Muslim Judge Swears Oath On A Koran; Conservatives Lose Their Minds

Posted by | December 14, 2015 10:53 | Filed under: Andrew Bradford Contributors News Behaving Badly Religion

Republish
Reprint



Last Thursday, Carolyn Walker-Diallo was sworn in as a municipal court judge in New York. Since she’s a Muslim, she was wearing a traditional head covering for a woman, a hijab, and she also took her oath of office with her hand on the Koran instead of the Bible.

But from the reaction by some on the far right, you’d think Judge Walker-Diallo had just set fire to the courtroom where she will serve and shouted “Death to America.”….READ MORE at LiberalAmerica


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Andrew Bradford

Andrew Bradford is an author, academic, and political activist who lives in Atlanta. He is a Senior Writer for Liberal America and also has his own blog at deepleftfield.info

105 responses to Muslim Judge Swears Oath On A Koran; Conservatives Lose Their Minds

  1. Gina Bousquet December 14th, 2015 at 10:55

    Laughing real hard! The right-wing f*ckery!

    • tracey marie December 14th, 2015 at 11:02

      You have come out of your shell. :)

      • Gina Bousquet December 14th, 2015 at 11:13

        Thank you dear! But I’ve never been in a shell, just did not know the good words :) in English.

        • F_cons December 14th, 2015 at 11:15

          Don’t worry, go for it. They’re almost all good words and if you follow the conservative example, word order doesn’t matter – just make salad.

          • Gina Bousquet December 14th, 2015 at 12:09

            Well, I’d never follow the conservatives, and salad only with vegetables… :)

            • F_cons December 14th, 2015 at 17:13

              Edit:I said too much and deleted it

              • Gina Bousquet December 14th, 2015 at 17:21

                It’s ok F_cons, no worries! :)

                • F_cons December 14th, 2015 at 17:27

                  So sorry Gina, I posted something a while ago that made you think I was a troll. I’m sorry for that, I was happy about something that was horrible, but I was only talking about me. I am sorry, I’m not as horrible as some of my posts prove.

                  • Gina Bousquet December 14th, 2015 at 17:36

                    You have nothing of a troll, and of course you’re not horrible, please… I just answered as I saw fit, but made no judgment of you because of the post. It’s really ok F_cons. Peace! :)

                    • F_cons December 14th, 2015 at 17:40

                      Thank you! (No more words, eyes are blurry and I can’t touch type)

                    • Gina Bousquet December 14th, 2015 at 17:42

                      You are one of us F_cons, everything’s fine. :)

  2. rg9rts December 14th, 2015 at 11:17

    Too bad their heads don’t really pop

    • Suzanne McFly December 14th, 2015 at 17:30

      It wouldn’t be very messy, they don’t have much in their heads. It would be like popping those air bubbles you can use to mail stuff, filled with just little puffs of air.

    • Dwendt44 December 14th, 2015 at 18:20

      Like a angry zit.

  3. William December 14th, 2015 at 11:19

    WHAT? No Bible? hmmmmmph, just like that commie Adams.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inauguration_of_John_Quincy_Adams

  4. FatRat December 14th, 2015 at 11:29

    Over at the website YoungCons….some jerkweek named John S. Roberts wrote this bit of dung:
    “If officials can take their oaths on the Koran, what’s next? A cookbook?”

    I’d be comfortable if somone wanted to swear on a DVD copy of the Twilight Zone.
    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/fc/09/fe/fc09fe3c7cd6acff0ca7d5e8efa712d7.jpg

  5. KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker December 14th, 2015 at 11:33

    What’s that popping sound?

  6. amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 11:49

    How can you swear to uphold and defend the constitution on a book that stands against everything in that constitution?

    • arc99 December 14th, 2015 at 11:50

      Christians have been doing it for two centuries in this country.

      What is your point?

    • tracey marie December 14th, 2015 at 12:55

      the bible stands against the constitution yet all the rw uses it and attempts to legislate theocratically.

      • amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 15:18

        Have you read any of the Quran, or the Sunnah?
        If you have please show me how it is compatible with the constitution.

        • arc99 December 14th, 2015 at 16:30

          and the book of Psalms endorses infanticide.

          How is that compatible with the constitution?

          PSALMS 137 8-9

          Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

          happy is the one who repays you

          according to what you have done to us.

          9Happy is the one who seizes your infants

          and dashes them against the rocks.

          • amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 22:46

            This Psalm was written after the razing of Jerasulem and the carrying off of those not killed (which included men, women, and children) into slavery in Babylon. Wars were fought a bit differently back then, they were to the end. Historical context cannot be ignored.

            In the original Greek “infants” are called children of Babylon, meaning the people.

            • Dwendt44 December 15th, 2015 at 00:48

              The Babylonians only carried off the learned and the clergy. Not the common rabble.

        • tracey marie December 14th, 2015 at 17:47

          I have, have you read the bible(s) and all the absolutes and blood soaked deeds and demands?

          • amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 22:46

            Then you can show me in their holy scriptures where they support freedom, women’s, religious and gay rights.

            • Dwendt44 December 15th, 2015 at 00:49

              The point is that neither ‘holy book’ supports freedom, women’s rights, etc. One is as bad as the other.

              • amongoose December 15th, 2015 at 09:35

                Thank you for a ost interesting and informative discussion.

                Bye

        • tracey marie December 14th, 2015 at 17:48

          Slavery, polygamy, selling your daughter, stoning disobedient kids, offering up daughters to be raped, smashing children against the stones.

    • dewired4u December 14th, 2015 at 13:10

      I’m an atheist and when I go to court I have to swear to tell the truth to a god I don’t believe in. this lady swore to the god she believes in so it’s the same thing as a christian swearing on a bible.

      • Bunya December 14th, 2015 at 14:03

        I love that idea! Just think, I can swear to a god that I don’t believe in until the cows come home, and still lie through my teeth! It’s a win-win for Atheists.

      • amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 15:18

        And that is your free will choice, but it is also not allowed by islamic law.
        Except that her religion doesn’t believe in freedom, women’s rights, religious freedom, separation of church and state, in islam, the church is the state.
        You may believe in the constitution and the rights it protects, but islam doesn’t.

        • William December 14th, 2015 at 16:03

          “Except that her religion doesn’t believe in freedom, women’s rights”,
          You DO realize that the framers of the Constitution were largely slave owners who didn’t allow native Americans or women to vote….right?

          • amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 22:46

            So once someone has done something, they cannot criticize others even if they have addressed tthe problem?

            No slight, sin, or greivence may be forgiven nor forgotten?

            Voting rights in colonial America were given to property owners, this included women.

            In it’s state constitution New Jersy gave everyone voting rights, but recinded in some years later.

            Islam doesn’t believe in women’s rights, religious rights, or any non-believers rights.

            How can that system be compatible with the constitution?

            We have done a lot in the area of voting and personal rights, islam has not.

            http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm

            http://colonialquills.blogspot.com/2012/11/women-voters-in-colonial-america.html

            As for islam and incompatibility with the constitution:

            Let’s start with women’s rights

            Bukhari (88:219) – “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”

            The Quran, chapter 4 , verse 34

            Men have authority over women by what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in absence what Allah would have them guard. But those from whom you fear arrogance advise them; forsake them in bed; and strike them. But if they obey you seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand

            Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

            And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets the other may remind her.

            Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311

            The share of the male shall be twice that of a female

            Maududi, vol. 1, p. 329

            Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the

            other.

            Hadith 3:826

            The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”

        • Dwendt44 December 14th, 2015 at 18:19

          The bible doesn’t believe in freedom, women’s right,s religious freedom, separation of church and state. What’s the difference other than your hatred of Muslims?
          Lay the bible next to the Constitution and they disagree on nearly every point.

          • amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 22:46

            OK, make you case on that then.

            And while your at it explain how islam is compatible with freedom, my original question.

        • OldLefty December 15th, 2015 at 13:00

          They say that about Judaism and Christianity as well.

          And actually, the First Amendment trumps the first four of the 10 commandments, making Bible believing incompatible with western freedoms.

          • amongoose December 16th, 2015 at 16:02

            Interesting, please explain.

            • OldLefty December 16th, 2015 at 17:35

              Soitenly!

              1) You shall have no other gods before Me…..
              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

              2) You shall not make idols…..
              …. or abridging the freedom of speech

              3) You shall not take the name of the LORD your
              God in vain.
              …. or abridging the freedom of speech

              4 ) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

      • Larry Schmitt December 14th, 2015 at 15:24

        Don’t you have the option of affirming, instead of swearing? That way no god is involved.

        • William December 14th, 2015 at 16:01

          The Constitutional language gives the option to “affirm” instead of “swear”. While the reasons for this are not documented, it may relate to certain Christians, including Quakers, who apply this scripture literally: “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation” (James 5:12, KJV). Franklin Pierce was the only president known to use the word “affirm” rather than “swear.” Herbert Hoover is often listed to have used “affirm” as well, owing to his being a Quaker, but a newsreel taken of the ceremony indicates that the words used were “solemnly swear. “Richard Nixon, who was also a Quaker, also swore, rather than affirm.

        • dewired4u December 14th, 2015 at 19:55

          you do but it guaranties that you will lose.

    • whatthe46 December 14th, 2015 at 14:44

      when the rwnj “christians” swear on a bible that doesn’t uphold the constitution then what? nothing. so why you bitchin?

      • amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 15:18

        Have a big problem with anyone violating it.
        No matter what party.

        • whatthe46 December 14th, 2015 at 21:24

          so don’t comment in the neg. just because she swore on the koran instead of a bible. look at those so-called “christians” who swore on a bible who don’t want to abide by the constitution. ’cause religion.

          • amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 22:46

            I’m saying islam is incompatible with western freedoms.
            How am wrong about that?

            • whatthe46 December 15th, 2015 at 00:36

              tell that to the GOPissers and rwnj’s that want to control a woman’s body. tell that to the GOPissers and rwnj’s that don’t want equal opportunity for all. tell that to the GOPissers and rwnj’s that believe if you don’t adhere to their way of thinking or their “god” or their “religion” that you need to be shunned or shamed. these GOPissers and rwnj’s are a prime example of what’s not in company with WESTERN FREEDOMS. freedom of religion is what we’re supposed to be about.

              • amongoose December 15th, 2015 at 09:34

                Thank you for a ost interesting and informative discussion.

                Have a good day

      • amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 22:46

        Have the same problem with them as well.

        • whatthe46 December 15th, 2015 at 00:36

          how many times have you bitched about it? -0-

    • BillTheCat45 December 14th, 2015 at 15:09

      Because it doesn’t, you illiterate moron.

      • amongoose December 14th, 2015 at 15:31

        So show me how it does.

    • William December 14th, 2015 at 15:58

      Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law, with the intention that they were swearing on the constitution.Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One
      See?
      It’s easy isn’t it. You can take an oath on a can of tuna and it has the same effect.
      History is fun isn’t it?
      Now please list the part of the Koran that “stands against everything in the Constitution”.

  7. Dwendt44 December 14th, 2015 at 13:18

    It would be more appropriate to use a copy of the Constitution for the purpose of swearing in.

    But the Koran is as good as the bible.

  8. trees December 14th, 2015 at 14:35

    It seems Brooklyn NY prefers Sharia law.

    • whatthe46 December 14th, 2015 at 14:37

      i don’t know how you haven’t lost all ability to function with the stupidity you spew.

      • trees December 14th, 2015 at 14:40

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

        Sharia or sharia law (Arabic: شريعة‎ (IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa]) for law) is the basic Islamic legal system[1] derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term sharīʿah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation.[2][3][4]

        • whatthe46 December 14th, 2015 at 14:43

          and if she had sworn on the “bible” instead? so STFU and down a bottle of cyanide please.

        • tracey marie December 14th, 2015 at 14:48

          sounds just like all the rwnj’s claiming THEIR god’s words and book is above our countries laws. You know all that equality stuff your kind hates and says should be berred from our human legislation due to god’s laws as stated in the bible.

        • BillTheCat45 December 14th, 2015 at 15:09

          Aaaand it has nothing to do with the person swearing their oath, you home schooled dolt.

          • trees December 14th, 2015 at 15:28

            It has nothing to do with the person swearing the oath?

            1) then why is the person swearing the oath, swearing the oath?

            ???????

            It has everything to do with the person swearing the oath.

            • bpollen December 15th, 2015 at 06:27

              “It has everything to do with the person swearing the oath.”

              And yet, in direct opposition to your own words, you are obsessing over her religion and her choosing her own holy book as opposed to somebody else’s holy book. My Gawd, man! You can’t even agree with yourself trying to promote this specious argument. But then, bigotry is NEVER rational.

        • William December 14th, 2015 at 15:52

          Nice cut and paste. …but what does that have to do with this article or Brooklyn?

          • trees December 14th, 2015 at 16:05

            Well, William,.for those of us who were paying attention the OP is about a swearing in of a judge in NY and her insistence on being sworn in on a Koran….

            Islam and Sharia go hand in hand…..

            Question of the day, for you….

            “Why do the Islamic members of ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, Iran, Pakistan, etc…. despise the USA?”

            Is it,

            A) Because we’re all infidels

            B) Because we draw Muhammad cartoons

            C) Because we’re causing climate change

            D) Because we’re not Muslims who observe Sharia law

            • William December 14th, 2015 at 16:16

              I know what the article is about. Swearing in on the Koran has nothing to do with the duties of the judge. If a book you put under your hand when you take an oath means you’ll follow that book than we have a lot of judges that will permit selling daughters into slavery, stoning your neighbor for not observing Sabbath, forbid the consumption of shellfish and the wearing of polyester.
              You should take a few moments to review just how stupid and paranoid you seem. Nobody anywhere addressed Sharia law in this medium accept you.
              But I’ll tell you what
              If you think this judge will render verdicts based upon Sharia law, then you’re further gone than I originally thought.
              Now if you’ll please post the part where she swore to uphold Sharia law, I’d like to read it.

            • William December 14th, 2015 at 16:21

              Why do the Islamic members of ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, Iran, Pakistan, etc…. despise the USA?”

              It might have something to do with invading a country that had nothing to do with 911, had no WMD’s and killing over 100,000 of it’s civilians, bombing the region into rubble, Then watching as it’s president was lynched leaving a vacuum for angry fanatics that use religion as an excuse for killing people.https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e2091322d0c9c6291ca644fcc31395acec619e322b2e9b17cc875be6e2dcd2a6.jpg

            • Gina Bousquet December 14th, 2015 at 17:18

              She is an American Judge, her commitment is to the US Constitution. Unlike Republican candidates who put God’s law before the Constitution of the country she is not there to practice sharia law, but to respect and practice the secular law of the Nation. She is not your average fundamentalist Christian.

            • Red Mann December 15th, 2015 at 00:31

              Sounds like the same argument that was used against Catholics, they would put alligience to the Pope over American law. Of course we have scads of current Republicans bleating loudly that the Obergefell decision violates “God’s Law” and doesn’t have to be obeyed. Your brilliant “argument” falls as flat as an overdone egg noodle.

            • OldLefty December 15th, 2015 at 07:08

              Islam and Sharia go hand in hand…..

              _____

              So does Christianity and the Ten Commandments, we are told.

              Why do the Islamic members of ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, Iran, Pakistan, etc…. despise the USA?”

              _________

              Because they get a constant diet of this crap from our great friends, the Saudis who import it all over the world as the “opium of the people”, so long as they keep it away from the Gulf states.

              The West has ALWAYS chosen radical Islam over secular nations as a hedge against socialism.

              Since the Brits favored the House of Saud and the Wahabbis over the Ottomans, we favored the Muslim Brotherhood over Nasser, (the ultimate goal was to
              promote an anti-Communist agenda in newly independent countries), Pakistan over democracy in India, (Saadat Hasan Manto warned us about
              supporting radical Islam in Pakistan over democracy in India, in “Letters to Uncle Sam” in the 1950’s ; “If this gang of mullahs is armed in the American style, the Soviet Union that hawks communism and socialism in our country will have to shut shop”.

              Supporting every nut job in the region over the USSR while teaching them to bring down a super power (remember Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, telling George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a jihadi Frankenstein.”

              Everybody who tried to point these things out, low these many decades were called anti-American and communists.

              As for;

              A) Because we’re all infidels
              More because we had troops in Mecca and Medina (Remember that Bin Ladin only put out his Fatwa after he offered to repel Saddam from Kuwait like they did the Soviets,only to be told by the royal family that the “Americans are here”.
              After 9/11, Bush appeased bin Ladin by closing the bin Sultan Air Base.

              B) Because we draw Muhammad cartoons
              Funny how they never cared for centuries. Not until we all nurtured the Saudis.

              C) Because we’re causing climate change
              That is not why they hate us, (and no one said it was). That is a huge contributing factor in the instability of entire regions.

              D) Because we’re not Muslims who observe Sharia law

              Again, they never cared before and very few care now.

              Red Mann puts it very well, below.

    • burqa December 14th, 2015 at 15:05

      What, you think Muslims should be banned from being judges? How about teachers, po-lice officers or other professions?
      This kind of thinking mirrors just how the Jews have been persecuted through history. They were falsely stereotyped and then shallow-thinking nitwits, believing all Jews met the stereotype, began to persecute them. They were chased from country to country and it wasn’t long after they would find refuge somewhere that the persecution would begin again. A common feature of these persecutions was preventing Jews from holding various jobs.
      In America, people of all faiths, races or ethnicities should be able to hold any job.

      Just think of what an oath is and what is the function of the book being sworn in on. Of course a Muslim should be sworn in on a Koran. It is something precious to them and swearing on it gives meaning that would be absent were a Muslim sworn in on a Bible.

      Just imagine your own case, were you to be swearing an oath. If you swore with your hand on a Bible, it wouldn’t be the same as swearing on a Koran because what they mean to you differs drastically.

      One cool thing about Muslims, trees – their children are polite, respectful and do not run in stores.

      • trees December 14th, 2015 at 15:33

        They were falsely stereotyped and then shallow-thinking nitwits, believing all Jews met the stereotype, began to persecute them.

        One cool thing about Muslims, trees – their children are polite, respectful and do not run in stores.

        I think it’s awesome when you contradict yourself….

        The children of Muslims are polite and respectful, and do not run in stores…

        • burqa December 14th, 2015 at 18:18

          While it is true both are stereotypes, they differ in that the stereotypes of the Jews were so negative as to be used to justify mass murder.

          So I’ll restate the point: I have been around many Muslims. I spent several months living in Barbes-Rochechuart in Paris, a neighborhood with many Muslims. Every one of their children were as I described. I had Muslim friends there who lived in Aubervilliers, where there are many Muslims and I observed the same thing there.
          The same is true of the Muslims I have known here. Their children are respectful, polite and do not run in stores.

          Among them all I also experienced an extraordinary hospitality – another stereotype of Arab Muslims that seems to be accurate.

          There are some stereotypes that are accurate to a large degree. Of course there are exceptions.
          One example would be the one about the French and not just the quality of their cooking, but their whole approach to dining.
          Another would be the courtesy found in American Southerners.
          I repeat, sure there are exceptions, but plenty of examples otherwise to make the statement accurate enough.

      • trees December 14th, 2015 at 15:48

        What, you think Muslims should be banned from being judges?

        I guess it depends, doesn’t it?

        Since she’s a Muslim, she was wearing a traditional head covering for a woman, a hijab

        Hmmmm…. I wonder what other traditional, fundamental aspects of Islam, she holds as sacred?

        Islam and Sharia are integral in their relationship.

        Example?

        She insisted on a Koran for the swearing in ceremony.

        That’s interesting…..

        • burqa December 14th, 2015 at 18:06

          burqa: “What, you think Muslims should be banned from being judges?”

          trees: “I guess it depends, doesn’t it?

          You are evading, rather than answering the question.
          Either we discriminate on the basis of faith rather than qualifications or we do not.

          trees: “Since she’s a Muslim, she was wearing a traditional head covering for a woman, a hijab

          Hmmmm…. I wonder what other traditional, fundamental aspects of Islam, she holds as sacred?”

          If you know, then say so.
          If you do not, it is foolish to pretend you do.

          Trees: “Islam and Sharia are integral in their relationship.”

          I have no idea what you mean.

          trees: “Example?

          She insisted on a Koran for the swearing in ceremony.

          That’s interesting…..”

          It makes perfect sense.
          If you were to swear on a Bible would it carry the same weight if you had sworn on a Koran? Of course not, because you are a Christian who holds the Bible in far higher regard, thus swearing on it would tend to hold your feet to the fire more than swearing on a Koran.
          I made this point before but you ducked it, preferring to ask a question I already answered with this point.

        • OldLefty December 15th, 2015 at 06:46

          “Since she’s a Muslim, she was wearing a traditional head covering for a woman, a hijab”
          _______

          Actually, not THAT traditional. I became popular in Western culture only in the last 20-30 years.
          My Indian in-laws (in their 60’s) also say that “We never saw this “crap” growing up….It all started when people began to work in the Gulf states. Especially Saudi.

          But one COULD add, ‘Traditional head covering like orthodox Jews?’

          “Hmmmm…. I wonder what other traditional, fundamental aspects of Islam, she holds as sacred?”

          _______

          Perhaps some of the same things that Christians do?

          “Islam and Sharia are integral in their relationship.”

          ______

          Like Christians who insist on the Bible for the swearing in ceremony?

          Not that interesting at all.

    • BillTheCat45 December 14th, 2015 at 15:08

      Okay clueless nobody.

    • William December 14th, 2015 at 15:13

      ,,,and the sleepy eyes of Trees and the Goober militia open.

    • arc99 December 14th, 2015 at 15:36

      You are confusing Brooklyn NY with Rowan County Kentucky.

      It is in Kentucky where a civil official and local elected leaders insist that a county clerk has no obligation to obey the law when the law conflicts with what they claim the Creator told them.

      No one in NY government is claiming that their personal religious beliefs take priority over the law. It is Christians, not Muslims trying to make their religious beliefs the law of the land.

      That is not a criticism of Christianity. It is a statement of fact.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/10/01/kentucky-governor-steve-beshear-hits-back-at-county-clerk-kim-davis-for-her-lawsuit-against-him-re-same-sex-marriage-licenses/73137134/

      Ky. governor rips Kim Davis lawsuit as ‘forlorn’

    • bpollen December 15th, 2015 at 06:22

      Based on your delusional thinking? Or have you evidence to back up this proclamation about millions of people you don’t know?

  9. Suzanne McFly December 14th, 2015 at 17:27

    Power to her, I hope she holds true to her oath on the Koran as sacred and upholds it as promised. We have seen how good the fake Christians have been at upholding their oaths that were taken on the Bible. They are the first ones to sell their soul to a koch.

  10. arc99 December 14th, 2015 at 19:40

    Article 6 of the United States Constitution is all that matters.

    Those who have a problem with this judge swearing on a Koran, can take their unAmerican prejudice and stuff it.

    Article VI

    All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    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

  11. Emma Bishop December 15th, 2015 at 05:59

    As long as the Judge remembers she doesn’t swear on her Koran to uphold the Koran, she swears on her book to uphold the US Constitution.

    • tracey marie December 15th, 2015 at 06:50

      same goes for xtians using their bible, right?

      • Emma Bishop December 15th, 2015 at 07:07

        Any silly religion.

        • tracey marie December 15th, 2015 at 07:28

          RIIGHT….you upvote the tree, the poster of bigotry and stupidity.

          • Emma Bishop December 15th, 2015 at 17:06

            Go fphuck yourself.

            • tracey marie December 15th, 2015 at 17:17

              wah! cry baby

              • Emma Bishop December 16th, 2015 at 07:16

                Ouch, go easy on me. LOL!

            • Carla Akins December 15th, 2015 at 17:30

              So I’m guessing you thought your clever spelling would escape moderation. Play nice.

              • Emma Bishop December 16th, 2015 at 07:16

                It did escape, and follow my advice, looks like you need it.

    • William December 15th, 2015 at 17:19

      Wow. So profound.

  12. mcalleyboy December 16th, 2015 at 00:45

    You don’t swear an oath of allegiance in America to the Koran, you bet Conservatives and Democrats are angry.

    • OldLefty December 16th, 2015 at 04:39

      You don’t swear an oath of allegiance in America to the Bible, either.

      So what?

Leave a Reply