Posted on 09/29/2005 6:25:13 AM PDT by TaxRelief
GREENSBORO, N.C. -- A lawsuit filed over the use of non-Christian texts for courtroom oaths should be dismissed because there is no controversy between the parties to settle, the state argues in its response filed this week.
The state attorney general's office also said the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, which filed the lawsuit in Wake County Superior Court in July, lacks the right to sue.
The lawsuit does not name anyone who has been denied the opportunity to take a religious oath on a non-Christian book, but ACLU attorney Seth Cohen doesn't believe that's necessary.
The suit was filed on behalf of the organization's roughly 8,000 members statewide, some of whom are Muslims and Jews who would prefer to use religious texts other than the Christian Bible for courtroom oaths, Cohen said.
(snip)The ACLU in June called on the state Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a policy allowing use of the Quran and other religious texts in North Carolina courtrooms. The request came after the two top judges in Guilford County decided that Muslims could not legally take an oath on the Quran.
This is an excerpt.
And I urge dismissal of the ACLU. For good.
The ACLU believes that the Bill of Rights is an instrument of national suicide. That's their goal, aim and purpose in life. Nothing more, nothing less.
CAIR here in Maryland is screaming "hate crime" lately. Someone vandalized a mosque ...... with a Star of David. Can't get more evil than that.
BTW, it's OK for Moooslims to lie to Christians.
The ACLU should be restricted to only being abled to jointly swear out an affidavit with someone who has actually been "damaged" before being allowed to ever file another lawsuit and should be extended to any court case.
All the costs to taxpayers re: Newdow where not one person was proven harmed could have been avoided had the claim of damage been first asked of his "daughter" or had she been required to jointly file an affidavit to that effect.
No one should be allowed to file suits on behalf of anyone else as a "damaged party" unless it's a joint filing. Period.
Isn't there already a provision in the law that a non-Christian can choose to "affirm" to tell the truth when testifying?
Yes, and the provision that allows the option to affirm to tell the truth should cover all belief systems.
So, let me get this straight. The ACLU is actually urging that religious texts be allowed in the courtroom? Isn't that a good thing?
The policy seems reasonable to me. After all, would a Muslim me more likely to tell the truth while swearing an oath on the Bible? I wouldn't think so.
They're no more likely to tell the truth if swearing on their Q'uran. The Islamist "holy book" (sic) encourages lying to infidels if it means covering up for another Muslim.
So it doesn't matter what they swear on. Don't want someone dirtying up the Bible by swearing a false oath, do you?
I've seen far more vulgar kind handle the Holy Bible. Fortunately, the Bible is not sullied by it.
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.