Court witnesses can take oath on Quran or any religious text, judge says

[stephanie]

RALEIGH, North Carolina: Witnesses and jurors being sworn in at North Carolina courthouses can take their oath on the Quran or any other religious text,a judge ruled Thursday following a legal challenge that argued limiting the oath to the Bible alone was unconstitutional.

The ruling came after the American Civil Liberties Union argued that restricting the oaths to the Bible favored Christianity over other religions.

The question surfaced after Muslims tried to donate copies of the Quran to Guilford County's two courthouses. Two judges declined to accept the texts, saying that taking an oath on the Quran was illegal under state law.

The issue drew national attention in January when the first Muslim elected to U.S. Congress took a ceremonial oath with a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

State law currently allows witnesses to take their oath in three ways: by laying a hand over "the Holy Scriptures," by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book, or by an affirmation using no religious symbols.

The group sought a court order clarifying that the law was broad enough to allow the use of multiple religious texts, or else declaring the statute unconstitutional.

Though the judge stopped short of that, the ACLU still considered the ruling "a great victory."

"As of today all people can use the holy text of their choice," said Seth Cohen, an ACLU attorney who argued the case.

"We welcome this ruling as an expression of our nation's constitutional commitment to religious diversity and tolerance," said Arsalan Iftikhar, legal director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The ACLU said six other states have similar laws that favor the Bible in courtrooms: Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

In North Carolina, it is rare for someone taking an oath at one of the state's 108 court facilities to request an alternative to the Bible, said Dick Ellis, a spokesman for the state Administrative Office of the Courts.

A trial court judge initially dismissed the ACLU's suit in December 2005, ruling it was moot because there was no actual controversy at the time.

An appeals court panel allowed the case to go forward in January, after the ACLU added Syidah Mateen as a plaintiff. In its decision, the appeals court cited Mateen's claim that her request to place her hand on the Quran as a witness in a domestic violence case was denied in 2003.

During a hearing this month, state attorneys asked the judge to dismiss the case, calling the complaint political.

The state has 30 days to appeal Thursday's ruling and is reviewing it, said Noelle Talley, spokeswoman for the state attorney general.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/24/america/NA-GEN-US-Quran-Courtroom.php

[Psychoblues]

Wuz the prob?



RALEIGH, North Carolina: Witnesses and jurors being sworn in at North Carolina courthouses can take their oath on the Quran or any other religious text,a judge ruled Thursday following a legal challenge that argued limiting the oath to the Bible alone was unconstitutional.

The ruling came after the American Civil Liberties Union argued that restricting the oaths to the Bible favored Christianity over other religions.

The question surfaced after Muslims tried to donate copies of the Quran to Guilford County's two courthouses. Two judges declined to accept the texts, saying that taking an oath on the Quran was illegal under state law.

The issue drew national attention in January when the first Muslim elected to U.S. Congress took a ceremonial oath with a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

State law currently allows witnesses to take their oath in three ways: by laying a hand over "the Holy Scriptures," by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book, or by an affirmation using no religious symbols.

The group sought a court order clarifying that the law was broad enough to allow the use of multiple religious texts, or else declaring the statute unconstitutional.

Though the judge stopped short of that, the ACLU still considered the ruling "a great victory."

"As of today all people can use the holy text of their choice," said Seth Cohen, an ACLU attorney who argued the case.

"We welcome this ruling as an expression of our nation's constitutional commitment to religious diversity and tolerance," said Arsalan Iftikhar, legal director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The ACLU said six other states have similar laws that favor the Bible in courtrooms: Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

In North Carolina, it is rare for someone taking an oath at one of the state's 108 court facilities to request an alternative to the Bible, said Dick Ellis, a spokesman for the state Administrative Office of the Courts.

A trial court judge initially dismissed the ACLU's suit in December 2005, ruling it was moot because there was no actual controversy at the time.

An appeals court panel allowed the case to go forward in January, after the ACLU added Syidah Mateen as a plaintiff. In its decision, the appeals court cited Mateen's claim that her request to place her hand on the Quran as a witness in a domestic violence case was denied in 2003.

During a hearing this month, state attorneys asked the judge to dismiss the case, calling the complaint political.

The state has 30 days to appeal Thursday's ruling and is reviewing it, said Noelle Talley, spokeswoman for the state attorney general.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/24/america/NA-GEN-US-Quran-Courtroom.php

You trying to create one?

[stephanie]

Wuz the prob?




You trying to create one?

Are YOU????????:slap:

[Psychoblues]

Nope.



Are YOU????????:slap:

You had a reason for posting that article but you did not make your reasoning or opinion of the decision evident. Do you not enjoy the freedom of religion that our government offers you?

[stephanie]

Nope.




You had a reason for posting that article but you did not make your reasoning or opinion of the decision evident. Do you not enjoy the freedom of religion that our government offers you?

I didn't post a reason....because I wasn't sure how I felt on it...

I'm leaning towards......I'm not liking it..so much..

so I wanted to see others thoughts on it....Is that OK with you????:p

[Psychoblues]

Absolutely!!!! That's why we are all here!!!!!!


I didn't post a reason....because I wasn't sure how I felt on it...

I'm leaning towards......I'm not liking it..so much..

so I wanted to see others thoughts on it....Is that OK with you????:p

What about it makes you feel uncomfortable?

[stephanie]

Absolutely!!!! That's why we are all here!!!!!!



What about it makes you feel uncomfortable?

The Bible has always been used..

The majority here in the United States, say they are a Christian..

Why do we need to change it???

[Psychoblues]

Because we are a Democracy, stephanie. And our founding fathers specifically excluded religion as any test or consideration as to our Americaness or our citizenship. We have Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, Quakers, Puritanists, Muslims and on and on and on for about 500 religions not including all the atheists, agnostics and even hedonists which are also religions of sorts right here and right now in this country.



The Bible has always been used..

The majority here say they are a Christian..

Why do we need to change it???

If a judge wants to allow someone to swear on a telephone book or not swear at all it is no problem as the American I consider with me and I don't think as an American it should be with you.

What do you think? No change requested or granted in this case.

[stephanie]

Because we are a Democracy, stephanie. And our founding fathers specifically excluded religion as any test or consideration as to our Americaness or our citizenship. We have Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, Quakers, Puritanists, Muslims and on and on and on for about 500 religions not including all the atheists, agnostics and even hedonists which are also religions of sorts right here and right now in this country.




If a judge wants to allow someone to swear on a telephone book or not swear at all it is no problem as the American I consider with me and I don't think as an American it should be with you.

What do you think? No change requested or granted in this case.

So....we are No more.......The United States of America....

We are........A United of nothing???

[Psychoblues]

I don't know if I am getting your drift here, stephanie. I live in, completely support and totally believe in the United States Of America.



So....we are No more.......The United States of America....

We are........A United of nothing???

I know what the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence and literally thousands of laws are about. If you think my adamance towards the freedoms as guaranteed by any of these is somehow misguided then I question your own committment to the ideals as expressed by our founders.

I'm sorry for you but I won't go through this point by point starting with a,b,c's and 2 plus 2's. Maybe your private education failed you.

[diuretic]

In my jurisdiction it's always been the case that a witness can choose how they swear their oath. I was taught the various oaths to be administered to members of various religions many years ago. I remember one - I think it was related to a religion in China - where the witness would swear to tell the truth or his/her soul would be snuffed out - and then they would blow out a candle, saying, "like this candle". There was also one that involved breaking a plate.

It's just a ritual anyway, people can still give an affirmation rather than a holy oath.

I'm surprised it's an issue. If someone follows a particular religion it makes sense to me that they give a sincere oath on their own religious text or referencing a particular object. They get pinched for perjury if they lie anyway.

[stephanie]

I don't know if I am getting your drift here, Stephanie. I live in, completely support and totally believe in the United States Of America.




I know what the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence and literally thousands of laws are about. If you think my adamance towards the freedoms as guaranteed by any of these is somehow misguided then I question your own commitment to the ideals as expressed by our founders.

I'm sorry for you but I won't go through this point by point starting with a,b,c's and 2 plus 2's. Maybe your private education failed you.

Well....Excuse me..I only went to public schools... Can't you tell...
I graduated and only have some credits of collage....I know...that ain't shit....
So....don't let me bore any longer....
I'm sure you have more intelligent conversations, that you need to attend too...

:bye1:

[Psychoblues]

It's amazing, dr., what some people continue to cling to in this land of the free and home of the brave.



In my jurisdiction it's always been the case that a witness can choose how they swear their oath. I was taught the various oaths to be administered to members of various religions many years ago. I remember one - I think it was related to a religion in China - where the witness would swear to tell the truth or his/her soul would be snuffed out - and then they would blow out a candle, saying, "like this candle". There was also one that involved breaking a plate.

It's just a ritual anyway, people can still give an affirmation rather than a holy oath.

I'm surprised it's an issue. If someone follows a particular religion it makes sense to me that they give a sincere oath on their own religious text or referencing a particular object. They get pinched for perjury if they lie anyway.

The rituals of Americaness violate every thought of our forefathers.

[Psychoblues]

For the love of God, stephanie, don't go yanking on my chain, OK?!!?!?!??!??!




Well....Excuse me..I only went to public schools... Can't you tell...
I graduated and only have some credits of collage....I know...that ain't shit....
So....don't let me bore any longer....
I'm sure you have more intelligent conversations, that you need to attend too...

:bye1:

I'm sure you have some "collage" credits and I am sure you ain't as boring as you perceive yourself. But, I ain't no Doctor and you need one right now. Otherwise, have another Cape Cod and I'll catch you on the upbeat!!!!!!!!

[stephanie]

For the love of God, stephanie, don't go yanking on my chain, OK?!!?!?!??!??!





I'm sure you have some "collage" credits and I am sure you ain't as boring as you perceive yourself. But, I ain't no Doctor and you need one right now. Otherwise, have another Cape Cod and I'll catch you on the upbeat!!!!!!!!

No one said.........you had to reply...:laugh2:

:huddle:

[Psychoblues]

Who said?



No one said.........you had to reply...:laugh2:

:huddle:

What reply?

[stephanie]

Who said?




What reply?

Nevermind....:cheers2:

[glockmail]

I didn't post a reason....because I wasn't sure how I felt on it...

I'm leaning towards......I'm not liking it..so much..

so I wanted to see others thoughts on it....Is that OK with you????:p


Personally I have a problem with it. For a long time here in NC we have had the option of swearing on the Bible or taking a bullshit oath without it. To me that affirms that we are in fact a society based on Christianity but recognize others right not to believe in it. This new ruling, by a judge, not the legislature, elevated the Koran or other lesser works to Bible status and was not necessary. It just one more step towards recognition of an evil religion that is working to take over the world by violence.

[82Marine89]

If a judge wants to allow someone to swear on a telephone book or not swear at all it is no problem as the American I consider with me and I don't think as an American it should be with you.



Sounds like you are promoting group think.

[diuretic]

Because I choose to make a solemn affirmation doesn't mean it's a "bullshit oath". Nor is it a bad thing for someone of a religion other than Christianity to take an oath on their own sacred text. It's a bigoted position to oppose someone being able to swear an oath in line with their religion.

[5stringJeff]

As much as I don't like Islam, this is America, and people do have freedom of religion. So if someone wants to take an oath on a book that falsely represents itself as the word of God, that's fine by me.

[Gaffer]

As much as I don't like Islam, this is America, and people do have freedom of religion. So if someone wants to take an oath on a book that falsely represents itself as the word of God, that's fine by me.

Since the koran is all hatred and lies does that mean the person swearing on it is a liar. The koran even says its ok to lie to an infidel.

[shattered]

The Bible has always been used..

The majority here in the United States, say they are a Christian..

Why do we need to change it???

We don't *need* to change it.. But...

Here's my take on it.. A bible isn't going to make me swear to tell the truth.. My own conscience is.. You could have me swear on a peanut butter sandwich, and you'd get the same results - from me, anyway.

If someone wants to swear on something else that has more meaning to them, so be it..They're swearing to tell the truth, and putting ones hand on a solid object isn't going to do anything to affect that..

If it's that much of a problem, take swearing on any particular "thing" out completely.

[stephanie]

We don't *need* to change it.. But...

Here's my take on it.. A bible isn't going to make me swear to tell the truth.. My own conscience is.. You could have me swear on a peanut butter sandwich, and you'd get the same results - from me, anyway.

If someone wants to swear on something else that has more meaning to them, so be it..They're swearing to tell the truth, and putting ones hand on a solid object isn't going to do anything to affect that..

If it's that much of a problem, take swearing on any particular "thing" out completely.

I see your point...:cheers2:

[DragonStryk72]

The issue drew national attention in January when the first Muslim elected to U.S. Congress took a ceremonial oath with a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

Now I know for a fact this part is actually true, Thomas Jefferson, writer of the declaration of Independence, owned his own copy of the Quran.

As a point of history, before the separation of church and state, there were actual laws on the books that stated that you had to attend church, as well as the church being able to assess taxes from people, because the church is a part of the English government, meaning that aside from FICA, state taxes, and social security, here's another fun one: paying the church, whether or not you're a part of the religion you're paying into.

I have 0 college credits, with only my high school diploma, Stephanie, it's not really a matter or smarts here. The sole point of this is that the United States of America is founded upon principles that various parts of our own government now run roughshod over.

For my part, this is actually the kind of thing that our government should be handling in courts, matters of the consitutionality of local, state, and federal laws. Now if only they could get around to that pesky Patriot Act thing, I have a fairly good argument heavily involving the 4th amendment. ;)

[Nuc]

As much as I don't like Islam, this is America, and people do have freedom of religion. So if someone wants to take an oath on a book that falsely represents itself as the word of God, that's fine by me.

All books claiming to be god are doing so falsely. Let them give their oath on any book they want.

[glockmail]

Because I choose to make a solemn affirmation doesn't mean it's a "bullshit oath". Nor is it a bad thing for someone of a religion other than Christianity to take an oath on their own sacred text. It's a bigoted position to oppose someone being able to swear an oath in line with their religion.
Islam is a bullshit religion, and thus swearing to it is bulshit. Same with swearing on nothing- bullshit.

The Bible is 5000 years of history, tradition, and a moral code. Even atheists should recognize that. If they aren't willing to swear on it, that tells me a lot about their character.

[Missileman]

Islam is a bullshit religion, and thus swearing to it is bulshit. Same with swearing on nothing- bullshit.

The Bible is 5000 years of history, tradition, and a moral code. Even atheists should recognize that. If they aren't willing to swear on it, that tells me a lot about their character.

So for you, it's not so much an oath to tell the truth as it is a recognitoin of the status of YOUR bullshit religion? Whoopdee f***in doo!

[diuretic]

Islam is a bullshit religion, and thus swearing to it is bulshit. Same with swearing on nothing- bullshit.

The Bible is 5000 years of history, tradition, and a moral code. Even atheists should recognize that. If they aren't willing to swear on it, that tells me a lot about their character.

I'd be very wary of an atheist who agreed to swear an oath using a Bible.....

[glockmail]

I'd be very wary of an atheist who agreed to swear an oath using a Bible..... Why? It's still the benchmark of morality.

[diuretic]

Why? It's still the benchmark of morality.

But an atheist has no affinity for a Bible or God so he or she swearing on a Bible to tell the truth would be, if it were to happen, hypocrisy. Best to have them give an affirmation to tell the truth or be pinched for perjury.

[glockmail]

But an atheist has no affinity for a Bible or God so he or she swearing on a Bible to tell the truth would be, if it were to happen, hypocrisy. Best to have them give an affirmation to tell the truth or be pinched for perjury.

Isn't it important to have someone recognize the moral authority of the Bible? Swearing on the Bible does not have to swear allegance to God. What do they care who wrote it? Also I've heard atheists who wish to follow the teachings of Jesus even though they are non-belivers. They do recognize Him as a benchmark of moraility.

[diuretic]

Isn't it important to have someone recognize the moral authority of the Bible? Swearing on the Bible does not have to swear allegance to God. What do they care who wrote it? Also I've heard atheists who wish to follow the teachings of Jesus even though they are non-belivers. They do recognize Him as a benchmark of moraility.


I'm not sure that Christ was too fussed about "morality" as such. And in any case I can't think of any original morality that Christianity gave us. Legal codes and moral codes precede Christianity by many centuries. There's not much in the Judeo-Christian tradition that wasn't already known to humanity.

[nevadamedic]

RALEIGH, North Carolina: Witnesses and jurors being sworn in at North Carolina courthouses can take their oath on the Quran or any other religious text,a judge ruled Thursday following a legal challenge that argued limiting the oath to the Bible alone was unconstitutional.

The ruling came after the American Civil Liberties Union argued that restricting the oaths to the Bible favored Christianity over other religions.

The question surfaced after Muslims tried to donate copies of the Quran to Guilford County's two courthouses. Two judges declined to accept the texts, saying that taking an oath on the Quran was illegal under state law.

The issue drew national attention in January when the first Muslim elected to U.S. Congress took a ceremonial oath with a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

State law currently allows witnesses to take their oath in three ways: by laying a hand over "the Holy Scriptures," by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book, or by an affirmation using no religious symbols.

The group sought a court order clarifying that the law was broad enough to allow the use of multiple religious texts, or else declaring the statute unconstitutional.

Though the judge stopped short of that, the ACLU still considered the ruling "a great victory."

"As of today all people can use the holy text of their choice," said Seth Cohen, an ACLU attorney who argued the case.

"We welcome this ruling as an expression of our nation's constitutional commitment to religious diversity and tolerance," said Arsalan Iftikhar, legal director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The ACLU said six other states have similar laws that favor the Bible in courtrooms: Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

In North Carolina, it is rare for someone taking an oath at one of the state's 108 court facilities to request an alternative to the Bible, said Dick Ellis, a spokesman for the state Administrative Office of the Courts.

A trial court judge initially dismissed the ACLU's suit in December 2005, ruling it was moot because there was no actual controversy at the time.

An appeals court panel allowed the case to go forward in January, after the ACLU added Syidah Mateen as a plaintiff. In its decision, the appeals court cited Mateen's claim that her request to place her hand on the Quran as a witness in a domestic violence case was denied in 2003.

During a hearing this month, state attorneys asked the judge to dismiss the case, calling the complaint political.

The state has 30 days to appeal Thursday's ruling and is reviewing it, said Noelle Talley, spokeswoman for the state attorney general.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/24/america/NA-GEN-US-Quran-Courtroom.php

That is crazy. Im sick of these people trying to make the news and changing the way we have done things for a couple hundred years.

[glockmail]

I'm not sure that Christ was too fussed about "morality" as such. And in any case I can't think of any original morality that Christianity gave us. Legal codes and moral codes precede Christianity by many centuries. There's not much in the Judeo-Christian tradition that wasn't already known to humanity.The way Christ lived on earth is the best example of morality yet.

[nevadamedic]

Isn't it important to have someone recognize the moral authority of the Bible? Swearing on the Bible does not have to swear allegance to God. What do they care who wrote it? Also I've heard atheists who wish to follow the teachings of Jesus even though they are non-belivers. They do recognize Him as a benchmark of moraility.

:clap:

[chum43]

if you have a problem with people taking an oath on anything other than a bible than you really do need to consider leaving this country... it is the most basic non-intrusive freedom of religion what-this-country-is-all-about sort of issue possible... not only is it essential not to force any christian ritual on anyone who isn't christian, it's also useful in getting people to take the oath seriously... if you were in another country and in court to give testimony how compelled would you be to keep your oath if it were given on a koran? definitely not as much as if it were on a bible... and thats the point, making people take an oath on something that means a great deal to them is a good thing aside from all the freedom of religion stuff.

[diuretic]

The way Christ lived on earth is the best example of morality yet.

For Christians, yes. Before Christ was the Buddha and Buddhists would argue that he was the model of morality. I'm not a Buddhist I hasten to add.

[theHawk]

I'm not sure that Christ was too fussed about "morality" as such. And in any case I can't think of any original morality that Christianity gave us. Legal codes and moral codes precede Christianity by many centuries. There's not much in the Judeo-Christian tradition that wasn't already known to humanity.


You're kidding right? Jesus's teachings were often mindblowing to the jews of his time. He even quoted Bible text and gave his new twist on it.


"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away."



Interestingly, he even says something about Oaths:

33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

--Matthew 5

[glockmail]

For Christians, yes. Before Christ was the Buddha and Buddhists would argue that he was the model of morality. I'm not a Buddhist I hasten to add. Assume for a moment that is true, it does not belay the fact that this nation was founded on Christian principles, not Buddhist.

[glockmail]

if you have a problem with people taking an oath on anything other than a bible than you really do need to consider leaving this country... it is the most basic non-intrusive freedom of religion what-this-country-is-all-about sort of issue possible... not only is it essential not to force any christian ritual on anyone who isn't christian, it's also useful in getting people to take the oath seriously... if you were in another country and in court to give testimony how compelled would you be to keep your oath if it were given on a koran? definitely not as much as if it were on a bible... and thats the point, making people take an oath on something that means a great deal to them is a good thing aside from all the freedom of religion stuff.

If I lived in a country where the koran was the basis of its laws then I should have no problem swearing on it. To do so does not make me beholden to allah, merely beholden to the laws of that land.:laugh2:

[Birdzeye]

if you have a problem with people taking an oath on anything other than a bible than you really do need to consider leaving this country... it is the most basic non-intrusive freedom of religion what-this-country-is-all-about sort of issue possible... not only is it essential not to force any christian ritual on anyone who isn't christian, it's also useful in getting people to take the oath seriously... if you were in another country and in court to give testimony how compelled would you be to keep your oath if it were given on a koran? definitely not as much as if it were on a bible... and thats the point, making people take an oath on something that means a great deal to them is a good thing aside from all the freedom of religion stuff.

:clap:

[diuretic]

You're kidding right? Jesus's teachings were often mindblowing to the jews of his time. He even quoted Bible text and gave his new twist on it.


"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away."



Interestingly, he even says something about Oaths:

33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

--Matthew 5


No, not kidding. I've got no doubt that Christ's teachings made an impact. I mean the God of the Old Testament (which I think is the Torah in Judaism?). It's a pretty tough God there. Along comes Christ and puts forward His ideas. Bit of a contrast there. But as I said, nothing new. The morality put forward by Christ can be found in ancient texts and exists in other societies before His appearance.

[diuretic]

Assume for a moment that is true, it does not belay the fact that this nation was founded on Christian principles, not Buddhist.

I can't contest that claim because I keep reading different views about the intentions of the Founding Fathers but in any case it's got nothing to do with the issue of oaths or affirmations. I think I'm right in saying that the Founding Fathers held that there would be no state religion? If so then it must be the case someone can swear an oath as their own religion dictates.

[glockmail]

I can't contest that claim because I keep reading different views about the intentions of the Founding Fathers but in any case it's got nothing to do with the issue of oaths or affirmations. I think I'm right in saying that the Founding Fathers held that there would be no state religion? If so then it must be the case someone can swear an oath as their own religion dictates. I never said Christianity was the State religion, just that our laws are founded on its principles.

[chum43]

If I lived in a country where the koran was the basis of its laws then I should have no problem swearing on it. To do so does not make me beholden to allah, merely beholden to the laws of that land.:laugh2:

I'm not saying you would have a problem with it, or should, I'm just saying it wouldn't have the same affect on you as swearing on a holy book of your own religion... it wouldn't serve it's purpose as fully.

even if you want to argue that freedom of religion has nothing to do with it, this issue to me is still a 'no need to argue' sort of issue, there is no good reason to really go through the trouble of changing it, but if someone decides to there is really no good reason to deny them and say it should stay the way it is... there simply is no argument to not allow someone to swear on whatever they so choose, doesn't mean I think it's worth changing or it should be, but if someone wants it changed why not? it doesn't make a lick of difference.

[manu1959]

what book do you swear on if you are an agnostic or an atheist?

atlas shrugged?

[nevadamedic]

what book do you swear on if you are an agnostic or an atheist?

atlas shrugged?

It doesn't matter that it's the bible or not, it's the principal.

[DragonStryk72]

I never said Christianity was the State religion, just that our laws are founded on its principles.

Actually, our laws were founded on Libertarian Deist beliefs, not Judeo-Christian beliefs. As for our Constitution, we ripped most of that off the charter for the five Iroquois nations, so Christianity had very little to do with it.

In fact, most of our founding fathers had serious problems with the church of England, which was still very much a part of governmental structure back then, even though the rest of the church had stepped away from secular power.

[glockmail]

I'm not saying you would have a problem with it, or should, I'm just saying it wouldn't have the same affect on you as swearing on a holy book of your own religion... it wouldn't serve it's purpose as fully.

even if you want to argue that freedom of religion has nothing to do with it, this issue to me is still a 'no need to argue' sort of issue, there is no good reason to really go through the trouble of changing it, but if someone decides to there is really no good reason to deny them and say it should stay the way it is... there simply is no argument to not allow someone to swear on whatever they so choose, doesn't mean I think it's worth changing or it should be, but if someone wants it changed why not? it doesn't make a lick of difference.

So what? The meaning would not be the same for someone who doesn't believe in that particular book. But at least everyone would have the same requirement.

As for your "no need to argue" argument, that is a good argument to stay with tradition.

[glockmail]

Actually, our laws were founded on Libertarian Deist beliefs, not Judeo-Christian beliefs. As for our Constitution, we ripped most of that off the charter for the five Iroquois nations, so Christianity had very little to do with it.

In fact, most of our founding fathers had serious problems with the church of England, which was still very much a part of governmental structure back then, even though the rest of the church had stepped away from secular power.

I haven't heard the deist argument in a while. It loses every time its tried.

Interesting theory on the Tribes of the Iroquois. As I lived in that region for some time, and visited the historic sites, I nevr heard that. In fact, I think that you made it up. Everything that I have read about the Founders was that they were well educated on many forms of government.

You are correct though, that the Church of England was a problem. The main problem was that it claimed to grant powers to the King, and everygood Christian Patriot new that was bullshit.

[Missileman]

what book do you swear on if you are an agnostic or an atheist?

atlas shrugged?

Why swear on a book in the first place? The act doesn't lead to 100% truthfullness, even in those for whom the book means something.

[Bulldog]

As an atheist with the deepest of respect for other people's religions and beliefs, I'd feel terribly hypocritical if I were to swear on a book or collection of scriptures that I had no personal belief in.

I would feel far happier to be held in contempt of court than to deliberately 'lie', which is, in effect, exactly what I'd be doing.

Bulldog.

[diuretic]

I never said Christianity was the State religion, just that our laws are founded on its principles.

Then someone who isn't a Christian doesn't have to live by its tenets and doesn't have to swear an oath on a Bible.

[diuretic]

what book do you swear on if you are an agnostic or an atheist?

atlas shrugged?

In my jurisdiction you make a solemn affirmation to tell the truth. It has the same binding effect as a sworn oath.

[chum43]

As for your "no need to argue" argument, that is a good argument to stay with tradition.

it's not a tradition issue... other religions have no tradition of swearing on bibles, and they would be the only ones for whom things would change, the people who swear on the bible now and always would are still sticking with tradition... there is no change in tradition... it's not as if they are saying we all must take a non-religious oath to the state, if that were the case i would agree with you 100% stick with tradition, but this isn't really changing anything for anyone who wants it to stay the same... that was my point.

[glockmail]

Then someone who isn't a Christian doesn't have to live by its tenets and doesn't have to swear an oath on a Bible. If they choose to live here, then they do. It would be no different that if you chose to live in Koran-world.

[glockmail]

it's not a tradition issue... other religions have no tradition of swearing on bibles, and they would be the only ones for whom things would change, the people who swear on the bible now and always would are still sticking with tradition... there is no change in tradition... it's not as if they are saying we all must take a non-religious oath to the state, if that were the case i would agree with you 100% stick with tradition, but this isn't really changing anything for anyone who wants it to stay the same... that was my point.
What are you Faulkner?

Traditionally the courts have required swearing in with the Bible. It's really quite simple. It's only now that we're all PC and uber-sensitive of people feelings that this is an issue. The slackers who comlain about it should just suck up and get over it.

[chum43]

haha, well normally I would agree with you, I hate PC-spewing slackers as much as the next guy, and I'm all for standing up to their whining and saying no, but for this issue I just think the tradition of it isn't enough of an issue for me to put up with any whining, if they want it changed let 'em have this one... thats how i feel about it... you have to choose your battles and I think this one is pointless to fight.

for instance I think you should have to pass an english class to become a citizen, we have an unofficial language here and it's english, everyone who works here should speak it... that sort of tradition affects people who traditionally speak english... yes christianity is the unofficial religion here, but it doesn't affect me if somebody is taking an oath to a purple rock they dug out of their backyard, I just dont care... there is no interaction there between the people going against the grain and the people sticking with tradition.

[nevadamedic]

What are you Faulkner?

Traditionally the courts have required swearing in with the Bible. It's really quite simple. It's only now that we're all PC and uber-sensitive of people feelings that this is an issue. The slackers who comlain about it should just suck up and get over it.

Well said.

[diuretic]

If they choose to live here, then they do. It would be no different that if you chose to live in Koran-world.

If I were living in a theocracy I'd certainly be subjected to some pretty tough laws. I don't know if I'd be allowed to swear on a Qu'ran though. From what I've been told I'm not allowed to even touch a Qu'ran, being a non-believer. If I could stay out of prison long enough I suppose they'd let me make a solemn affirmation. But then I'd probably get locked up for being an atheist.

Do you see something similar happening in the US?

[glockmail]

haha, well normally I would agree with you, I hate PC-spewing slackers as much as the next guy, and I'm all for standing up to their whining and saying no, but for this issue I just think the tradition of it isn't enough of an issue for me to put up with any whining, if they want it changed let 'em have this one... thats how i feel about it... you have to choose your battles and I think this one is pointless to fight.

for instance I think you should have to pass an english class to become a citizen, we have an unofficial language here and it's english, everyone who works here should speak it... that sort of tradition affects people who traditionally speak english... yes christianity is the unofficial religion here, but it doesn't affect me if somebody is taking an oath to a purple rock they dug out of their backyard, I just dont care... there is no interaction there between the people going against the grain and the people sticking with tradition.

You have to draw the line somewhere. Savage says it all about borders, language and culture, and I think that swearing on the Bible is an important part of our culture going back to pre-revolutionary times. Same with doing business in English.

[glockmail]

If I were living in a theocracy I'd certainly be subjected to some pretty tough laws. I don't know if I'd be allowed to swear on a Qu'ran though. From what I've been told I'm not allowed to even touch a Qu'ran, being a non-believer. If I could stay out of prison long enough I suppose they'd let me make a solemn affirmation. But then I'd probably get locked up for being an atheist.

Do you see something similar happening in the US?

No because we're not a theocracy. We are a nation of laws, and those laws have a basis in Christianity. Moderate Islamic nations should rightly have a similar edict.

[diuretic]

No because we're not a theocracy. We are a nation of laws, and those laws have a basis in Christianity. Moderate Islamic nations should rightly have a similar edict.

No, the US isn't a theocracy, thankfully neither is Australia (or I'd leave). Like the US we have a legal and cultural tradition given to us by Britain. And yes, the Judeo-Christian tradition informs our culture and our legal system. But like the US we're also products of the Enlightenment. That's why we allow people to take a sacred (as opposed to a secular) oath on their holy text. Good isn't it?

[glockmail]

.... That's why we allow people to take a sacred (as opposed to a secular) oath on their holy text. Good isn't it? Not at all. In the koran there are passages that allow a muslim to lie. Thus he could swear a sacred oath and become a false witness, supported by his religion.

Who knows what other things could be deemed "right" by some "sacred text" that someone invented. Would you want someone swearing on the Jim Jone's Bible?

[diuretic]

Not at all. In the koran there are passages that allow a muslim to lie. Thus he could swear a sacred oath and become a false witness, supported by his religion.

I wasn't aware of that. But if the witness was pinched for perjury I wouldn't fancy using their religion as a defence.



Who knows what other things could be deemed "right" by some "sacred text" that someone invented. Would you want someone swearing on the Jim Jone's Bible?

Does that mean that no sacred text should be used? Should we all make a solemn affirmation?

[Psychoblues]

I would require them all to swear on the names of each and all of their neighbors, dr.




I wasn't aware of that. But if the witness was pinched for perjury I wouldn't fancy using their religion as a defence.



Does that mean that no sacred text should be used? Should we all make a solemn affirmation?

Politics is all local.

[glockmail]

I wasn't aware of that. But if the witness was pinched for perjury I wouldn't fancy using their religion as a defence.



Does that mean that no sacred text should be used? Should we all make a solemn affirmation?

That is the point that I am making. With the Bible, the morality is known. It is a trusted, well known document in our culture.

Another thing is that if our culture is important to us, then we should act to protect it.

[diuretic]

You see this as a threat?

[glockmail]

You see this as a threat? yes.

Borders. Language. Culture.

[diuretic]

yes.

Borders. Language. Culture.

Ah okay - I try to stay away from discussions on domestic immigration policy - except to say that any nation has a right to determine who it takes as immigrants.

[glockmail]

Ah okay - I try to stay away from discussions on domestic immigration policy - except to say that any nation has a right to determine who it takes as immigrants.

That's not the issue. The issue is culture. Our culture, as reflected in the Bible oath, is based on Judeo-Christian traditions. That is under attack here.

[Missileman]

That's not the issue. The issue is culture. Our culture, as reflected in the Bible oath, is based on Judeo-Christian traditions. That is under attack here.

Christians can still take their oath on the Bible if they wish. That you want to force non-Christians to do the same is further evidence that Christian toleration of other religions is a myth. That something has been done the wrong way long enough to become a tradition is not a valid reason to continue to do so.

[diuretic]

That's not the issue. The issue is culture. Our culture, as reflected in the Bible oath, is based on Judeo-Christian traditions. That is under attack here.

No it isn't. It's simply allowing someone from a particular religion to swear their oath on their sacred text. That's not an attack on anything.

On edit: I jumped in too early, Missileman made the point.

[gabosaurus]

So what? A Holy Book by any name is still a Holy Book. Set your buttface prejudices aside and see the truth.

[Yurt]

So what? A Holy Book by any name is still a Holy Book. Set your buttface prejudices aside and see the truth.

So people who don't agree with you are buttfaces?

[glockmail]

Christians can still take their oath on the Bible if they wish. That you want to force non-Christians to do the same is further evidence that Christian toleration of other religions is a myth. That something has been done the wrong way long enough to become a tradition is not a valid reason to continue to do so. Perhaps you could point out where I require non-Christians to swear allegiance to Christ. :poke:

[glockmail]

No it isn't. It's simply allowing someone from a particular religion to swear their oath on their sacred text. That's not an attack on anything.

On edit: I jumped in too early, Missileman made the point.

Of course its an attack. You would allow people to legally shun an important tradition.

[Missileman]

Perhaps you could point out where I require non-Christians to swear allegiance to Christ. :poke:

Perhaps you could point out where I said you did. :poke: :poke:

[glockmail]

Perhaps you could point out where I said you did. :poke: :poke: post 73.

[Missileman]

post 73.

There is nothing in post 73 about swearing allegiance to Christianity.

[glockmail]

There is nothing in post 73 about swearing allegiance to Christianity.


;72424]Christians can still take their oath on the Bible if they wish. That you want to force non-Christians to do the same is further evidence that Christian toleration of other religions is a myth. That something has been done the wrong way long enough to become a tradition is not a valid reason to continue to do so.

Bullshit.

[Missileman]

Bullshit.

Point out specifically the part that you deludedly believe says anything about allegiance.

[glockmail]

Point out specifically the part that you deludedly believe says anything about allegiance.
The whole thing in context with itself.

[Missileman]

The whole thing in context with itself.

As I said, you're deluded. IN CONTEXT, all it is in reference to is swearing an oath to tell the truth in court. There's not a single thing in the post that can logically be construed as having anything to do with swearing allegiance to any religion.

[glockmail]

As I said, you're deluded. IN CONTEXT, all it is in reference to is swearing an oath to tell the truth in court. There's not a single thing in the post that can logically be construed as having anything to do with swearing allegiance to any religion.

You should admit what you alluded to. Typical ball-less liberal.

[Yurt]

I have refrained from posting on this yet as I was interested in the opinions because I was not sure myself.

I have thought about this and I wonder:


If one is going to lie, it does not matter whether he/she swears on a door knob or the bible, he/she will lie.

What gets people is not the "swearing" on the bible, but the perjury consequences afterwards.

I have been in situations lately where people have had to "swear" to tell the "truth" and nothing was used, other than their word and their acknowledgement that it is a crime, perjury, if they lie.

The Quran... Forget it.

IMHO

[Missileman]

You should admit what you alluded to. Typical ball-less liberal.

Listen up cupcake! I just told you EXACTLY what my post was alluding to. If that's not good enough for you, tough shit!

[diuretic]

Of course its an attack. You would allow people to legally shun an important tradition.

Because a non-Christian can swear their oath on their own sacred text it's an attack on an important tradition? I think not, but never mind.

[diuretic]

I have refrained from posting on this yet as I was interested in the opinions because I was not sure myself.

I have thought about this and I wonder:


If one is going to lie, it does not matter whether he/she swears on a door knob or the bible, he/she will lie.

What gets people is not the "swearing" on the bible, but the perjury consequences afterwards.

I have been in situations lately where people have had to "swear" to tell the "truth" and nothing was used, other than their word and their acknowledgement that it is a crime, perjury, if they lie.

The Quran... Forget it.

IMHO

Swearing a holy oath is a holdover from history. In England the courts were controlled by the clergy originally (the robes judges wear in English courts are remnants of the clerical garb worn by the original judges) so it's not surprising that an omnipotent God was invoked so that the witness would be frightened of being damned to eternity for perjuring themselves. But in purely legal terms all someone has to do is make an affirmation, there's no real need to make a sworn oath, it's still perjury, as you point out.

[glockmail]

I have refrained from posting on this yet as I was interested in the opinions because I was not sure myself.

I have thought about this and I wonder:


If one is going to lie, it does not matter whether he/she swears on a door knob or the bible, he/she will lie.

What gets people is not the "swearing" on the bible, but the perjury consequences afterwards.

I have been in situations lately where people have had to "swear" to tell the "truth" and nothing was used, other than their word and their acknowledgement that it is a crime, perjury, if they lie.

The Quran... Forget it.

IMHO

The real problem is the Koran. In it, muslims are expected to lie if it serves allah's purpose, which is likely not in the best interests of the court. Then there's the preservation of our culture.

[glockmail]

Listen up cupcake! I just told you EXACTLY what my post was alluding to. If that's not good enough for you, tough shit!


As you have resorted to insults it is clear to all that you have lost the argument.

[glockmail]

Because a non-Christian can swear their oath on their own sacred text it's an attack on an important tradition? I think not, but never mind. Why post if never mind?


We've been over this before. Some guy brings in the Jim Jones Scrolls, consisting of a roll of toilet paper, and thus making a mockery of the court. You have no problem with that?

[Missileman]

As you have resorted to insults it is clear to all that you have lost the argument.

Well gee cupcake! If that indeed can be used to decide the winner of an argument, you lost with post 86.

[diuretic]

Why post if never mind?


We've been over this before. Some guy brings in the Jim Jones Scrolls, consisting of a roll of toilet paper, and thus making a mockery of the court. You have no problem with that?

Just as long as it hasn't been used.

[glockmail]

Well gee cupcake! If that indeed can be used to decide the winner of an argument, you lost with post 86.By your standard: There's not a single thing in post 86 that can logically be construed as having anything to do with an insult. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Just as long as it hasn't been used. So making a mockery of the court is OK with you.

[Psychoblues]

What is wrong with taking an oath on a telephone book?

[glockmail]

What is wrong with taking an oath on a telephone book?
According to some posting here: nothing.

[Psychoblues]

So what are you saying?



According to some posting here: nothing.

Do you have a religious superstition that supercedes the constitution?

[Missileman]

By your standard: There's not a single thing in post 86 that can logically be construed as having anything to do with an insult. :laugh2:

On the contrary, cupcake...there was no delusional interpretation required to find an insult in post 86.

[glockmail]

On the contrary, cupcake...there was no delusional interpretation required to find an insult in post 86. You should man up and admit that you are wrong.

[Missileman]

You should man up and admit that you are wrong.

Deleted by request.

[glockmail]

Deleted by request. Got spanked, I see. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Got spanked, I see. :laugh2:

No, you did.

[diuretic]

So making a mockery of the court is OK with you.

Of course it's not. His behaviour would be contempt of court. But swearing on a Qu'ran or taking a solemn affirmation most certainly isn't a contempt of court.

[diuretic]

What is wrong with taking an oath on a telephone book?

I reckon that's a great idea. If the witness lies then the bailiff can grab the book and hit him over the head with it :laugh2:

Yeah, then his ears would start ringing, I know :laugh2:

[glockmail]

No, you did. Yeah right. :lol:

[glockmail]

Of course it's not. His behaviour would be contempt of court. But swearing on a Qu'ran or taking a solemn affirmation most certainly isn't a contempt of court. So it all depends where you draw the line. For me, since the koran allows a follower to lie and cheat, it is over the line.

Perhaps an evaluation of each "sacred" text by a panel of judges, after a hearing from experts on the subject, prior to any other type of oath is warranted. But an edict by an individual judge? Are you OK with that?

[Missileman]

Yeah right. :lol:

If not for the SPCA intervening, you'd have had to take your dog to the vet. :laugh2:

[diuretic]

So it all depends where you draw the line. For me, since the koran allows a follower to lie and cheat, it is over the line.

Perhaps an evaluation of each "sacred" text by a panel of judges, after a hearing from experts on the subject, prior to any other type of oath is warranted. But an edict by an individual judge? Are you OK with that?

I'd say that would be a reasonable practice.

[glockmail]

If not for the SPCA intervening, you'd have had to take your dog to the vet. :laugh2:
Whatever, Spanky.

[glockmail]

I'd say that would be a reasonable practice. So its reasonable for a single judge to issue and edict that negates millenia of tradition. Is that your position?

[diuretic]

So its reasonable for a single judge to issue and edict that negates millenia of tradition. Is that your position?

No, one judge shouldn't be allowed to make that determination, it's properly one for the legislature.

[glockmail]

No, one judge shouldn't be allowed to make that determination, it's properly one for the legislature.
Well that is exactly what has happened in this case.

Ditto for abortion in this country, along with a slew of other issues. It's how liberals "make an end run" (American football analogy) around the legislatures: get enough cases out there, and eventually some liberal judge (or judges) will rule your way. Then precedence sets in and its the law of the land. It has become a big problem in the US.

The next step is to bastardize the judges interpretation of his ruling. Like the Supreme Court abortion ruling, that was made on the basis of allowing a 1st trimester abortion only, but now the "law of the land" even allows partial birth and late term abortions.

By example, the NC ruling will eventually result in people swearing on comic books.

[Missileman]

By example, the NC ruling will eventually result in people swearing on comic books.

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way" would be a highly apt sentiment for a pre-testimony oath.

[Hagbard Celine]

I didn't post a reason....because I wasn't sure how I felt on it...

I'm leaning towards......I'm not liking it..so much..

so I wanted to see others thoughts on it....Is that OK with you????:p

My religious text is superior to your religious text.