[Steve]

A black Muslim American woman sparked an online outrage when she took her oath as a judge in Brooklyn, New York City, placing her hand and swearing not on the Bible as is the usual practice but on the Quran, Islam's holy book.

Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo was sworn in on Dec. 10 as a New York City Civil Court Judge for the 7th Municipal District at the Brooklyn Burough Hall, New York, after being elected last month, Raw Story reported.

A video footage of the event was posted on Facebook by community activist and litigator Mohammed Mujumder.

Immediately, the post on Mujumder's Facebook page drew angry comments from numerous social media users.

Some users raised concerns that Walker-Diallo might institute Sharia law from her East New York City bench. Others warned that this is another sign that Islam will eventually take over America.

Terrie wrote: "Just a short time before Sharia law is implemented. What idiots allow this."

Simon Shears warned: "This is but one of the many signs that unless we do something, anything, not just our way of life but our lives will be put to an end..."

"How is using anything other than the holy Bible to be sworn in acceptable?" wrote Randy Helms.

Andrew Green added: "Absolutely disgusting. What a shame and pitiful place New York has become."

Ray Ivy wrote: "That is so sick, she should be arrested for that."

Other users wrote, "This is a sad day for America!" and "Makes me sick."

Tom Horne described in more detail the alleged threat facing America: "Those who have never served our country have no idea what their freedom is, it is a fragile thing and they are working to overthrow us from the inside and out. It is one thing to be kind it is another to be foolish. When they are holding you, about to chop off your head, I would like nothing more [than] to hear your opinion at that time. You hear and read information spoon-fed to you [by the] media from our government – it will not be long [when] all of you soft-headed people will scream and moan and cry out to God but he will not hear you."

Robert P. Schwartz asked: "What happened to the AMERICAN TRADITION OF A BIBLE ??????????????????????????"

Linda Brice Burleson tried to explain what's happening: "In thinking about this, I believe it is foolish for Muslims to be in positions of authority. It's just asking for trouble; but there is no point in swearing them in on Bibles, since the Bible means nothing to them. Unfortunately, their holy book tells them it is okay to say and do whatever furthers the cause of Islam."

President Barack Obama got himself dragged into the ruckus with some users posting memes accusing him of being a Muslim.

[Pigeon]

Meh, it's her religion, so it makes more sense than swearing on the bible. Swearing on the bible as a practice in law needs to end in any secular country.

[Oswald2001]

It's like allowing her to swear in on a copy of Mein Kampf.

It should not only be disallowed, it should be an immediately jailable offense.


The low life Ghetto Trash Black Panther type product of...da Black ******* should be packed off to Syria and dropped off 5 miles from ISIS lines.

Den da sista can 'splain all 'bout da rebolution to all huh fellow moo slums.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Oswald2001 ↗

It's like allowing her to swear in on a copy of Mein Kampf.

It should not only be disallowed, it should be an immediately jailable offense.


The low life Ghetto Trash Black Panther type product of...da Black ******* should be packed off to Syria and dropped off 5 miles from ISIS lines.

Den da sista can 'splain all 'bout da rebolution to all huh fellow moo slums.

Try typing English, and yes I am mocking you retard.

[Illusion]

Tl;dr

You can swear or promise on whatever the fuck you like.

[facing_reality]

Originally Posted by Illusion ↗

Tl;dr

You can swear or promise on whatever the fuck you like.

Totally disagree. I don't mind if you get rid of the Bible (actually, I do mind. Symbolism is necessary for a culture, and answering to a "higher power" of justice is a good thing.) But raising your right hand is adequate.

This was a political statement in a huge way. Whether you guys like it or not, New Testament Christian morality IS the basis for this country's system of law. (Yes, go into Ur-Nammu, Hammurabi, and even Vedic Law -- my statement still stands.) I've already stated that raising your hand is adequate, but the symbolism of the Bible at least has a connection with the past of this nation, and a common morality. Saying you "can swear on whatever you want," means the person can swear on a roll of toilet paper, the "KKK's Knot Tying Handbook," or "The Anarchist's Cookbook."

Remember, the book that she's swearing on tells her how to run a society: a society that should've been dead 1,000 years ago. That ancient society isn't just about personal ethics, which is how we used the Bible for our inspiration for our law. It's an ACTUAL system of law, one that directly contradicts the law she's supposed to be upholding.

I mean you guys are okay with men beating their wives, women not going to school, being a slave (at best) because you don't worship Allah, and (worst of all) listening to that god-awful loudspeaker call to prayer (the Azhan) five-times-a-fucking-day?

Has PC taken over so completely that you guys honestly feel that first-world, "Western" civilizations' values and morality are interchangeable with the dark age nonsense of Islam?!?

"Relax, bro! It's all good!" Is that it?

Here's the real question: do you really want that person, with that ethos, sitting in judgement of you???

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by facing_reality ↗

Totally disagree. I don't mind if you get rid of the Bible (actually, I do mind. Symbolism is necessary for a culture, and answering to a "higher power" of justice is a good thing.) But raising your right hand is adequate.

This was a political statement in a huge way. Whether you guys like it or not, New Testament Christian morality IS the basis for this country's system of law. (Yes, go into Ur-Nammu, Hammurabi, and even Vedic Law -- my statement still stands.) I've already stated that raising your hand is adequate, but the symbolism of the Bible at least has a connection with the past of this nation, and a common morality. Saying you "can swear on whatever you want," means the person can swear on a roll of toilet paper, the "KKK's Knot Tying Handbook," or "The Anarchist's Cookbook."

Remember, the book that she's swearing on tells her how to run a society: a society that should've been dead 1,000 years ago. That ancient society isn't just about personal ethics, which is how we used the Bible for our inspiration for our law. It's an ACTUAL system of law, one that directly contradicts the law she's supposed to be upholding.

I mean you guys are okay with men beating their wives, women not going to school, being a slave (at best) because you don't worship Allah, and (worst of all) listening to that god-awful loudspeaker call to prayer (the Azhan) five-times-a-fucking-day?

Has PC taken over so completely that you guys honestly feel that first-world, "Western" civilizations' values and morality are interchangeable with the dark age nonsense of Islam?!?

"Relax, bro! It's all good!" Is that it?

Here's the real question: do you really want that person, with that ethos, sitting in judgement of you???

The whole concept of swearing an oath is that the person swearing the oath should take that oath seriously and do what he or she swears to do. The use of a (supposedly) holy book is supposed to be meaningful to the person swearing the oath. Of course there WILL be dumb redneck idiots somewhere that will see this and somehow equate this to an installation of "sharia law" in the US. Cue - threats of using guns to protect their family from the "sharia's".

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Illusion ↗

The whole concept of swearing an oath is that the person swearing the oath should take that oath seriously and do what he or she swears to do. The use of a (supposedly) holy book is supposed to be meaningful to the person swearing the oath. Of course there WILL be dumb redneck idiots somewhere that will see this and somehow equate this to an installation of "sharia law" in the US. Cue - threats of using guns to protect their family from the "sharia's".

And they will!!!!

[Wildrice]

Is this even news? wtf

[facing_reality]

Originally Posted by Illusion ↗

The whole concept of swearing an oath is that the person swearing the oath should take that oath seriously and do what he or she swears to do. The use of a (supposedly) holy book is supposed to be meaningful to the person swearing the oath. Of course there WILL be dumb redneck idiots somewhere that will see this and somehow equate this to an installation of "sharia law" in the US. Cue - threats of using guns to protect their family from the "sharia's".

OK. So you answered one of my questions: it's not a problem at all if a political official were to swear on the "The KKK's 101 BBQ Recipes For Dark Meat." As long as that person took his or her oath seriously, the book should not even be considered symbolic, but meaningless by the public, so long as it has meaning to the oath-taker.

So back to my other assertion, which is that if a prop is purely ceremonial, and the meaning is removed (i.e. that which ties it to a common cultural history, idea, or ideal,) why have the book at all? You are aware they don't have to swear on any "Holy Book," right?