Muslim Woman Sworn in as New York Judge While Taking Oath on Koran

Diallo-compressedNEW YORK — A Muslim woman was recently sworn in as a judge in New York City, choosing to take her oath on the Koran instead of the Bible.

After being elected to the position last month, Carolyn Walker-Diallo was sworn in last Thursday as a civil judge for the 7th Municipal District at Brooklyn Borough Hall. She wore a hijab as she repeated her oath with one hand placed on the Koran.

“I, Carolyn Walker-Diallo, do solemnly affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as judge of the civil court of the city of New York, so help me God,” she repeated.

A video of Walker-Diallo taking the oath was posted to Facebook, with a description stating, “Judge Walker sworn in as a judge holding the Holy Quran at the Brooklyn Borough Hall.”

Walker-Diallo had offered thanks to Allah on her campaign website after winning the seat in November.

“All praise is indeed due to the Most High!” she wrote. “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.”

Public reaction has been mixed over whether Walker-Diallo should have been allowed to take her oath on the Koran.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The problem is that America isn’t a Christian nation. It’s supposed to accept all religions and be a nation that accepts people regardless of their race, religion, and now sexual orientation,” one commenter wrote. “If we don’t allow all to be equal and free, then we lose the essence that makes us truly American.”

“In thinking about this, I believe it is foolish for Muslims to be in positions of authority,” another stated. “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.”

“Allah is not God. How does a person swearing to the law of a foreign political organization administer law based upon God’s word?” a third asked. “How does Islamic law apply in a sovereign U.S. court, Judge Walker? You know it can’t and you don’t believe in God’s law.”

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Michael C

    Umm, how does biblical law apply in a sovereign U.S. court?

    Better question, why would anyone write an article quoting random anonymous internet comments?


      Quite a collection of ignorance. Common sense suggests that these conservative Christians would be cautious about denigrating other religions. It will be interesting to see if Evangelical Christians go on to support Trump.

      • brucefl56

        sorry, you mean a false religion She said God, not Allah the two are not the same

    • brucefl56

      she did say God, allah is not the same. Render unto God that which is God’s and under Caesar that which is Caesar. People forget our forefathers backgrounds.


        First of all, the correct quote is “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” and the context was Jesus’ opinion of paying Roman taxes. How this is applicable is beyond me. Many of your equal fellow citizens are not Christian. We are not a Christian nation — never have been.

        • JeffreyRo55

          The sodomite quoting the Bible – that’s so funny.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The so-called sodomite knowing the Bible better than you – even funnier.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Actually he is right.

        • brucefl56

          The Bible was used in schools and colleges, it was more a Christian Nation than what the Liberals have made it.

          • gizmo23

            It was also a nation that enslaved people and practiced genocide on it’s natives

          • The Last Trump

            Wasn’t that nice of all the Christians to put a stop to such barbarity?
            Oh, you thought the atheists did that? How naïve.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            And it is a better nation now than it was then.

  • brucefl56

    quran is not Holy….

    • blankman

      Yes it is. Or are you claiming that only YOUR book is holy? And if you are, how do you know that?

  • JeffreyRo55

    Swearing on the book that instructs her to kill infidels.
    That’s where “multiculti” leads – we end up tolerating a death cult.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “Swearing on the book that instructs her to kill infidels.”

      You mean the Bible?

      “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die;”

      (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

      • afchief

        Why are you here? You have NO idea about the Word of God. NONE! We as Christians do not live under the Old Covenant. We live under the New Covenant now.

        Do not post scripture you have NO idea about!!!

        • TheKingOfRhye

          OK, maybe I don’t really know….tell me then, where exactly does it say which things don’t apply to Christians today? People like you seem to have no problem citing the Old Testament when it’s for something like saying homosexuality is an abomination and worthy of death and so forth. How is that that still applies, and other things don’t?

          • TampaZeke

            Why do all atheistrolls think you know the Bible?

            You’re morons.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t claim to know more about it than anybody. I do think, though, I know more about the Bible than a lot of Christians know about atheism. (and there’s not really a lot to know, at that)

          • afchief

            We live under the New Covenant. Homosexualty is still an abomination today. However, we do not put them to death like they did during the old covenant times. Judgement comes when you leave this earth if you are not a Christian.

            Hebrews 9:27 (NASB) And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

            Today God judges no one. Judgement comes when you leave this earth. God wishes all to come to repentance and accept Him as their Lord and Savior. The choice is yours.

          • Ken Faivor

            God judges no one today?…………..better tighten your seat belt, you may be going on a hell of a ride during the tribulation.

          • afchief

            Whether we as Christians go through the tribulation period is yet to be seen. There is scripture that states we won’t and there is scripture that says we will.

            I will leave it up to God and trust Him everyday of my life.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I am seriously asking this now, how is that some things apply still and some don’t? Where do you draw the line? Or am I just totally missing something here?

          • Snowflake0446

            It’s actually pretty simple. Just read the New Testament. All the items listed there apply now. If the New Testament doesn’t “undo” the item, then it remains. So, for example, the New Testament says that Jesus is the one-for-all (not in those words) sacrifice for sins. Thus the sacrifices and offerings the law stated are no longer required. If you want to be fruitful and multiple, feel free to do so. The New Testament doesn’t say one way or the other except under a specific circumstance where there was coming danger.

            The New Testament actually increases the line of sin. For example, adultery is unlawful in the OT. But lust is now a sin in the New Testament. But the penalty for lust or adultery is the same under the New Testament….nothing. That is, there is no penalty on this Earth that is prescribed, unless you are a believer in Christ. Then you need to do some things. “Confess your sins one to another”…stuff like that.

            But shouldn’t you know this if you understand the Bible? The Pauline Epistles were pretty explicit in how the Law was overcome (replaced) by grace.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t claim to be a Bible expert or anything, thanks for at least explaining it somewhat, anyway. I guess next question is where does the NT “undo” the passage I quoted?

            And didn’t Jesus say “think not that I am
            come to destroy the law” (Matthew 5:17)

          • Snowflake0446

            I have(had) another comment, but the moderator is working on approving it.

            What is the context of this passage? What was Jesus saying? Who was He saying it to? Why did He say it? All these questions should come to your mind when you read any passage. Never take a passage out to context.

            So here’s the full paragraph: “17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

            Now you should be asking yourself, in the context of this passage, “What would fulfill the law?” “What was the law all about?” “Is the law just the 10 commandments?” – Hopefully you’ve quickly come back with a NO on this one. If you haven’t then I recommend you read the entire book of Exodus and then the entire book of Deuteronomy (which means 2nd law giving). Feel free to add to it Leviticus as well.

            So, hopefully having accomplished all that I mentioned above at this point…and believe me if you try to short cut the process, I guarantee you will be lost from this moment on in my statements… The law was never intended to save anyone from anything. It was only meant as a teacher.

            Romans 2 is where Paul talks about how the law didn’t fix the problems. It wasn’t complete because people, especially the teachers of the day, would simply say that they were perfect (completed the law) while messing up: “17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth—21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

            25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

            28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.”

            So you see from this passage and here’s another one. Matt 23:…24″You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25″Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.26″You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.…

            See, here’s the problem. The law was never meant to save us. It was only meant to show us that no matter how hard we tried, we could never, ever meet up with its expectations.

            As you know, part of the law (again, I’m hoping you’ve read all those OT books I recommended), that sacrifice was the only way each year for God to continue to walk with the Israelites. Yom Kippur…the day of atonement. As you read, this is the day when a clean lamb was sacrificed, it’s blood poured out onto the center of the Arc of the Covenant (people say that without thinking. This was an artifact, an Arc, that represented the promise to the Jews…covenant. The promise was that God would be with them.) So now only the high priest (who is selected and as you read does lots of stuff in preparation) goes in an pour this blood on the center of the Arc…a place called the “Mercy Seat”. By doing this, IF the blood was accepted, IF the High Priest did it right (perfectly), then the sins of Israel would be overlooked…covered for one more year. Big process. No small matter.

            So here you see Jesus say, “I’m here to fulfill the law.” Let’s cut to the chase. But read all of Romans after you read this. Romans 13:”8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

            Love is the fulfillment of the law…which brings us finally to? John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him shall have everlasting life”.

            Jesus is the fulfillment of the law because He was God’s love for all of mankind.

            I will not go into why the law was not “full”. Again, read Romans. God through Paul explains it all there.

            So, please tell me I didn’t just waste part of my life explaining all this to you so that you can just shove it in my face.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, interesting stuff….really, I shouldn’t be here to debate points in the Bible, anyway. I’m honestly trying to figure out why the story about the Muslim woman is even really a story at all….

          • Snowflake0446

            That is a good question. Here’s my understanding. 1) The Qur’an is indeed a text held sacred. Nothing wrong with that. However, it’s the content of that book. I would think it would be one of the key passages in the Qur’an that would cause pause in all of us:

            The Qur’an:
            Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

            Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”

            Qur’an (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

            Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.

            Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

            Qur’an (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”

            Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

            However, the Bible (another sacred text) actually says the opposite…never lie. Always tell the truth:

            Matt 5:37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

            John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

            Mark 10:19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.'”

            …and I could go on and on. Not one single place in the Bible is there a verse that would suggest that a lie be performed…even to the death of the person who must tell the truth.

            2) The Qur’an invites Sharia law. As you know Sharia law is the law derived from the Qur’an. As such it has certain requirements. A) many of those requirement are against the US Constitution. B) They forbid a woman to be over a man in anything. (This is problematic for the Judge who will now be “over” a man as she judges him).

            3) As I mentioned above, the Qur’an’s sacred text is now implemented as Sharia law which is not in full agreement with the US Constitution and its amendments….such as woman suffrage and the like.

            So, the questions that you and everyone else should be asking are: 1) Will this judge now violate her religion when it comes to obeying the Constitution? 2) Will this judge step down when there is a male defendant? 3) Will this judge have occasion to lie while on the Judges bench? 4) Since the witness is sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth…isn’t the Qur’an violate that oath – after all there are occasions for lies?

            Hope this helps.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m starting to agree with what I’ve heard some people say, let’s just do away altogether with people swearing on a religious text, Bible or Koran or what-have-you, have people swear on the Constitution perhaps. As for point #2 there, aren’t there people that say the Bible has justification for similar beliefs? “The head of woman is the man”, and so forth.

            Like I’ve said before, we actually went through all this 9 years ago, there was a US Representative, Keith Ellison, who’s a Muslim and swore on the Koran (Thomas Jefferson’s copy, at that!)

          • Coach

            Seek the Lord while He may be found

          • Snowflake0446

            Oh…and one other item: My time wasn’t worth “OK Interesting stuff….really”. What I offered was not to debate, but simply answer your question. I’ll keep this in mind for any future engagements.

          • afchief

            The sacrifice for sins in the OT was done by priests who sacrificed animals for the peoples sins. Today Jesus is the final sacrifice for everyone’s sins. The Jews had a lot of rules and rituals they had to follow. Today we have no rules or rituals to follow. Today we walk by the Spirit and let him lead and guide us into all truth. We still sin, but we Christians are all priests and can go to God anytime to confess our sins.

            Like I said the majority of sins in the OT are still sins today i.e. murder, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lying, etc. Sin is sin. It is what separates us from God.

          • wisdomandtruth

            Romans 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

      • Ray Capps

        First of all. We don’t live by any set of standards written in either book. We live under a Constitutional Government. Our congress writes our laws, and our police and courts enforce them. I don’t care what book you place your hand on as long as you take an oath to enforce the constitutionally mandated laws of this nation and live by that oath. It doesn’t matter. Yes Congress used the Judeo Christian bible as a guideline for determining our laws and the proper punishment for not obeying them, because they felt that it was the best way known to man. But they did not compel us to live in the strictest terms of any one religious book or religious doctrine. That is up to us. Not some judge. I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that he was crucified, buried, and rose again the third day. Not because some governmental agency has ordered me to be. Nor because I was told to believe or die.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          I actually completely agree with most of what you said there. I really just brought up that Bible passage to say that it says the same sort of thing as people are saying the Koran does.

          ” I don’t care what book you place your hand on as long as you take an
          oath to enforce the constitutionally mandated laws of this nation and
          live by that oath.”

          Exactly! That’s what I’m talking about right there! I really don’t know why this even is a story in the first place. We already went through this whole thing 9 years ago, the US Representative Keith Ellison….

    • desert nudist

      It’s actually kind of scary when you see what the Qur’an teaches and knowing they’re coming to America, 100,000 a year.

      Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are harsh to the unbelievers but merciful to one another” Quran 48:29
      Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. – 2:216
      Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme – 8:39
      But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. – 4:89
      Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. – 9:41
      When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free,
      either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. – 47:4
      O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of
      each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God
      does not guide an unjust people. – 5:54
      Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the
      hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain
      or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. – Surah 4:74
      O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with
      them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end. – 9:73

  • daisy092326

    My ancestors were enslaved, kidnapped, raped, lynched & murdered by people who swore on the Holy Bible. So what’s the issue here?

    • 201821208 :)

      “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.” Matt. 7:21-23

    • ken

      Your ancestors were also sold as slaves by Africans, and the middlemen in the slave trade were Arab Muslims. To pin slavery on Christians alone proves you know nothing of history. Africans gladly enslaved other Africans, and Muslims were happy to profit from the slave trade.

      On the other hand, it was Christians who led the fight to abolish slavery.

      • gizmo23

        I guess there were no Christian slave owners in the south? C Columbus was a slave trader and he is held up to be a great man by Christians

        • Ken Faivor

          They found their verses to ease their conscience, as all “christians” who do wickedly do. They found this verse that justified their sin it in their minds, that their apostate preachers probably sold them.

          Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

        • The Last Trump

          At it again, huh?

    • TampaZeke

      Get over it, it’s 2015. No one owes you anything, you’re responsible for your own life.

  • hank

    Has anyone

  • 201821208 :)

    thereligionofpeace dot com/Quran/021-democracy dot htm

  • FoJC_Forever

    Islam is not centered on justice and fairness. Islam is a pagan religion, just like any other pagan religion. It is propagated by demons to deceive people.

    Follow Jesus, find Salvation.

  • Brewerofbeers

    Unsurprising that Talibaptists would be so enraged by religious freedom.

  • SFBruce

    As long as she’s qualified, her religion is irrelevant. I also note she has been elected to the bench.

  • TheKingOfRhye

    Would people rather have her take an oath on the Bible, when obviously the Koran is the book that means more to her? And if anyone says something like “that’s not the true religion”, that’s not the point. It’s like if a Christian took an oath on the Koran: what would it mean to them?

    Honestly, I wonder how anyone even calls this a news story. A Muslim takes an oath on the Koran; what do people expect? It’s not like it’s the first time such a thing has happened, there’s a Muslim in Congress, if I’m not mistaken.

  • afchief

    One must understand that Islam is not a religion, it is a political system meant to regulate one’s life. The goal of this system is to extend to the whole planet, there will not be a moderate Islam: it doesn’t exist. Islam is a real problem especially to us, western people: we mistakenly think it is a religion like Christianity. It is not!

    It is a mean to conquer the world, and Muslim will never change their ways.

    It is not a religion of peace, quite the contrary.

    Don’t listen to liberals/communist telling you Islam is Ok.

    Don’t fall for the trick of the free practice of a religion, as Islam is not a religion.

    Islam is NOT compatible with our Constitution. It is evil!!!

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Okay, define “religion.” Cite your source.

      • Martin Smit

        There are several excellent on-line dictionary sites. You can find answers to all your word-definition-related questions there.

  • Ken Faivor

    I never understood why a Christian would ever swear on the Bible anyway when the Bible specifically tells us not to swear at all.

    Mat 5:34 but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God;
    Mat 5:35 nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
    Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black.
    Mat 5:37 But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.

    Jas 4:13 Come now, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will go into this city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain:
    Jas 4:14 whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life? For ye are a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
    Jas 4:15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and do this or that.
    Jas 4:16 But now ye glory in your vauntings: all such glorying is evil.

    • blankman

      As a point of fact the US Presidential Oath of Office doesn’t have to be sworn on a Bible (and there have been a number of incoming presidents that didn’t do so). The only reason that Washington used a Bible was because he took the oath in New York and, at the time, the law of the state said that oaths were not valid unless sworn on a Bible. Point of trivia – that’s why the Washington Bible is from a Masonic lodge – that was the only place they could find a Bible at short notice so the ceremony could go on.

      Another point – according to the Constitution an incoming president doesn’t even have to “swear” – he/she can simply “affirm” that they will do their duties.

  • Snowflake0446

    This is one more step for the inroad of Sharia law. I wonder how Sharia law would affect her stand as a judge? My guess? She doesn’t have a prayer of retaining her position under Sharia law.

  • Becky

    “A Muslim woman was recently sworn in as a judge in New York City, choosing to take her oath on the Koran instead of the Bible.”

    And, what say you, FFRF? ((((crickets chirping))))

    • Random dude

      She didn’t break any laws, notice how the FFRF hasn’t done anything about all the other politicians being sworn in on the bible?

      • Becky

        I agree that she didn’t break any laws, but you need to look into their lawsuits a little more closely. FFRF considers public official oaths “unconstitutional” and they are diligently whittling away at them with their heathen lawsuits. In this case…well, actually they won’t make a case…it deals with Islam.

        • Random dude

          Can you give any examples in which they are whittling away at the legality of these oaths?

          • Becky

            Before Omuslim’s inauguration, they wrote letters to congress and lobbied at the Capitol to remove the Holy Bible from the oath and they did the same earlier this year.

          • Random dude

            All I’m seeing is that they asked Obama to drop the “under god” portion from the oath. Nothing to do with what you swear upon.

          • Becky

            Under god? Don’t know what you’re referring to, but that’s not in the oath. It’s, “So help me God.”

            It appears FFRF believes that our public/elected officials are upholding the Holy Bible, and not solely the constitution, by placing their hands upon it when reciting the oath. They just want to do away with the Holy Bible and Christianity, but they’re staying awfully quiet about anything islam.

          • Random dude

            Well according to the Pew Forum Christians make up roughly 70% of the country whereas Muslims only make up about .9%. Christianity has always been the most abundant religion in this country so it is more entrenched, and has had more opportunity to inject itself into our politics. The FFRF will intervene if Muslims decide to push their religion into aspects of our government where it doesn’t belong, but until then it’s intervening on those who already have.

          • Becky

            “The FFRF will intervene if Muslims decide to push their religion into aspects of our government where it doesn’t belong…”

            Lol! Here’s their chance.

          • Random dude

            Again, she hasn’t broken any laws.

          • Becky

            I agree. However, FFRF wouldn’t agree with that. The proof is in the puddin’. If that were a Christian judge making it nationally public that she wanted to place her hand on the Holy Bible while stating the oath, FFRF would be all over it. Since it’s islam…

          • Random dude

            Wow, bearing false witness and whatnot. There’s not one mention of the FFRF taking issue with judges using the bible to swear upon, but a simple search shows judges swearing on bibles, and referencing god in their acceptance speech’s.

          • Becky

            I know judges have done that, but that doesn’t mean that FFRF hasn’t acted upon it. Anyone can easily google FFRF’s actions…against the Holy Bible and the oath…that they took up with congress and not judges! It’s no secret.

            I’m wasting my time. You didn’t even know what I was initially referring to…”under god”. There’s no “under god” in the oath. Get your facts straight, then maybe we can have a discussion.

          • Random dude

            You’re wasting both of our time seeing as you can’t give me a concrete example of when the FFRF acted upon a judge swearing upon the bible. I don’t need to get any facts straight yet because you haven’t offered any.

          • Cady555

            Christians publicly swear on the bible all the time. It’s a personal choice and it’s legal.

            It would be illegal for a judge require people appearing in court to swear on a specific holy book. Then the FFRF might step in.

            I personally believe that when promising to defend the Constitution, one should place their hand on the Constitution not a religious text. I might someday write a letter to a politician suggesting this. But that would just be my opinion, not much different from the thousands of other opinions expressed in letters to politicians.

          • Cady555

            A letter is not a lawsuit. Surely you are aware that there is a teensy eensy difference.

          • Random dude

            Blatant persecution. Obviously.

          • Becky

            The lawsuits and letters are two different references. Nevertheless, their whittling is in motion…well, against Christianity and not islam.

        • Cady555

          Citation, please.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Why should they care?

      • Max T. Furr

        If you have to ask, then you don’t understand the Constitution or those who defend the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

    • Cady555

      They say exactly the same thing they say when a Christian places their hand on the bible when swearing an oath. It’s a personal choice.

      Now they would speak up if a judge – christian, muslim, or whatever – required someone else to swear on a specific holy book. But an individual choosing a book meaningful to themself? Whatevs.

      • Becky

        Oh, really?

        They’ve ranted for years that’s it’s a no-no. In fact, they do it every time a new president takes the oath of office and when there are newly elected officials in congress.

        The following quotes are sourced from the FFRF website from a letter they wrote to Omuslim in 2012.

        “When you stand to reaffirm your oath, do so using the language of the Founders. Eliminate the religious verbiage. While you’re at it, why not place your hand on the Constitution instead of a bible? The oath, laid out in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, is secular (no hand on the bible, no “so help me God”): “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

        “The “so help me God” tradition violates the Constitution in the act of promising to uphold it. The ritual alienates the demographic that elected officials must rely on in the coming years. It excludes the people that put you into office and runs against the wishes of the people that created your office. The Constitution does not mandate religious oaths; it prohibits them.”

        “The final tribal allegiance that must dissolve is not sex, or race, or sexual orientation. It is religion. Private citizens are free to maintain that allegiance if they choose, but it is time our government abandoned it.” (Source FFRFdotorg)

        FFRF, along with other heathen groups, control an organization called Secular Coalition for America (Source: “Foundation Joins Secular Coalition for America” FFRFdotorg Vol. 23 No. 3 April 2006). This organization has it on their bucket list to eliminate oaths using the bible and/or God and they, along with FFRF, wrote letters to congress earlier this year “reminding” them to stop using the bible and “So help me God” in their oaths.

        (ref: Atheists urge lawmakers to reject bible for swearing in, Washington Times January 2015)

        (ref: Atheists Seek to Dissuade Congress From Taking Oath on Bible, Christian News January 2015)

        • Cady555

          You wrote it yourself. “Atheists urge…” “Atheists seek to dissuade…”

          In other words, atheists have an opinion that they are free to express just like any other citizen.

          You will notice that there is no case law cited. This is because the FFRF can tell the difference between issues that are a matter of law (e.g. a mayor cannot use the authority of his office to proselytize or promote religious behavior in others) and matters of opinion (e.g. the individual elected to office has personal beliefs.)

          Omuslim? Really? I find it surprising how disrespectful christians are toward Mr. Obama, given the clear instructions, written at a time of pagan Roman rule, that Christians should respect those with government authority.

          • Becky


            First of all, I never wrote “Atheists urge” or “Atheists seek to dissuade”.

            Second, FFRF isn’t merely expressing their opinion, they are accusing officials of violating the constitution…it’s clearly written in their letters.

            Third, I never stated that it was a lawsuit…I made it very clear that they’re letters.

            Finally…in regards to Omuslim…thought you said we were all free to express our opinions? Or, is that right only for heathens? Actually, Romans 13:1-7 teaches that God’s people are to obey the laws of the land and the authorities who enforce those laws, unless those laws contradict God’s laws (Acts 5:29). So, is it illegal to speak your opinion? Absolutely not.

      • Max T. Furr

        It should not even be a choice. There should be no oaths to a deity at all for an elected or appointed government office. An oath on one’s own integrity to serve the office without prejudice is quite enough.

    • Max T. Furr

      There should be no oaths to a deity at all for an elected or appointed government office. An oath on one’s own integrity to serve the office without prejudice is quite enough.

  • iprazhm

    Muslims do not believe that Jesus is Lord or that he rose from the dead. They believe he was merely a prophet and a much lesser prophet than Mohammad. Here’s what the bible says about them;

    “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” 1 John 2:22-25

    “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” 2 John 1:9-11

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Okay so? Nobody said you had to be a Muslim.

      • iprazhm

        The Quran says I do. It calls me an infidel and orders either my death or for me to pay a tax to live as a slave.

        • Cady555

          The Bible says everyone must worship the biblical God. Start with the 10 Commandments and keep reading.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Breaking news, Muslims aren’t Christians! Who knew such a thing….

      • iprazhm

        My point exactly. There is no other religion on the earth that butchers unbelievers and whose mandates order it’s followers to die for it’s god, rape, beheadings, the cutting off of limbs and lowers women down to the level of cattle. It’s the only religion whose clear and precise goal is overthrow of all other religions and governments to make Sharia the law of the entire world. It’s in their Quran and Hadith. Islam is not compatible with our Constitution or our society.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          I’d just say to that, I don’t think fundamentalism or radicalism of any religion is compatible with our Constitution. Whether Islam is particularly more or less so, I’m not sure about that.

        • Cady555

          You might want to read some history. Note the conduct of Christians toward aboriginal people srounf the globe.

    • blankman

      So – how do you know that the Bible is true?

      • iprazhm

        Because I saw proof when I gave my life to Christ. I witnessed miracles over and over again. God hears us when we pray to Him if we give him our lives. He protects us when no man can. If I had the words to explain the ‘peace beyond all understanding’, I would, but I cannot, except to say you must experience it for yourself. alah did not perform one miracle. alah orders his people to die for him, Jesus orders us to live and He died for us so we would not have to suffer the wages of sin, which is death.

        • blankman

          That doesn’t answer the question. Your belief makes you feel good but that doesn’t prove the Bible is true.

          First, just so you know followers of the Abrahamic religions (Muslims, Christians and Jews) all worship the same god (as an aside, – record Allah is simply the Arabic word for god and is actually the term that Arabic Christians use for god.

          But that doesn’t answer the question – how do you know the Bible is true. We don’t even know who wrote most of it. More importantly “which Bible?” There are over 400,000 versions of the Bible in existence (that’s versions, not translations) and the don’t all agree. The major religions can’t even agree on how many books are in the Bible. The Jews have 24 books, the Protestants 39, the Catholics 46, and the Eastern Orthodox have 51. So which of the 400,000 versions is right, which is the perfect one handed down straight from God?

          I could elaborate by pointing out that no-one has ever seen or read a “real” bible. All we have are copies of translations of transcriptions of copies of copies … The original text wasn’t in English – the New Testament was written in Koine Greek and translated to Latin and then to English. The Old Testament was largely written in Ancient Hebrew and translated.

          And everytime it was copied by hand the copyists would make changes to ensure that the text agreed with their particular orthodoxy. [That’s assuming that they even understood what they were copying – in many cases they didn’t even speak the language of the text and were simply copying symbols.]

          FYI, in the early texts of the Bible Mark ended as 16:8. Everything after that was added by some later unknown scribe. By the same token the story of Jesus and the adulteress (“Let he who is without sin …”) didn’t appear in a single version of the text prior to the 12th century. I could go on.

          • iprazhm

            You totally just blew off my answer as if I’d said nothing. People who can’t understand the meaning of ‘miracle’,.. there’s no more conversation to be had.

          • blankman

            Sorry but the simple fact that you can’t explain something or that it had a very low probability of occurring does not mean that there was any supernatural involvement.

            As for the “miracles” recorded in the Bible what makes you think any of them are true? After all there are no contemporary historical records of Jesus. Even the Gospels were written years (decades actually) after his death (which, if the Bible is to be believed occurred in either 30 or 33 C.E.) so whoever wrote them is recounting second or third hand stories.

        • Max T. Furr

          Your argument presents us with a classic logical fallacy–circular reasoning (the Catch 22 argument).

          Please indulge me for a moment. This is not a condescension of belief, but a differentiation of viewpoints on what constitutes “evidence.”

          First, I should note that I was once a de facto fundamentalist Christian, myself. But, I had three experiences that convinced me otherwise–the first being in high school Bible class (a public school) when the teacher could not explain a contradiction I’d found in my studies–and nor could my preacher; the second occurred after arguing with an atheist during Army Basic Training, which made me realize the depth of my ignorance; and the third–the one that truly awakened me–was my argument with three Mormons who where trying to convert me.

          After a lengthy but civil debate, I asked the three, “How do you know that you are right?”

          All three replied, “I know in my heart I am right.”

          I said to them, “Well, yes, I’m sure you do. But so do the Jews, the Muslims, the Catholics, the Hindu–every person of every faith knows in his heart he is right.”

          It was a few hours later that it dawned on my that my last statement applied equally to me. I had no more right to believe I had the sacred truth than they–or anyone else.

          Further, it became quite clear to me that the vast majority of believers of any particular set of religious beliefs believe it simply because it was what they’d been TAUGHT from tothood to believe, and then that belief was further nurtured by the society into which he is born.

          Ironically then, my answer to their “heart felt” belief is what catapulted me out of Christianity and impelled me to enroll in college and study world religions, paleoanthropology/evolution, and philosophy.

          Here is another form of your argument:

          Believer: There are winged unicorns in the woods behind my house.

          Skeptic: There’s no such thing as unicorns. No one has ever seen one. Have you seen one?

          Believer: It isn’t a matter of seeing, it’s a matter of evidence, just like science.

          Skeptic: Hmm, so what evidence have you found that proves they exist?

          Believer: My friend, I’m sure there is no amount of evidence that you would accept.

          Skeptic: Short of seeing a winged unicorn when I know I’m sober and awake–and having someone else verify my sighting, I can think of no “evidence” I’d believe.

          Believer: See, that is where you go wrong. You must first believe in the existence of unicorns and then you will see evidence for their existence everywhere.

          Please note that unless independent verification can be had, the sighting is subjective.

          Example: A recovering alcoholic, at a party with his friends, has a sudden bout of delirium tremens (DTs), and sees snakes slithering all over the floor and walls. Horrified, he shouts “Look out! Snakes! Snakes everywhere!”

          His friends look about and see no snakes, but immediately understand the problem–his DTs.

          You see, the man certainly saw snakes. That is true, but it is subjectively true. Objectively, from the observation of his friends, there were no snakes.
          But, don’t feel bad. The Bible, itself, is a circular argument for the existence of a god. It demands belief–and then everything becomes evidence. Science calls for evidence first, then verification.

          Objectivity (independent verification) is the foundation of science.
          Subjectivity is the foundation of religion.

        • Max T. Furr

          And, BTW, “Allah” means “God.” Belief in Allah is belief in the Pentateuch–the first five books of the Bible. Fundamentalist Muslims are simply far more faithful to the god of the OT than are Christians and Jews.

  • Rick Isaak

    Well, she is Muslim. Why would a Muslim swear on a Bible? Some people might call that blasphemy too. I like what the Mayor of Franklin N.C did, got sworn in putting his hand on the Constitution. No religious debate, and shows that he’s willing to uphold the rights prescribed for us.

  • acontraryview

    I’m so looking forward to reading the comments of those who believe so strongly in the right of freedom of religion and religious expression, supporting this woman’s decision.

  • Martin Smit

    An oath sworn on the Quran is not binding. To promise to administer justice while swearing by a book that contains a wildly distorted version of justice is scandalous. To swear by the constitution of a foreign nation that you will uphold a constitution that is foreign to you is deceptive. How is it that swearing by this book is blithely smiled upon? You may as well swear on Moby Dick.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      It’s not binding? So she can now issue illegal rulings and suffer no consequence? If she were brought in front of the Committee on Judicial Conduct, she could escape sanction by saying, “Haha, got ya! I swore on a Quran! You can’t punish me! Neener neener!”?

      • Martin Smit

        I think she has the makings of an excellent case for “Neener neener”.

  • Max T. Furr

    Religion (including Christianity) should never be a factor for judgement in U.S. courtrooms. If she is qualified, and apparently she is, then just leave religion out of it. The Constitution is a secular document specifically rejecting religious tests for political/Judicial offices. Those who would deny her that office are not good citizens because they are either ignorant of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, or they understand it, but choose to ignore it.

  • Anne Kane

    Just a simple question: How can you take an oath on a book that instructs it’s followers to lie?

  • Rayne

    Her oath was a lie… Our constitution is incompatible with her religion… It’s impossible for her to follow both… Which do you think she will adhere to?