ACLU Sues to Have Quran Approved for Use in Court Oaths

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
When witnesses are sworn in, the religious texts of non-Christian faiths should be allowed in North Carolina courts along with the Bible, the ACLU argued in lawsuit filed against the state Tuesday.

Denying the use of other religious texts would violate the Constitution by favoring Christianity over other religions, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina said in its lawsuit.

State law allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath either by laying a hand over a "Holy Scripture," by saying "so help me God" without the use of a religious book, or by using no religious symbols.
"We hope that the court will issue a ruling that the phrase 'holy scripture' includes the Quran, Old Testament and Bhagavad-Gita in addition to the Christian Bible," said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina.

A spokeswoman for the state Attorney General's Office, which represents the state in lawsuits, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The ACLU last month called on the state Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a policy allowing use of the Quran and other religious texts in North Carolina courtrooms.

Muslims from the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center in Greensboro had tried to donate copies of the Quran to Guilford County's two courthouses last month. The two top judges in the county decided that Muslims could not legally take an oath on the Quran.

AOC director Ralph Walker replied in a letter July 14 that his office would not sanction use of religious texts other than the Bible until the General Assembly or the courts settled the matter.

The language of the state's law on court oaths is already broad enough to include other religious texts, so the Legislature need not clarify it, Rudinger said.


? 2005 The Associated Press
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
I really don't see anything wrong with that. I mean, if taking an oath on some religious thing is supposed to mean something, shouldn't it be on the thing you actually believe in? I personally think both the bible and the quran are pure fiction, but I can understand someone who believes otherwise caring about this.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
very good point, bj........

however, i'm not a religious person & happen to think that the bible shouldn't be used in a court of law
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
AR182 said:
very good point, bj........

however, i'm not a religious person & happen to think that the bible shouldn't be used in a court of law

Agree 100 percent. I think if they continue to have the bible, then they should probably allow the Quran as well. But I'm with you... don't think any religious scripture should be use in the courts at all.

But now I must go to post some exciting Saved By the Bell news in the GD forum.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i thought our society.....our laws.....from the framers at the beginning....was based on the judeo/christian ethic...not islam......

lets remove the ten commandments from the wall of the supreme court...or put the quran up there with it...

lets start lopping the hands off of thieves....and stoning gays and adulterers to death...and making women follow behind men....and make them take separate escalators...make sure that women are the property of men...lets have arranged marriages so our daughters can be married off at 13....

lol

more political correctness from the left...where will it end...

never...if the aclu has it`s way..
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
gardenweasel said:
and making women follow behind men....and make them take separate escalators...make sure that women are the property of men...lets have arranged marriages so our daughters can be married off at 13....

GW,

I agree.

You must certainly be disturbed about the latest news that the draft of the Iraqi constitution includes language that there will be no laws that go against Islam.

The same Islam that decreed(by a powerful cleric) that a young Indian woman who was raped by her father in law must dissolve her marriage and marry her father in law, since she was now 'dirty.' She is now a stepmother to her former husband.

This is what Iraq will become. And it only took billions of dollars and thousands dead and wounded to get them there!
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
If you want freedom of religion then it means freedom of all religions not just the religion that we deem acceptable. This is exactly what would happen if we legalize prayer in school, as we could not discriminate against all religions by just having a christian or baptist flavored prayer.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
how about freedom from state imposed athiesm?

seems like the government is endorsing athiesm in all its rulings as of late

they also seem to be intent on "restricting the practice thereof" of all other religions

very unconstitutional
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Does anyone know how many version of the bible we already use in our courts. How do we know who's is right. ACLU may be on right side of this fight.
 

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
djv said:
Does anyone know how many version of the bible we already use in our courts. How do we know who's is right. ACLU may be on right side of this fight.

You have gotta be shitting me! :sadwave:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
The ACLU is just about a thing of the past--Just yesterday the house voted 98-0 to to allow military/boyscouts alliance--hell you get Kennedy and Boxer siding against ACLU you know they got problems--

---and assault by aclu in general on religion--you got country founded on religious priciples--with over 80% of population being Chrstian and Jewish* as long as we the people and not the liberal minority rule the Aclu and their backers are shoveling shit against the tide.

* http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm#The Big Picture
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
I wonder why the ACLU hasn't challenged teh public call to prayer in Hamtramck Michigan?

Why have they not sued the town because there is no Christian call to prayer?

Could it be that the Anti Christian Liberation Organization has an agenda?

Why are they so interested in spreading the word of "jihad" in this country and so insistent on banning any reference to Christianity?

Is that what this country needs right now? More muslims?

Are you kidding me?????

There agenda is so anti-American that the only way they can possibly get it throuhg is to convince one black robed lawyer to side with them who they probably already snuck through to the bench. Then these fasciists can take away all our freedoms to woship/do as we please because they want their way of nonworship to be the law of the land. Sounds to me more like China or the former USSR.

This organization should be shut down and prosecuted for high treason!!!
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
speaking of black robed --I see Dean is at it again and of course the Kool Aid Klan will be taking it in as gospel---


Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean (search) has denounced last month's Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain as a product of "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court." In fact, not one of the justices on the Supreme Court was appointed by President Bush. And the most conservative justices ? William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas ? dissented on that ruling.

Dean, speaking to College Democrats, also accused Republicans of "bring[ing] a culture of corruption to Washington," saying, "they've sold our government to the highest bidder."
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
before you testify you promise to tell the truth..."so help you god"...


not,"so help you jesus"....not,"so help you allah"....not,"so help you buddha".....it`s reasonably generic..

the aclu is trying to get their foot in the door...don`t you guys see that?.... so they can take this kind of frivolous crap to the next level...

the next thing you`ll have is some guy swearing to the quran...and then the aclu will say he then has to be tried based on muslim law...

sound silly?....not if you bear in mind that we`re talking aclu here...the boy scout haters...

they are trying to turn our society....our institutions....a society that`s worked fine for over 225 years better than any in the world......on it`s ear.....

they are trying to turn us into europe....and even the most hard core liberals have to admit that europe`s a mess....

might as well call it "eurabia"...

as far as dean goes,it`s a damned shamed that the dems have allowed the deans and the kennedy`s and the durbins to highjack their party...when there are so many others that are so much more sensible....bayh and richardson come to mind....

this country works much better when both parties are "clicking",so to speak.....but,under this extreme leadership,the dems have been rendered impotent....now,it appears that they are even going to lose their hold on the judiciary...or at least the supreme court....

if they were coaches,they`d have been gone long ago...they can`t defeat george bush,for god`s sake...

whether it be "just politics"....or a real move toward a "solid party footing".....a move to re-engage the american people...it appears that even hillary gets it....

i`m no democrat...but things will be much more interesting when they wake up and right the ship....and stop rewarding clowns like dean for their ineptitude...
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I don't disagree with any of you. But there are different versions of the bible. If it's not about the book and but swearing to, So Help Me God. Then do you need any book at all. Just So Help Me God. Would that be good enough? But then you get into who's god. I'm OK OK with it as it is NOW. But the point made above if you have someone swear on a book they have believe in. This may help them tell the truth. Actually with 15% of Americans with no believe at all. I guess a book or saying will not matter to them in the first place. I guess they just lie all the time. It looks like more is coming from this idea then is necessary.
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
I don't see any problem with removing the bible from courts, but I do have a problem with introducing the Koran.

I don't think anyone can deny that the ACLU has an agenda against Christianity. I would not have as big a problem with them if they really did represent all sides. BUT they only represent their far left wing approach to everything. Anyone who has a differing opinion is classified as an ignorant neocon.
 

ocelot

Registered User
Forum Member
May 21, 2003
1,937
0
0
Mount Shasta
I believe the ACLU has an agenda against religious favoritism. Nevertheless, I cannot understand the opposition to allowing different religious texts for swearing in.

If you have an Islamic terrorist on the stand, and you want them to testify truthfully it only seems logical that you would want them to swear on something THEY believe in. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone else or America - only that witness.

However, I don't really see what good any of this swearing does anyway. Currently, an atheist is required to swear on something they don't believe is sacred so what purpose does that serve? I don't think most people determined to lie are affected whether they swear on the Bible or Koran or the grave of Babe Ruth or anything else.

Of course, if you are of the opinion that the purpose is to guarantee the Christian God will "get" you if you lie, and that by swearing by a "false" god you are evading the consequences of lying...well, then, uhh, I guess I can see your point :rolleyes:
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
However, I don't really see what good any of this swearing does anyway. Currently, an atheist is required to swear on something they don't believe is sacred so what purpose does that serve? I don't think most people determined to lie are affected whether they swear on the Bible or Koran or the grave of Babe Ruth or anything else.

This is similar to my thought on the subject.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top