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. “
Doubtful, although I really don't know.
SHOULD THE QU'RAN BE IN THE COURTROOM?
In an American courtroom? No.
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.
courtroom no, bathroom, yes.
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?
Nope. Islam provides for lying to (or about) non-Muslims.
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?
Correct.
Yes! As Exhibit 'A'.
Google : witness oath;origin
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.
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.
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.
Good one!
That's up to the legislature, I thought we were talking courts. My mistake.
Then there is the answer to the koran issue I suppose.
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.
Not constitutionally. All religion or no religion, that will be how the SCOTUS rules.
Could you please show me where in the Constitution the Bible or Christianity is cited?
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.