The Green Bible.
Posted on 05/25/2007 4:59:38 PM PDT by melt
A North Carolina judge has ruled that any religious text can be used to swear in a witness or juror in the state's courtrooms, not just the Bible.
State law currently allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath in three ways: by laying a hand over "the Holy Scriptures," by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book, or by an affirmation using no religious symbols.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of a Muslim woman who wasn't allowed to take her oath on the Quran.
(Excerpt) Read more at 209.85.165.104 ...
Better that than being forced 50 years down the road to place your hand on a copy of the Qur’an. Or worse, be subjected to Islamic justice.
Uhhhhh.....
The Satanic Bible, too?
And here I just ate.
The Bible doesn’t condone lying.
The Quran commands it.
The Green Bible.
BUMP
Reminds me of the movie “Animal House” when the Delta pledges are sworn in by fraternity president Hoover giving them the oath while holding a Chilton manual... “I swear allegiance to the frat, with liberty and fraternity for all, amen”.
Islam is the political system of theocratic rule establish by the ancient warlord Mohammed and his decendents.
No different than Adolph Hitler’s dream of a thousand year Reich.
Among Islam’s laws are the approval to lie to the kufir. An “oath” does not have to be obeyed if it is not an Islamic oath.
Liars lie no matter what book they swear on.
I agree with your assessment, although there are difficulties. You said, “Some religions allow lying in pursuit of that particular religion&rsquos goals. That is great material for cross examination.” Would not the fact that one is allowed to swear on any religious book give all religious equal standing (equal protection)? If someone swore on the Book of Satan, would not cross examination of that fact be off limits? I am not a lawyer, just wondering about the practical implications of this ruling, even though I am in favor of it.
“Creeping incrementalism.”
Incrementalism is supposed to creep.
If we going to insist people swear on something that’s holy to them in court, it only makes sense to use something for Muslims that’s like, holy.
I didn’t know judges could make law.
I think the ruling is reasonable. I cannot imagine why you should be asked to swear an oath over a book that contains the New Testament any more than I would swear an oath over, say, the Book of Mormon (I’m not picking on Mormons, I am just using this as an example). If you got several people together who claimed to believe in the Bible and questioned them about what the Bible means and what books it contains, you might get different answers: A Jew, a Catholic, a Protestant and a Mormon would all have different views to a greater or lesser extent as to what is meant by “the Bible.”
What advantage would be acquired by requiring a muslim to swear an oath on a book he didn’t hold sacred?
Right - and actually, why do people submit to swearing on the Bible anyway? Jesus taught not to swear on anything holy but to let " your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (Matthew 5:33-37)
I have often wondered what I would do if I had to testify in court and was told to swear on the Bible.
Very interesting this court ruling.
Maybe just the Old Testament?
Yep, couldn’t resist the tagline. San Antonio is, of course, a sanctuary city.
I don't disagree. My ex is a perfect example.
But the Quran instructs the Muslim to lie as part of it's teaching.
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.