Judge receives threats after being sworn in on Koran

[mystery-ak]

http://nypost.com/2015/12/17/judge-receives-death-threats-after-being-sworn-in-on-koran/



Metro
Judge receives threats after being sworn in on Koran

By Tina Moore and Bob Fredericks

December 17, 2015 | 2:30am



The NYPD hate-crimes unit is investigating threats made to a Brooklyn Civil Court judge who was sworn in on a Koran, The Post has learned.

Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo got two calls at 11:30 a.m. Tuesday at the courthouse on Schermerhorn Street, law enforcement sources said on Wednesday.

“You are not an American because you got sworn in on a Koran,” a male caller said.

“You’re a terrorist; we are going to get you,” a woman said in the second call.

David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the state’s courts, said judges need only swear an oath of office that they will uphold the law, and that there are no requirements to use a religious text.

“You can be sworn in on a comic book. You don’t need to sign in on anything; you just need to sign your oath,” he said.

Many judges use no religious text, while others use the Bible or the Talmud if they are religious, he added.

He could not recall if any other judge has used a Koran.

The phone threats followed a backlash on Facebook and Twitter after the judge posted a video of her swearing-in ceremony last Thursday on Facebook.

And they come at a time when anti-Muslim feelings are running high following the jihadi attacks in Paris and California.

“New York deserves everything it gets. #Wakeup­America Carolyn Walker-Diallo, Muslim judge, sworn in on Koran,” Ray Ortega wrote on Twitter.

“Warning a true patriot will take action,” threatened a user named Chris, a self-described disabled veteran and supporter of Donald Trump, who has called for a halt to Muslim immigration.

Experts said there was no reason for her not to be sworn in on the Koran since she is a Muslim.

“Not only can she, but she should,” Eugene Volokh, a religious scholar, wrote in the Washington Post.

[DCPatriot]

And nobody but nobody can convince me that on BOTH Obama Inaugurations, that he purposely effed up the Oath and had retaken it again out of the public eye.

Again...Occam's Razor.

[ABX]

The point of swearing in on a holy book is that it should have some meaning to you, it isn't just symbolic but you are swearing an oath based on your faith. It wouldn't make sense for a Muslim to be sworn in on a Bible any more than a Buddhist to be sworn in on a Koran.

I guess we'll add this as 1,258,963 in the list of things people were offended at this year.

[flowers]

And nobody but nobody can convince me that on BOTH Obama Inaugurations, that he purposely effed up the Oath and had retaken it again out of the public eye.

Again...Occam's Razor.

I have always thought that.

[mountaineer]

“You can be sworn in on a comic book."

That's pretty much what she did.

[DCPatriot]

The point of swearing in on a holy book is that it should have some meaning to you, it isn't just symbolic but you are swearing an oath based on your faith. It wouldn't make sense for a Muslim to be sworn in on a Bible any more than a Buddhist to be sworn in on a Koran.

I guess we'll add this as 1,258,963 in the list of things people were offended at this year.

I totally understand your point. 

Mine was that rather than doing it in the open like this judge....he hid it from the general populace.

[raml]

No judge in the united states should be a Muslim they only believe in sharia law I hope something does happen to her to get her out of our courts. She just pledged on the book that means she is for sharia law and I really doibt even for a minuted she pledged to our laws and our justice system. People are fools here in the united states.

[truth_seeker]

The validity of her swearing in is merely ceremonial. Our legal system is based on English Common Law, and her rulings will be overturned on appeal, if they do not conform to our laws and precedents.

I doubt that will assuage the hand-wringing, however.

[Fishrrman]

I contend that being sworn in using a quran represents something completely different than the traditional use of The Bible for such practices, or even a Talmud (is that what Jewish folk use?).

The Bible does not proclaim itself to be a form of government on earth, as does the quran.
It's intended to be a guide for leading one toward the world beyond -- even though living by such principles can benefit those here on Earth, of course.

With the Bible, the Earthly world remains Caeser's, and the world elsewhere, God's.

Hence, "swearing on the Bible" is offered (by the oath-taker) as evidence of one's moral character and faith, but such offering is not in conflict with man-made Constitutional laws.

The quran makes no such distinctions, recognizes none.
Indeed, it offers its own earthly code of behavior -- sharia, which it enforces the same as the laws enacted by civilian government.
In islam, sharia often takes precedence over "civilian law".
There are no government penalties for being "a poor Christian".
But violate sharia, and you could have your head cut off.

This is why the substitution of the quran is not only meaningless, it instead symbolizes a direct threat to our Constitutional government. To believe in the quran is to believe in sharia, to accept its supremacy over Constitutional laws.

One cannot be "faithful" to the quran, and faithful to the Constitution.
It simply cannot be.

Either the quran oath-taker is an apostate, or she is deceiving us (taqiyya).

Which is it?

[Right_in_Virginia]

The point of swearing in on a holy book is that it should have some meaning to you, it isn't just symbolic but you are swearing an oath based on your faith.

She's being sworn in as a judge.  Does not Sharia Law as called for in the Koran conflict with the US Constitution?  Which is she swearing to uphold?