SHOULD THE QU'RAN BE IN THE COURTROOM?

Wilmington Journal ^ | 8/06/05 | CASH MICHAELS

[michigander]

If you're in an Iranian courtroom, do they allow you to swear in on a Bible?

Doubtful, although I really don't know.

SHOULD THE QU'RAN BE IN THE COURTROOM?

In an American courtroom? No.

[EagleUSA]

If you're in an Iranian courtroom, do they allow you to swear in on a Bible?

------
The PC crowd has gone completely overboard approaching insanity. This is America, not some Arab country. Our oaths are taken on the bible. It is sad that the radical left has promoted the wearing of ones religion as if it is some kind of shield from applicable law and procedure.

Very tragic for this country.

[Ostlandr]

Wouldn't it be rather ludicrous and pointless to make an Atheist or Satanist swear on the Bible?

And wouldn't a devout Muslim be more likely to give true testimony if they swore on the Q'ran?

No matter what oaths are sworn, there are always oath-breakers, perjurers and liars.

Much as I hate to agree with the Left, what's wrong with "Upon my honor, and under penalty of perjury, I so do swear."

[Joe Boucher]

courtroom no, bathroom, yes.

[zerosix]

Should the "Koran" be used in lieu of the Bible in a U.S. Courtroom? Not only no but HELL NO!

Muslim countries don't even allow a Bible in their countries (when we are there to protect their back sides) because their governments only acknowledge the Koran as a "Holy Book."

The U.S. was founded as a Christian country (no matter what the atheists say or how many idiots that parrot their lie)and the Bible was acknowledged as our source for law, period.

I would even go further and state that former Muslims tell us that their Prophet Mohammad states in the Koran that it is permissible to lie to an infidel so what does it matter which book a Muslim swears to tell the truth by?

[Prime Choice]

And wouldn't a devout Muslim be more likely to give true testimony if they swore on the Q'ran?

Nope. Islam provides for lying to (or about) non-Muslims.

[Aliska]

I've listened to discussion over this and am naturally prone to Christianity and resist the Koran in the Kourtroom.

That being said, Jesus said let your yes be yes and no be no and said not to swear on anything, so maybe the bible has no place in the Kourtroom either.

It's something that has become so traditional in our country, I have tended to go along with the way things have been done, but I would just rather tell the truth to the best of my ability and not have to swear on anything.

There is so much perjury in our courts now, swearing on the bible has become rather meaningless anyway, at least to unbelievers who are not in the Koran or other religion holy book category.

How far are they going to push this anyway?

[Michael Barnes]

You bring up an interesting point. What do today's courts do with atheists?

[johnny7]

Correct.

[Eastbound]

"SHOULD THE QU'RAN BE IN THE COURTROOM?

Yes! As Exhibit 'A'.

[afnamvet]

Google : witness oath;origin

[jwalsh07]

They affirm they will tell the truth, consonant with the US Constitution. Forcing an atheist to swera on the Bible would be a constitutional no no.

[Cboldt]

Much as I hate to agree with the Left, what's wrong with "Upon my honor, and under penalty of perjury, I so do swear."

It's not so much "agreement with the left" as it is seeking supremacy of law over religion. The law fancies itself to be the ultimate force on earth.

[sourcery]

Actually, thats not the constitutional issue.

Agreed. And I agree on your conclusion with respect to the establishment clause.

But I wasn't addressing the Constitutional issues, only the practical issue of why anyone even cares about swearing to tell the truth in the first place. My point is that you don't even need to consider the Constitutional issues to realize that having any and all witnesses swear on a Bible is simply ridiculous. The issue can and should be decided on that point alone.

[DocRock]

Good one!

[jwalsh07]

That's up to the legislature, I thought we were talking courts. My mistake.

[Michael Barnes]

They affirm they will tell the truth, consonant with the US Constitution. Forcing an atheist to swera on the Bible would be a constitutional no no.

Then there is the answer to the koran issue I suppose.

[sourcery]

Read my post #12.

And having a Muslim swear on a Bible accomplishes what, precisely?

I'd bet an oath could be constructed that a Muslim would find binding. Having him swear to Allah directly, perhaps.

[jwalsh07]

Not constitutionally. All religion or no religion, that will be how the SCOTUS rules.

[AdamSelene235]

The U.S. was founded as a Christian country (no matter what the atheists say or how many idiots that parrot their lie)and the Bible was acknowledged as our source for law, period.

Could you please show me where in the Constitution the Bible or Christianity is cited?