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. “
The standard in this country for God's-honest-truth is the Bible. I'm going to get flamed for this, I know. But those who don't feel comfortable with our standard might be more comfortable in some other country. And anyone who swears on a Bible, but feels justified in lie-ing because they don't believe in the Bible ... well too bad ... they're held accountable and punished for perjury regardless. I see no reason to change our traditional standards for contemporary immigrants. Melt in the pot or get out. My two cents :-)
I'll capitulate to that and render my basic "No" answer in reply 21 void.
Should I as a potential, or sitting, juror be able to question someone, directly, as to why they would refuse to swear an oath on the "Bible" a opposed to wanting to swear an oath on the "Qu’ran"?
BINGO!
OK by me.
Not in the Constitution but is cited in Federalist Papers.
That's nice. However, your opinion won't be the issue.
No. The bathroom.
LOL, that's for dang sure.
Do you know where that is in the Koran? I can't find it.
You are right.
I can't find that in the Koran. Can you point out where it says that?
Then one would have to believe that a state religion has existed in this nation for over 200 years - we just didn't know about it until some progressive types pointed it out.
No, using a bible for an oath does not establish a religion any more than putting up a manger scene on a court during the federal holiday of Christmas does. Non believers are also allowed to take an oath without a bible. Since our nation was founded by Christians, we use a bible to swear in witnesses. It is not our responsibility to change our traditions to adapt to every malcontent who is offended by them. This is nothing more than PC nonsense.
Sorry, the site does not do well with cut/pastes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
We have freedom of religion in this country. Something not enjoyed in most Muslim ruled nations. I think it is right and proper to have a Koran in the courtroom. I do not regard it as holy but a devout Muslim certainly does. Will this prevent dishonest ones from lying? No more than a Bible prevents dishonest Christians from lying. But it will remind the faithful and honest of the seriousness of their oaths.
If you do not want to swear on the Bible, make an AFFIRMATION instead of an OATH.
It's part of the law.
This is (should be) a non-issue.
That's a first! LOL
My wife always tells me I'm wrong.
For you to be correct, a state or local would have to be able to put up a manger scene on public property while denying the Menorah. It's not PC friend, it's the Constitituion.
Well apparently it wasn't anything worth including in the Constitution itself.
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.