Posted on 08/24/2005 4:15:35 PM PDT by Libloather
SHOULD THE QU'RAN BE IN THE COURTROOM?
WEEK OF AUGUST 4-10, 2005
by CASH MICHAELS
The Wilmington Journal
Originally posted 8/6/2005
“The basic purpose of using sworn testimony is to assure that the information being provided is truthful and as correct as is possible.”--Special Agent Dick Searle, Iowa Division Of Criminal Investigation
“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
Those who have testified in a court of law anywhere in North Carolina or across the country recognize these words to be the oath administered to witnesses prior to their sworn testimony.
As has been procedure for decades, the right hand is raised, and the left hand is placed on the Holy Bible.
I do.
The courts have long favored the Christian book of faith as the ultimate symbol of truth. For a Christian, to swear on it means that to tell anything other than the truth in testimony is a blasphemy and a sin before God that will be taken into account on Judgment Day.
But what if a witness or juror isn’t a Christian? What if he is a Jew or a Muslim? Both groups have their own books of faith, their own symbols of religious truth.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees them the freedom to practice their religious faith free of government intrusion or influence. Inherently that means they cannot be forced to either worship or practice any other than their own, and their chosen faith must be respected as such.
If a Jew or a Muslim is forced to swear to “tell the truth” on a Christian Bible, are they, in fact, telling the truth if a religious foundation of another faith is used?
And are North Carolina courts favoring one religious faith over another when they designate only the Christian Bible to be used?
These are now the legal questions and issues that have to be hashed out in a Wake County Superior Courtroom as North Carolina’s criminal justice system has to wrestle, some say, with its own hypocrisy.
The final answer will have a profound impact on communities of faith, especially in the African-American community, where a significant number of Muslims reside.
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina filed a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina (ACLU-NC) “…challenging North Carolina state courts’ practice of refusing to allow people of non-Christian faiths ton take religious oaths using any text other than the Christian Bible,” according to the organization’s press release.
The lawsuit arose from an incident in Greensboro, when a Muslim woman set to testify in Guilford County court, requested to be sworn-in on the Holy Qu’ran instead of the Bible.
She was refused.
The local Muslim community Al Ummil Ummat Islamic Center even offered to donate several copies of the Holy Qu’ran to the Guilford Courts, but they too were rebuffed.
Guilford County Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright and Guilford Chief District Court Judge Joseph E. Turner determined that only the Holy Bible could be used in their courtrooms.
Ton use anything else, they added, would be “unlawful.”
But the state Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) disagreed, noting that NC General Statute 11-2 does not specifically say the Christian Bible should be used to swear-in witnesses.
It uses the term “Holy Scriptures.”
Judges and other persons who may be empowered to administer oaths, shall (except in the cases in this Chapter excepted) require the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures, in token of his engagement to speak the truth and in further token that, if he should swerve from the truth, he may be justly deprived of all blessings of the holy book and made liable to that vengeance which he has imprecated on his own head.
According to Judge Albright, however, “Holy Scriptures” means only one thing.
The Christian Bible.
“Everybody understands what the Holy Scriptures are,” he told the Greensboro News & Record. “If they don’t, we’re in a mess.”
That’s when the AOC backed off, deciding instead that either the courts or the General Assembly were better suited politically to make the final call.
“The ACLU-NC seeks a court order clarifying that North Carolina’s existing statute governing religious oaths is broad enough to allow use of multiple religious texts in addition to the Christian Bible,” the July 26 press statement continued. “In the alternative, if the Court does not agree that the phrase “Holy Scriptures” in North Carolina state statute must be read to permit texts such as the Qu’ran, the Old Testament and the Bhagavach-Giyta in addition to the Christian Bible, then the ACLU-NC asks the Court to strike down the practice of allowing the use of any religious text in the administration of religious oaths.”
ACLU-NC filed the lawsuit not on behalf of the Muslim woman in Greensboro, or the Muslim community in North Carolina, but its own 8,000 membership across the state that it says is inclusive of Jews and Muslims.
Critics of the ACLU-NC lawsuit charge the liberal group is just trying to change years of legal tradition, and that their real goal is to get the Bible out of the courtroom.
No so, says Jennifer Rudlinger, Executive Director of ACLU-NC. There is no problem with the Bible being used by the North Carolina courts, just as long as other books of religious faith can also be used.
“The government cannot favor one set of religious values over another and must allow all individuals of faith to be sworn in on the holy text that is accordance with their faith,” she said in a statement. “By allowing only the Christian Bible to be used in the administration of religious oaths in the courtroom, the State is discriminating against people of non-Christian faiths.”
Probably the ACLU-NC’s strongest argument is the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
But what about those who are not practicing members of a particular faith? How do North Carolina courts swear them in to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”?
NCGS 11-3 allows for a witness or juror who does not wish to place his hand on the “Holy Scriptures” to just raise his right hand for the nonreligious oath.
NCGS 11-4 defines that secular oath as replacing the word “swear” with “affirm,” and deletes “so help me God.”
And in many jurisdictions, those of the Jewish faith were sworn in on the Old Testament, since by faith, they did not believe in an afterlife.
The Tar Heel controversy has received worldwide attention.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said the use of only the Christian Bible in North Carolina courtrooms is evidence of “an inappropriate state endorsement of religion.”
“Eliminating the opportunity to swear an oath on one’s own holy text may also have the effect of diminishing the credibility of that person’s testimony,” Arsalan Iftikhar, legal director for CAIR, told Cybercast News Service. com.
The group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State says maybe religious texts should be banned from the courthouse altogether.
“The easier solution would be to dump religious oaths from court proceedings,” the nonprofit group said on its website. “Traditions do die, some with great difficulty and consternation. Citizens before their public courts should be required to tell the truth under penalty of law; they should not be required, pressured or even asked to take a religious oath before engaging in business before those courts. “
Surah 2:225 Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oath, but for the intention in your hearts; and he is oft-forgiving, most forbearing.
(Surah 8:58) If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.
Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (Surah 48:29)
Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation feed ten indigent persons on a scale of the average food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means then fast three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. (Surah Maa-ida (5) verse 92)
Like any ideology, such things must be taken together. Clearly, when engaged in jihad, one can easily justify breaking an oath out of "fear" or by virtue of a superceding commitment to war against unbelievers, like me.
Your post is axiomatic, but the fact we even have to have a thread on this horse$%^$ is beyond appalling. One thing however..it is becoming clearer that the goats are being seperated from the sheep. Dems/Repubs, gays/straight, ragheads/christians..etc etc
Hear Hear!
Do muslims, who appear before a Canadian court and take an oath on the Koran, get Islamic-style punishment when found guilty? I don't think so. For starters, it'll make many muslims think twice before setting sail for Canada. Second, it will put Canada on the list of 'unsafe' countries, together with the majority of countries where Islam rules.
Muslims often do not recognize the laws of a non-muslim country because the law, in their perception, should be based on the Koran. Hence organized crime in many European countries is dominated by...Canadians? No. Muslims? There you go!
Howdy, Prime Choice!
Oh, but it's not a fringe group! It's a RELIGION! </sarcasm>
If the Fed can incinerate a religious fringe group who just wanted to be left alone at Waco, why do we still have Islamic terror groups plotting mass murder of American citizens on American soil?
I mean, if Citizens were plotting to commit mass murder of other Citizens, the FBI, CIA, and BATF would be all over them with arrests, indictments, vilification, and prison time.
But since Islamists in America consist of a largely immigrant population, anything we might do to investigate their activities is branded by the media as witch hunts against innocent immigrants, ethnic profiling, or even (GASP!) RACISM! "You're not welcoming the aliens who want you dead! You should be ashamed of yourselves!"
grrrrrrrrrr...
I say we figure out (legal) ways to purge the mainstream media, academia, and the elites of America-hating appeaseniks. Maybe start digging up dirt on the people at the top of the various ladders of leftism, and start raising unholy hell about it in our media until the MSM can't ignore it anymore. Like what we're doing to Err America!
Not trying to start $h17, I'm just bringin' up something to ponder.
I think they should allow people the choice of swearing on the Koran. Then we would know who is lying.
Is that the relevant question? It's not a contest to see whose "holy book" gets used. The point is to maximize the probability that the witness tells the truth. Would a muslim feel greater motivation to tell the truth by swearing on a Bible or on a Koran? That's the only issue that matters.Unless of course the agenda is to establish Christianity as having legal primacy over other faiths.
-Eric
Neither accomplishes anythig for a Muslim because they have no cultural influence or religious reason to be honest. In fact they are encouraged to be dishonest to non-Muslims. Any jury ought to be advised of this whenever they hear a Muslim's testimony.
A jihadi will do whatever he wants regardless of whether there is an Koran in the courtroom or not. So this debate is not about them, it's about ordinary civil muslims. Would they be more likely to be held to their oath if they swore on a Koran rather than using a Bible or not using any book at all just the oath? From everything posted here and all I can find, it would be a terrible sin for a Muslim to swear on a Koran and then lie. So the bottom line seems to be that the use of a Koran would compel a Muslim to keep to the truth better than not having one. And if that's what it takes to establsih justice in the courtroom, then let them have it.
Correct.
So this debate is not about them, it's about ordinary civil muslims.
When an Imam calls for jihad, you are telling me that "ordinary Muslims" have no obligation to comply? If you are going there, there is virtually no limit to the number of Surahs mandating every Muslim to action.
Would they be more likely to be held to their oath if they swore on a Koran rather than using a Bible or not using any book at all just the oath?
Likely or not, they would be so permitted.
From everything posted here and all I can find, it would be a terrible sin for a Muslim to swear on a Koran and then lie.
To be expiated by simple fasting.
So the bottom line seems to be that the use of a Koran would compel a Muslim to keep to the truth better than not having one.
I don't think you can safely conclude that.
And if that's what it takes to establsih justice in the courtroom, then let them have it.
As far as I can tell, it won't.
That's what I'm saying. Are you claiming that every Muslim in the world is a jihadi willing to strap on a bomb-belt and blow up a kindergarden? If you do, there's no reason to continue this conversation as I can't penetrate that level of tin-foil hattery.
If you are going there, there is virtually no limit to the number of Surahs mandating every Muslim to action.
Just like the non-existant ones that people here claim allow a Muslim to lie in court with impunity?
[A lie under oath for a Muslim] To be expiated by simple fasting.
That's more than the simple Catholic expedient of confessing to your priest and saying a "Hail Mary" or two. What religious punishment is there for Protestants who lie under oath?
I don't think you can safely conclude that [Muslims would feel an additional compunction not to lie if they have to swear on a Koran].
Then you are arguing for eliminating Bibles from the courtroom too, if neither the Bible nor the Koran adds any additional coercion on someone to tell the truth. Is that your real goal?
Yes
These muslin banshees have managed to screw up the middle east and now are trying to impose their crapola on civilized countries. A suggestion - Go to Cuba and see if Fidel embraces these religious wackos.
I belive the Koran IS lies.
In the WOT, not every American is in Iraq. As in any war, there are obviously more than just foot soldiers.
Once a fatwa declaring jihad has been promulgated, the average Muslim would be more willing to raise more kids willing to strap on a bomb-belt and blow up a kindergarden. They would be more willing to shelter those willing to strap on a bomb-belt and blow up a kindergarden. They would be more willing to allow their contributions to finance bomb-belts to blow up kindergardens.
That they aren't blowing themselves up doesn't mean they aren't jihadis any more than the Imam's who aren't blowing themselves up either. Even if they don't personally approve of blowing up kindergardens, Muslims have shown a remarkable reluctance to do anything to stop it. The reason is because of what is in the Koran.
If you do, there's no reason to continue this conversation as I can't penetrate that level of tin-foil hattery.
There's no need to do that. It's done already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.