Posted on 08/24/2005 4:15:35 PM PDT by Libloather
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.