Posted on 12/16/2015 8:11:46 AM PST by yoe
A routine municipal ceremony has become seeped in controversy after a Brooklyn Civil Court judge was sworn in using a Koran.
Carolyn Walker-Diallo, who was elected last month in Brooklyn’s 7th Municipal District, took her oath of office Thursday using the holy book of Islam as a testament to her Muslim faith.
The swearing-in session went off without a hitch, but after attendees posted video of the ceremony to social media, the backlash became so severe that some of Walker-Diallo’s supporters became concerned for her safety.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
I wonder if she buries explosives in her spare time.
I posit “yes”.
Of course.
It meant no religious test for CHRISTIAN doctrine. The fear of that time was that there would be doctrine based discrimination between the various denominations of Christianity which were then official religions in many states.
Then why didn't they say that? Why not exclude Jews, Muslims, Druids, and anyone else who was not Christian?
As with everything else, modern lawyers deliberately misinterpret the meaning according to their own modern notions of what those words mean.
Or maybe they just aren't that imaginative?
This is what Abraham Lincoln thought on the subject.
Again Jews, Seventh-Day Adventist and similar creeds were out of luck. So is it OK to exclude them from office?
Islam should not be tolerated in the United States. It should not be tolerated anywhere in the world, for that matter. If we have to change the Constitution to bar Islam, then that is what we should do.
That's what it would take.
The Christian foundation principle of "equality" is rejected by Islamic doctrine. Slavery in America is itself a product of Islam. Islam is no more compatible with our nation than was slavery.
I'd forgotten how entertaining your stuff was.
In your dreams.....CAIR and all Muslim oranizations are already poised to defend her and SHARIA LAW.......the enemy just walked in and took over an United States court room in Brooklyn, NY.
Am I imagining this or is there a crescent superimposed on the scales of justice?
She did affirm to uphold the US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of NY...so help me God.
But then there’s takkiya.
When the judge was sworn in on the Koran did she swear to uphold justice according the teachings of Allah?
[Wake up, America}
Christ Christ appointed a Muslim as a New Jersey State Judge.
excerpt...New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) so far hasn’t weighed in on the controversy, but the 2016 GOP contender has faced past criticism from his party on this issue for another reason: He stood by his nomination of a Muslim man to be a state judge, despite concerns from some Republicans that the man was a terrorist and would implement Sharia law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-christie-muslim-judge_5600202ee4b00310edf7c09b
If she is not a duly sworn officer of the court, her rulings have no weight. If you can establish that swearing on a comic book does not constitute a valid oath, and that a valid oath is necessary to qualify her as a sworn officer, then she must either swear a valid oath or go away.
Unless the swearing-in is just a meaningless formality and something else constitutes the investment of a judge with temporal authority.
That's because she now has a regular income stream so she can order pizza 5 times a week.
Two big "ifs".
...seeped in controversy....
&&&
???
Nobody caught that...but I LOL!
When Trump is President, he will have to form a separate task force to root out all the Muslims in the country-—including the ones holding office.
No prudent person lets the fox into the hen house.
It is also a feeder court for the State's Supreme Court--which, despite the name, is the trial level court of NY (think of "supreme" as meaning "superior"). If you serve well on Civil, you frequently move up to Supreme.
Just an FYI. This is a real court, a real judgeship.
Yes it is. But it isn't a criminal court. It doesn't handle constitutional issues. It handles small civil cases. I don't see where fear of Sharia enters into it, but as you pointed out their cases can be reviewed by the state Supreme Court so if this judge does inject Sharia law into her decisions they will be struck down on appeal.
Because they didn't realize people would eventually become so stupid. Again, look at Abraham Lincoln's opinion on the issue. You generally like his claims regarding what the constitution means. At least you like them when they agree with your own personal preferences.
I'd forgotten how entertaining your stuff was.
I fully remembered how much of a deliberately contrarian child you are. I generally don't bother to devote much effort to any response to you. Why cast pearls before swine?
It's lucky we have you to tell us what they really meant then, isn't it? </sarcasm>
Again, look at Abraham Lincoln's opinion on the issue.
You take Lincoln's proclamation on the Sabbath for the Army and project that into meaning that the Founders meant that only Christians, except for Seventh-Day Adventists, could be eligible for office. You do have a vivid imagination.
You generally like his claims regarding what the constitution means. At least you like them when they agree with your own personal preferences.
I don't see where the Constitution entered into what Lincoln wrote.
Given your chidlish level of comprehension, I expect you need a lot of people telling you what things really mean.
You take Lincoln's proclamation on the Sabbath for the Army and project that into meaning that the Founders meant that only Christians, except for Seventh-Day Adventists, could be eligible for office. You do have a vivid imagination.
No, I take Lincolns' blatant statement of this being a "Christian Nation" to mean exactly what he said. That a President could *ORDER* troops under his command to attend Christian services is a complete rejection of the modern theory that the national government was intended to be completely secular and non-biased regarding religion.
That General Order proves this modern understanding to be completely wrong.
I don't see where the Constitution entered into what Lincoln wrote.
This is why I don't like discussing anything with you. You have to be led by the hand, all the while you kick and scream about not wanting to go. You act like a little child.
Yes, I fully believe that you don't have the background in history to understand things such as this. You have no understanding of the "zeitgeist" of any time period but your own, and I shouldn't be surprised if you are even out of touch with your own.
Yeah well if you find someone who can then let me know. I'm sure not getting it from you.
That a President could *ORDER* troops under his command to attend Christian services is a complete rejection of the modern theory that the national government was intended to be completely secular and non-biased regarding religion.
Now who has the comprehension problem? Lincoln says "desires and enjoins" and you claim it's an *ORDER*.
That General Order proves this modern understanding to be completely wrong.
Of course it does.
This is why I don't like discussing anything with you. You have to be led by the hand, all the while you kick and scream about not wanting to go. You act like a little child.
To wind up in the odd-ball places that you inhabit? I can't imagine any other way a rational person could get there other than being led by the hand.
Yes, I fully believe that you don't have the background in history to understand things such as this.
Oh I have a very good understanding of history. It just doesn't have your wacky slant. And your claim that the Founders only meant the "no religious test" clause to apply to Christian sects only, and that Jews or Muslims or any non Christian religion could be prohibited from public office at will is definitely in that category.
You can lead a horse's ass to water, but you can't make it drink.
Now who has the comprehension problem? Lincoln says "desires and enjoins" and you claim it's an *ORDER*.
The word "ORDER" is at the top of the page. You know, in the headline.
You really are a waste of my time. I'm probably just going to ignore you now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.