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. “
The men who wrote the Constitution didn't think so; for example, Article VI says that "all executive and judicial Officers... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution..."
*** Are we more free and better than the Iranians?***
If we are, it isn't due to the Koran.
It's amazing to me - reading the posts here on FR - whenever the issue of Muslims and the Koran come up - how many supposedly freedom-loving Americans don't really believe in the free exercise of religion. It's scary, really.
I suppose that's because we're in a war with Muslim extremists. But the people that we are trying to HELP in Iraq and Afghanistan are also mostly MUSLIM. They're not all the enemy.
As a matter of public policy: If someone can swear an oath with their hand on the Bible, they should be able to affirm that oath on whatever "holy book" they choose. The government is incompetent to make judgments about what's theologically valid and invalid. Seriously, do you want the government telling you that YOUR religious ideas are wrong?
Oaths today are a quaint relic of more superstitious times, a way to indicate the seriousness of the proceeding and to invoke the punishment of the gods on perjurers. I'm not sure they are much more than a solemn tradition these days. But, if putting your hand on a book isn't very likely to make you more truthful, it's probably not going to make you a bigger liar, either.
As a matter of theology: for Christians, no oath is necessary. Jesus said, "Again, you have heard that it was said to our ancestors, You must not break your oath, but you must keep your oaths to the Lord. But I tell you, don't take an oath at all .... But let your word 'yes' be 'yes,' and your 'no' be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-34a, 37 HCSB)
Christians are supposed to be people of integrity whose word can be trusted. Putting my hand on the Bible can't increase my responsibility to be truthful in court. God already requires that of me.
Free exercise is good for everybody. I'm not afraid to let my beliefs compete in the market place of ideas. Certainly, many ACLU suits seek to limit the free exercise of religion. This isn't one of them. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and in this case the ACLU is right. (Americans United, as usual, is dead wrong. Don't get me started on Barry Lynn who told me in the early 1980s .... well, that's a story for another time).
Nope.
It is due to our CONSTITUTION, at least a country. It is due to our Christian values as people.
If someone wants to swear on a Qu'ran, so be it.
I miss the old fool; he was the best part of the whole war.
Right on!!
***It is due to our Christian values as people. ***
Values the Koran scorns btw.
***If someone wants to swear on a Qu'ran, so be it.***
Thats a good first step towards allowing the Koran and Islamic law a foothold in American jurisprudence.
so I guess freedom of relgion doesn't count then? Or maybe it only counts for "ACCEPTABLE" religions? So I guess that if in a certain region of the US we should exclude Catholics or Jews?
Why not just rip that old paper up and rewrite it so that we can exclude our preceived enemies?
get over yourselves. A little common sense is in order here.
If we were fighting over 1 BILLION muslims, things would be a helluva lot hotter then they are.
People are guarenteed freedom of religion - not the freedom to change the nature of our historically sound legal system.
**So I guess that if in a certain region of the US we should exclude Catholics or Jews? **
Strawman - We are a Judeo-Christian culture.
****A little common sense is in order here.****
Common sense says don't open the door to a book that has enslaved billions.
we aren't changing the damned principles.
We aren't using the Qu'ran as the basis of any of our laws.
It wouldn't ever work.
the topic of this thread is about whether another ali can swear on a Qu'ran at a court proceeding.
Your arguments would carry more if you stayed on topic.
"People are guarenteed freedom of religion - not the freedom to change the nature of our historically sound legal system."
Tell that to the 9th circuit court of liberal activist judges.
>Define "compulsion".
From the link given earlier:
The practice was a method of self-preservation for the Shi'as who historically were the minority and persecuted by Sunni Muslims. Sunnis would sometimes force Shi'as to curse the House of Ali - believing that no devout Shi'a could commit such an act. As a result of this persecution, the idea of Taqiyya emerged. In other words, if a Shi'a Muslim's life is in danger, he may lie as long as he holds his faith true in his heart.
Can you provide a citation to this? As far as I can tell it is a mortal sin to swear on a Koran then lie (unless the life of the person is in danger) no matter where it may occur.
Which is allowed only when the life of the person telling the lie is immediately at stake if he told the truth. So says this link.
I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem making an "AFFIRMATION" on the Koran.
I wonder how long it will be until that one bites you on the ass?
"Doesn't the Qu'ran advocate lying to your enemies?"
The koran does indeed allow the believer to lie to the unbeliever. Therefore, all Muslims must be prohibited from testifying because they can not be bound by their oath if an unbeliever is involved.
***We aren't using the Qu'ran as the basis of any of our laws.
It wouldn't ever work. ***
They are trying to get it to work in Canada and France. They have made it work in Nigeria. What make you think they wouldn't try it here?
***the topic of this thread is about whether another ali can swear on a Qu'ran at a court proceeding***
Yes, whether it is LEGAL do do so. I am arguing that it is making a change to the legal system (in that previously it only allowed Christian Scriptures) and since the legal system is based on precident we must ask where this precident will take us.
***Your arguments would carry more if you stayed on topic.***
I think I'm right on target.
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.