This is a first in NYC. A Black Muslim Woman as a Judge, who took her oath on a Quran instead of on a Bible.
One supporter commented, “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. If we don’t allow all to be equal and free, then we lose the essence that makes us truly American,” she added.
Meanwhile Judge Walker posted on her website, “All is praise 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,”
Video of her ceremony in the link below.
http://www.geo.tv/article-207309-Civil-court-judge-in-NY-takes-oath-of-duty-on-Holy-Quran
REMARKS: Has anyone ever thought that we were NOT a Christian nation, for hundreds of years people have used the Bible to take oaths in courts, and now people point out that we are a nation of religious freedom so that people of other religions can take their oaths of office on their book. And by the way, devout Muslims (Afghans) will tell you the Quran is the noble book, not the Holy Book. Others will refer to it as their Holy Book but in reality only God is holy, his messages and guidance are noble teachings for those who wish to learn.
Have we ever considered what religious freedom really means for America?
[Edited on 12/19/2015 by gina]
It would probably be better to get religion entirely out of the justice system and have judges take their oath with a hand on the Constitution.
It would probably be better to get religion entirely out of the justice system and have judges take their oath with a hand on the Constitution.
Maybe we don't need to swear on any document. I doubt anyone kept their oath because of the Bible, Quran or any other paper.
Agree wholeheartedly with the 2 previous posts.
Yes, someone has thought that we are NOT a Christian nation. James Madison and the rest of the Founding Fathers weighed in. Personally, I never even for one second considered that we are a Christian nation
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[78]
It would probably be better to get religion entirely out of the justice system and have judges take their oath with a hand on the Constitution.
I think that is a great idea. I don't think the Quran or the Bible embrace secular law so they cannot be enforcing Islamic or Christian or Judaic law in their jobs anyway. The only problem is when God is left out of the justice system, what kind of justice will we have in the future, what will the laws be based on. The Constitution does not cover everything.
Getting RELIGION out of the justice system doesn't mean forgetting morals, standards, or even "God's teachings", etc. I know plenty of atheists who are very good, moral people.
as Bob Dylan once said (paraphrasing) don't insult God by talking about organized religion
It would probably be better to get religion entirely out of the justice system and have judges take their oath with a hand on the Constitution.
Maybe we don't need to swear on any document. I doubt anyone kept their oath because of the Bible, Quran or any other paper.
exactly. In fact, the Bible teaches, "Do not swear by heaven, for it is God's kingdom, nor by anything on earth, for it is His footstool. Let your yes be yes and your no be no." I'd imagine a witness in a trial who happens to be a Christian would have a pretty good argument against swearing by the very Bible that tells him or her to NOT swear by it...
The US is not a Christian nation, and it never was. About half the founding fathers were Deists, not Christian. And no, God does not need to be in the justice system. You do not need to believe in God to know the difference between right and wrong. In fact, you CAN'T use the Bible to establish right from wrong and still have freedom of religion, since the Bible states that you should be sentenced to death by stoning for worshiping other Gods. There are plenty of atheists who are good and moral people and there are plenty of religious people who are far from moral. In short, let God punish those that break God's laws as he wishes, but society should punish people that break society's laws (which may or may not overlap with God's laws).
And not every president has been sworn in on the Bible. Both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore their oath on a book of laws, not the Bible. I agree with Bob that they should swear their oath on the constitution, but certainly non-Christians shouldn't use the Bible, because they would be swearing an oath on a document that doesn't mean anything to them.
Theodore Roosevelt didn't use a bible when sworn in after McKinley died. It was at one time reported that Thomas Jefferson was sworn in with a Koran.
It would probably be better to get religion entirely out of the justice system and have judges take their oath with a hand on the Constitution.
Maybe we don't need to swear on any document. I doubt anyone kept their oath because of the Bible, Quran or any other paper.
exactly. In fact, the Bible teaches, "Do not swear by heaven, for it is God's kingdom, nor by anything on earth, for it is His footstool. Let your yes be yes and your no be no." I'd imagine a witness in a trial who happens to be a Christian would have a pretty good argument against swearing by the very Bible that tells him or her to NOT swear by it...
Maybe they should say do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as God has directed you to live by? That would work.
It would probably be better to get religion entirely out of the justice system and have judges take their oath with a hand on the Constitution.
Maybe we don't need to swear on any document. I doubt anyone kept their oath because of the Bible, Quran or any other paper.
exactly. In fact, the Bible teaches, "Do not swear by heaven, for it is God's kingdom, nor by anything on earth, for it is His footstool. Let your yes be yes and your no be no." I'd imagine a witness in a trial who happens to be a Christian would have a pretty good argument against swearing by the very Bible that tells him or her to NOT swear by it...
Maybe they should say do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as God has directed you to live by? That would work.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3
How is it that the practice of people giving testimony in courtrooms are required to take an oath and the Judge includes the 'so help you God' in his question to them?
How and where did that originate?
How is it that the practice of people giving testimony in courtrooms are required to take an oath and the Judge includes the 'so help you God' in his question to them?
How and where did that originate?
I don't know where it originated, but not all states require you to say it. I think there are only 10 or 12 states left that still use that phrase. There used to be a few more, but in every state where the phrase was challenged in court, it has been found to be unconstitutional and has been removed. A couple states have requirements that all public servers be Christian, but that is obviously unconstitutional and can't be enforced.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
But if the oath or affirmation is solely to support the Constitution and no religious test is involved then why should we really care what the person's hand is on? Why not let it be anything that has meaning to them whether it be a Bible, Quran, family photo album, or Mad magazine? Wouldn't that satisfy the constitutional requirement?
But if the oath or affirmation is solely to support the Constitution and no religious test is involved then why should we really care what the person's hand is on?
We really shouldn't. 
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
But if the oath or affirmation is solely to support the Constitution and no religious test is involved then why should we really care what the person's hand is on? Why not let it be anything that has meaning to them whether it be a Bible, Quran, family photo album, or Mad magazine? Wouldn't that satisfy the constitutional requirement?
I swear on this stack of Allman Brothers records...works for me.
The ONLY thing that needs to be said about this topic is: "So what?"
This is obvious hate-baiting.
I shouldn't even say this but for those who actually fear this is a problem: f the guy f*cks up as a judge, there are plenty of ways to address that just as there are for all sorts of bad judges.
Un-freaking-believable this is even an issue.
The ONLY thing that needs to be said about this topic is: "So what?"
This is obvious hate-baiting.
I shouldn't even say this but for those who actually fear this is a problem: f the guy f*cks up as a judge, there are plenty of ways to address that just as there are for all sorts of bad judges.
Un-freaking-believable this is even an issue.
What did you have your hand on during that rant? 😉
Why a copy of Eat A Peach of course!
The ONLY thing that needs to be said about this topic is: "So what?"
This is obvious hate-baiting.
I shouldn't even say this but for those who actually fear this is a problem: f the guy f*cks up as a judge, there are plenty of ways to address that just as there are for all sorts of bad judges.
Un-freaking-believable this is even an issue.
+1,000,000
Why a copy of Eat A Peach of course!
Well then you should know that opinions are like ***holes and everybody has one.
By the way the topic was bout how our country has changed as our culture has evolved, and like the above person also said, there ain't no revolution, there's only evolution. No hate baiting at all.
