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. “
"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."
WRONG! ! !
Dear Livius,
What part of a Muslim not having to tell the truth to an unbeliever can you not understand?
No matter what the Muslim says, he can't be bound to an oath of truth if an unbeliever is involved. Muslims have carte blanche to lie to the unbeliever.
Therefore, anything which a Muslim says to an unbeliever is possibly a lie. Their 'faith' allows this. Learn to live with it. The Muslims did.
If you are in an Iranian courtroom, yer screwd.
whatever...
either do it or don't. It is really the non issue of non issues. I don't honestly care one way or the other.
This is a pointless exercise in futility and arguments.
Me neither. I'm an agnostic, but if I were ever called to swear on the bible, I would do so - in the spirit that I am swearing on my honor and by everything that I do hold dear, to tell the truth.
Once we start that "Quran for this person, Bible for that person, whatever for a Buddhist", etc., there will so many "holy" books floating around, there would be scarce room for anything else.
Despite the ACLU's protestations, the above HAS to be a ploy to get the bible out of the courts.
"'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."
Yea when I tried to read it my eyes started to roll up. That is why I reposted the URL link.
I did this once before, and should have known better. Guess some dopes never learn.
Sorry all.
The only reason for swearing in is so you can be charged with perjury if you are found out to be lying.
The stuff about swearing in or this or that book is simply to take advantage of people's supersitions.
I agree completely. If they are liars, they are going to lie, whatever they might place their right hand upon. If they swear upon a Koran that might make them think twice about lying, I say bring the Koran on.
Opposition to this is irrational.
Yeah.
I can name any number of people that have lied to me, to my face, just after church....and they professed to be "Christian".
The point is that it isn't the Book they swear upon, but the person that is doing the swearing.
...it will remind the faithful and honest of the seriousness of their oaths...
Thank God some of us are thinking clearly here.
WHAT exactly would be lost by allowing Suiceed Al-Bombeer
to swear to tell the truth on his stupid book? Not that it would improve anything- it simply can't make anything worse, as some xenophobes seem to be suggesting. Christians won't be forced to swear allegiance to Allah, for crying out loud.
Your post reinforces my assertion that the law fancies itself to be the ultimate force on earth.
I assert that human nature will not respect the power of law over the power of religious belief, push come to shove. Blackstone (and others) agree.
Right. Lessismore said it all in Post 106.
I think there is a religious reservation about what's going on here. And Rush Limbaugh didn't help by acting all outraged about it yesterday. THERE ARE DECENT MUSLIMS IN AMERICA!
Why can they not be decent Americans in a court room? I'd love to hear a rational reason why a ridiculous bible ceremony in a public courtroom is A-Ok, but a ridiculous Koran ceremony (that might have an effect on a terrorist's
truthfulness) represents a disintegration of American culture. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" folks.
well didn't ya know that if you swear to the Qu'ran then we start to go into Sharia law and blah blah blah...
You aren't required to swear on the Bible in the first place.
Take their victim status away and let them reveal themselves for who they truly are....
Here ya go...
Qur'an 3:27: "Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah unless it is done to guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully. And Allah cautions you against His retribution. And to Allah is the eventual coming."
Qur'an 16:106: Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty.
Big difference from Christianity. When Jesus was rebuked by the Pharisees for hanging out with bartenders, hookers, and tax collectors, he replied "Does a doctor practice his trade among the well?"
Are Muslims presumed by the Qur'an to be so weak in their faith that they can't even associate with non-Muslims? That would be like contemporary Christians only associating with other Christians, only watching Christian TV and only listening to Christian music- oh, wait- never mind.
Pig hide QU'RAN might be ok.
3:27 doesn't seem to address telling a lie at all, much less a lie under oath. And 16:106 turns on the interpretation of "under duress" which every mullah, imam, or islamic scholar I've been able to find interpret to mean "under threat of death." The rest of it clearly says there will be "wrath from Allah" and "a dreadful penalty" for telling a lie. That hardly supports the position that it is OK for a Muslim to lie in court after swearing on a Koran. Just the opposite in fact.
No. If they are not Christian, they make make a simply affirmation.
I further think that the position you take here is fairly arguable.
Some of the founders asserted that the BOR was superfluous, under the reasoning that the plain language of the Constitution gives NO power to the Federal government to make laws respecting the establishment of religion, or forbidding the free exercize thereof.
Given the principle of a Constitution of -limited- federal power, it is harder to argue that the federal power is -supreme- over religious belief, as a matter of Con Law; nevermind the spiritual angle where people blow off the law in subservience to a higher power.
My point boils down to the FACT that given a choice between violating the law and violating one's religion, EVERYBODY who adheres to their religion will violate the law.
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.