July 28, 200521 yr LAW OF THE LAND Court swearing-in: 'So help me Allah'? ACLU sues to allow other texts such as Quran in legal-oathtaking In an effort to end the Bible's monopoly on the swearing-in procedure in the courtroom, the American Civil Liberties Union is now suing the state of North Carolina. A lawsuit has been filed in Superior Court in Wake County, N.C., on behalf of the organization's statewide membership of approximately 8,000 individuals of many different faiths, including Islam and Judaism. "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 in accordance with their faith," said Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director of the ACLU-NC. "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." Current law mentions laying one's hand on the "Holy Scriptures," which officials heretofore have interpreted as meaning the Bible. The ACLU seeks a court order clarifying that the existing rule is broad enough to allow the use of multiple religious texts. "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 Quran, the Old Testament and the Bhagavad-Gita 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 texts in the administration of religious oaths," said a written statement from the civil-liberties group. The swearing-in issue began last month after Muslims from the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center in Greensboro sought to donate copies of the Quran to courtrooms in Guilford County. The gift was rejected by the county's top two judges, noting an oath based on the Quran was not legally binding. I'm not even Christian and think this is ridiculous.
July 28, 200521 yr I think The ACLU much like PETA gets way too much bad rap. Their is no doubt that in more than a few cases they go way overboard when it comes to political correctness. However, in many cases they do some actual good it's just these laughable cases that get them the reputation they now enjoy. With that said, I would never think of being a member but you can't completely throw them aside or even think of them as a strict liberal organization(I don't know many liberal organizations who represent the kkk). With that said, for the members who complain that this should be called the "move on.org forum" that not every thing here is just liberals trying to undermind the president and republicans.
July 28, 200521 yr wait accord, what is ridiculous? Why is it ok for a Muslim person or Jewish person to swear on the New Testament but not for Christian person to swear on the Quran? Christians are quick to point out that its not an excersice of religon or an establishment of religion to have Christian items on various government icons or uses. But then why do they get offended when other religions get the same thing? I remember reading an interview one time where a guy said he doesnt think the ten commandments on the courthouse was a big deal but he would be offended if the Quran was there. It sounds like selective exercise of the establishment clause. If its not a big deal then its not a big deal what the religious book is. If it is a big deal then why have anything in the first place? You cant eat your cake and have it too.
July 28, 200521 yr It isn't a big deal, they shouldn't even swear on the Bible IMO. I mean, if a serial killer is pleading innocent I highly doubt that he is going to say the truth just because he swore on the Bible (or any holy book for that matter). As if he would care.
July 28, 200521 yr Author wait accord, what is ridiculous? Why is it ok for a Muslim person or Jewish person to swear on the New Testament but not for Christian person to swear on the Quran? Christians are quick to point out that its not an excersice of religon or an establishment of religion to have Christian items on various government icons or uses. But then why do they get offended when other religions get the same thing? I remember reading an interview one time where a guy said he doesnt think the ten commandments on the courthouse was a big deal but he would be offended if the Quran was there. It sounds like selective exercise of the establishment clause. If its not a big deal then its not a big deal what the religious book is. If it is a big deal then why have anything in the first place? You cant eat your cake and have it too. 877349[/snapback] This is what happens when you assume things. I am not Christian, have you not seen the avatar i've had for the past 6 months? :shifty Do you have any idea how big a friggen can of worms this could open up? This is far more than just allowing a different book into the court room. What if someone is agnostic? How would we hold that person accountable for telling the truth in a court of law after swearing to the same God of all 3 religions on their holy book... we would not and their testimony would be held at face value only. How many religions are there out there that should be included? Shouldn't we include Buddism if we are going to also have the Koran? What about a "Book of Shadows"? See, you can't be selective. If your going to change it, why not just completely bastardize the process and have a copy of EVERY KNOWN ACTIVE RELIGION so NOBODY gets offended? Explain to me WHY the process should be changed? Our Constitution has worked for us perfectly fine thus far, no sense in changing it because the ACLU is p***y hurt. If the ACLU really wants to do Americans a favor then they need to close their doors forever.
July 28, 200521 yr I'm Christian and I agree with Sandroimbuto. It doesn't matter what religion anyone is, if the person is guilty, they are going to lie out their ass anyway. The whole searing in process is a gimic.
July 28, 200521 yr What if someone is agnostic? How would we hold that person accountable for telling the truth in a court of law after swearing to the same God of all 3 religions on their holy book... we would not and their testimony would be held at face value only. And how does the agnostic person get held accountable by swearing to the Bible? Like sandro said, how is that testimony not at face value anyway? Isnt it much more effective to say "if you lie, you commit perjury and will go to prison"? I mean an atheist doesnt fear God but he certainly fears dropping the soap in prison. Listen, I dont think its a big deal one way or another. Ive sworn on the Bible in court before. But I wouldnt care if it was the Quran. My problem is the hypocrisy of people who say yes Bible and no other books. Makes no sense. In fact, a lot time it comes from people who want to make the US a more religious rather than secular state. Would make us no better than the Taliban.
July 28, 200521 yr Even if you take out the putting your hand on the Bible stuff, you still say, "So help me, God." at the end. What if you don't believe in God? What do you say? "So help me, P. Diddy."???
July 28, 200521 yr I think The ACLU much like PETA gets way too much bad rap. Their is no doubt that in more than a few cases they go way overboard when it comes to political correctness. However, in many cases they do some actual good it's just these laughable cases that get them the reputation they now enjoy. With that said, I would never think of being a member but you can't completely throw them aside or even think of them as a strict liberal organization(I don't know many liberal organizations who represent the kkk). With that said, for the members who complain that this should be called the "move on.org forum" that not every thing here is just liberals trying to undermind the president and republicans. 877330[/snapback] The ACLU's bad reputation is deserved they defend MBLA which is a pedophile group whose aim is to spread the word how to seduce and rape young boys ...that is strike one ,strike two at every turn this civil liberties group seeks to undermine the security of the united states fighting for terrorist rights everywhere more or less to undermine the US government's credibility and ability to fight terrorism. Third they seek to destory America's history and eliminate rational consensus on hot botton issues by litigating against issues that have been voted on by the people{i can give examples if you like).......ACLU's is an extreme organization that advocates extremist views that more often than not are not a protection or defense of civil liberties but rather serves to litigate their extremist views that cant be achieved democratically.
July 28, 200521 yr why is this a bad thing? I always wondered why non-Christians were made to swear on the bible???????????????????????? I dislike the ACLU normally but I agree with them here
July 28, 200521 yr Author Would make us no better than the Taliban. 877434[/snapback] I was somewhat with you until that part...
July 28, 200521 yr ACLU and PETA both need to be eliminated. I saw in the paper today that they are protesting fishing at the BassMasters Classic by showing a picture of a dog with a huge fishhook in its mouth. They love disturbing images.
July 28, 200521 yr ACLU and PETA both need to be eliminated. I saw in the paper today that they are protesting fishing at the BassMasters Classic by showing a picture of a dog with a huge fishhook in its mouth. They love disturbing images. 877738[/snapback] PETA has always been that way. They have used the dog with a fish hook in his mouth on billboards and such... Also, did you ever see their protest where some of their members stripped naked and wrapped themselves in cellophane with a carded backing (like the way we buy beef)? They use sensationalist tactics to make meat eaters feel like they are cannibals. They go way overboard. They don't think animals should be forced to be in movies or entertainment at all. It is somehow torture I guess. Pretty soon they will be asking to give animals the right to vote. I can see it now. I'd laugh if a dog ever ran for president. :lol
July 28, 200521 yr Every time someone mentions PETA, I feel obligated to post this: Break Out Your Cold Ones Toast The Padres Enjoy This Champion Organization
July 28, 200521 yr Author Padres 877772[/snapback] At least you didn't choose the Phillies to fill the 'P' slot :lol .
July 29, 200521 yr Would make us no better than the Taliban. 877434[/snapback] I was somewhat with you until that part... 877657[/snapback] Seriously, youve gotta think about what people are actually saying. Demanding that one religion dominates over another is exactly what the Taliban do. So anyone who does that follows their lead. Hence making the operative word "would." And people bash the ACLU until they need their help. Rush Limbaugh was pretty quick to become buddy buddy with the ACLU when he needed to protect his drug habit. Ill admit sometimes the ACLU takes it too far. But Id rather have them do that then have nobody watching out for my civil liberties.
July 29, 200521 yr I'm shocked it took this long. It's freaking 2005 and we require everyone--be they Christian or not--to take an oath on the holy Christian bible any time they do anything official. Yeah, it's a tradition, but why exactly can't we expand upon it? This country is a million times more religiously diverse than it was when we first started doing the tradition (you know--back when there were only Christians and a few miscellaneous heathen). During the holidays, we make sure all of our public displays are religiously diverse so no one gets offended by the passive sight of them, but when it comes time for a person to actually participate in a spiritual exercise by taking a religious oath, the good book is the only option? What's wrong with this picture? I just don't see how anyone could have a problem with this request...is it really that ridiculous? Or is this more about the ACLU?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.