouse or their iPhone, whatever. Just honor it and no one care what motivates you to do it.
Why should anyone have to take an oath on a religious book? I’d prefer that they take their oath on a copy of the constitution and leave religion out of it.
Rope? You are confusing me with one of the adherents to the Religion of Peace, issacbubbamaci. Nothing in my comments is related to any sort of threat of violence–nothing–and only a confused and delusional soul, such as yours, would read anything about getting a rope into my comments. The old and famous saying comes to mind–THE EYE THAT DISTORTS, DISTORTS ALL. Yeah. I think that’s it. Get a grip. Not everyone advocates violence when they disapprove of something.
“…it separates the workings of the nation from the private hobbies of its citizens.”
Isn’t that the truth!? Our citizens are so obsessed with their private lives that those “working the nation” do so unfettered by said citizens entanglement in their {spit} constitutional duties.
The greatest myth issac or any other secular progressive won’t admit to is ANY form of government will fail when they hold themselves accountable to no higher power AND above the rule of law. Public service requires humility which is in limited supply in this country.
There is an inherent contradiction when someone backs up their word by linking it to something so disconnected with American secular laws as bibles, talmuds, korans, or DC comic books. The DC comic books are equal to the rest of the fairy tales. When one enters into the secular world of American law, justice, and public service that person must unequivocally pledge allegiance to the law, the constitution, and/or the office(s) to which they are entering. This world is a living and evolving entity that has grown in its humanistic achievements primarily because it separates the workings of the nation from the private hobbies of its citizens. There is nothing else. Anything else serves to dilute or contradict the purpose of the ceremony.
It is also interesting to see who is attracted to comment. We have Bam Bam who believes, ‘Get a rope.’, our resident PI who can’t help linking anything, regardless of meaning, to Obama, and level headed Darren who simply digs out a definition for all to see.
Where are people getting this notion that the book you put your hand on while reciting your oath is in some way connected to the rules the judge will enforce? Catholic Judges who swear in on a Bible are not pledging to enforce Vatican law… The purpose of the holy book (whether it be a Koran, a Bible, a Talmud, or whatever) is to symbolize that the person is swearing to whatever God he believes in that he will follow the oath he is promising (in this case the oath promising to support and defend the Constitution). Having a Muslim swear on a Bible is as meaningless as having a Christian swear on a Koran – if it’s not their faith, making a promise under it is meaningless.
No harm, no foul. If you are Muslim then it is the right book.
philat,
Good link, if that is what will make him honor it then good on him.
This nation is absolutely incompetent when it comes to what is required for good citizenship. Maybe it’s because our federalist system has allowed the power of government to be centered predominantly in D.C.; but the people seem to treat those taking these oaths of office as untouchable entities. It is no mystery and our founding fathers provided ample warnings that NONE OF THEM are to be trusted to honor their oath. We are not supposed to elect them without vetting them and then once in office we are supposed to make sure they in fact honor the oath. This is why I am registered Independent. I WILL support ANY candidate that will honor their oath of office. If this Judge proves herself honorable then I don’t care if she takes her oath on a ham sandwich.