In the restroom maybe?
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. “
LOL.
Marine_Uncle,
Paragraph breaks are you friend, don't be afraid to use them. :-)
That would seem to prohibit lying under oath right there.
I'm blind! what was that mess?
Just kidding, I know that some things don't post well, there may be a good HTML code to correct it but I don't know what it is.
SHOULD THE QU'RAN BE IN THE COURTROOM?
Well, the judge has to bang the gavel down on SOMETHING...
I suppose that a court room would be OK, but I find that mine is a lot more useful in my outhouse.
"Melt in the pot or get out."
Do you mind if I steal that line, turn it into a bumper
sticker and make a zillion bucks. I know I would sport one
if I could.
Define "compulsion".
Many courtrooms have dropped the God portion of the oath, ending only with "so help you".
I'd hardly call Jews or Muslims fringe groups. On the other hand, it's silly to have them swear on a Christian Bible (most Jews I know either bring their own, or only swear on the so-called "Old Testement."
Then again, it's silly for Jews to be swearing to God anyway, since Jews affirmatively cancel all vows to God for the coming year as part of Kol Nidre on Yom Kippur (i.e. in modern Rabbinic Judiasm, it is impossible to make a vow to God, a doctrine that grew out of how serious it is to make a vow then brake it).
So far as I know, all courts permit people who do not accept Jewish/Christian Scripture to simply make an affirmation that they will tell the truth. This is a non-issue.
I forgot that the bible is like Wonder Woman's lasso of truth and has special powers. If that's the case, everyone should be forced to swear to it. If it's not, then Wonder Woman (or a reasonable facimile) needs to tie us up and force us to tell the truth.
I wouldn't object...
My, what creative prowess.
I don't believe that I asserted such. All I said was that a Moslem has no religious compulsion to tell the truth in a non-Islamic court no matter what book is involved. It's a fact.
"All I said was that a Moslem has no religious compulsion to tell the truth in a non-Islamic court no matter what book is involved. It's a fact."
So get them to swear on bibles or tie them up with magic lassos! PROBLEM SOLVED!
Federal courts have never required the use of a Bible or the words "so help me God." The U.S. Constitution, every time it mentions oaths, always says "oath or affirmation." This was because, even then, there were a lot of religious dissenters (Quakers, and probably some others)who wouldn't swear on a Bible.
Today, federal law is that the witness can pretty much use any form of oath or affirmation he wants, as long as it is clear that (a) he is promising to tell the truth, and (b) he understands that he can be convicted of perjury if he lies. (The same is true in the state courts I have been in, but I have never been in a North Carolina state court, so I don't know if they really make everyone swear on a Bible.)
Let the Penalties for Perjury be EXTREMELY HARSH (10+ Years in Prison).
It is NOT NECESSARY to "SWEAR BY GOD!"
THUS, "Lying in the Name of Islam" is Moot!
If you Lie--you go to Jail--for a LONG TIME!!!
Doc
correct.
The middle-east media proves that fact that muslims have to be the most practiced, but at the same time, worst liars on the planet.
I think they have simply gotten so used to bullshiting and the illiterate, uneducated masses in that land believing it, they gave up even trying to make their claims plausible anymore.
I love those jihadist websites that try to give a tally each day of how many american soliders have been killed in Iraq. Great comedy.
"Augest 18th, the glorious allahs warriors destroyed 200 american tanks, killed 5000 infidel soliders, sunk an aircraft carrier task group, and now control Baghdad".
Arafat was always good for laughs as well.
"The Palestinian Authority condems todays suicide bomb attack in Tel Aviv and we are investigating who was involved."
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.