This is a religious topic.


story

RALEIGH, N.C. -- The religious texts of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and faiths other than Christianity should be allowed in North Carolina courts for oaths promising truthful testimony, the ACLU argued in a lawsuit filed against the state Tuesday.

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 American Civil Liberties Union 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. The request came after the two top judges in Guilford 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.

"The lawsuit is seeking a declaration by the court that this is what Holy Scripture means in the law," she said.

The issue surfaced after Muslims from the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center in Greensboro tried to donate copies of the Quran to Guilford County's two courthouses last month.

Guilford Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright and Guilford Chief District Court Judge Joseph E. Turner decided not to accept the texts for courtroom use.

Both said an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath under state law, which refers to someone laying his hands on the "Holy Scriptures." The two judges interpreted that to mean the Christian Bible.

In response, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations asked for a statewide policy allowing oaths to be taken using the Quran.

The ACLU of North Carolina said an 1856 state Supreme Court decision sets a clear precedent for oaths with religious texts. The court decision noted that North Carolina's oath-taking statutes were written for Christians but do not limit others from swearing in the way they deem most sacred.

The ACLU said a change in the law in 1985 further supports his point.

Before that time, the law was called "Administration of oath upon the Gospels." It stated that someone to be sworn was to lay his hand on "the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God." That year legislators took out "the Gospels" in the title and changed the language to simply read "Holy Scriptures."

The ACLU contends the change signals that legislators were trying to be more inclusive.

Denying use of other religious texts would violate the Constitution by favoring Christianity over religions, the ACLU said in its lawsuit.

The ACLU is a bunch of retards.

Quoted: The ACLU is a bunch of retards.

Yeah, I hate pretty much everything they do but they are well organized , I'll give them credit for that.

The ACLU is as dangerous, and maybe moreso, that Al Queda. Bush needs to put them on the terrorist list. Damn communist founded organization with the goal of destroying our system. Screw 'em.

I find it amusing that anyone has a problem with someone swearing on a book they hold sacred.

Quoted: I find it amusing that anyone has a problem with someone swearing on a book they hold sacred.

I find it more amusing that the ACLU - the folks who sue to prevent any religious influence or history on a courthouse grounds - are now suing to allow religious materials to be used in a court.



Fish or cut bait!

Quoted: Quoted: The ACLU is as dangerous, and maybe moreso, that Al Queda. Personally I'll take "sued" over "blown up" or "beheaded."

you will take both when the ACLU forces courts to release terrorists.

Quoted: Quoted: I find it amusing that anyone has a problem with someone swearing on a book they hold sacred. I find it more amusing that the ACLU - the folks who sue to prevent any religious influence or history on a courthouse grounds - are now suing to allow religious materials to be used in a court. Fish or cut bait!

Ah! That is the snag, you see!

It isn't about religious texts and what people hold sacred!

It is about yet trying to pull at one more brick that offends them. Deconstructing all common sense and all principles that our country is founded upon is their chief purpose.

Quoted: Quoted: I find it amusing that anyone has a problem with someone swearing on a book they hold sacred. I think that's the point bud.  Courts have been allowing people to "affirm" due to religious beliefs for one heck of a long time.  Many Christians do not believe in swearing on their bible for example.   It's why I find it funny.  Looks like a lawsuit for polical correctness in order to fix a problem that doesn't exist.  Are we now to expect courts to have a religous text for every religion?   There's over 100 versions I know of of just the Christian bible. Sorry I find it too simplistic.  Simply "Affirm" and get along with life.  The real penality for a lie in court is in this life not the next for the judge will nail your ass to the wall.  There may have been a time when swearing on a bible may have caused man to tell the truth when he otherwise wouldn't have but not in my lifetime for if he's going to bare false witness anyway what's a book going to make a difference.   To me anyway making a swear on what you consider the most holy is rediculous to begin with without getting into who's the right holy. Tj

agreed and I've never actually needed to affirm since I've never been asked to swear on a Bible.  Just raised my right and hand and took a personal oath.  

as far as "getting into who is the right holy", thats gonna be hard to prove since pretty much everyone thinks they have the right holy and can back it up with evidence from their particular "inerrant" holy book.

/shrug

Its not about who has the right holy, its about having the right to swear to the particular holy you worship.   Its that neat freedom of religion thing the fine Christian and Deist men who founded this country set us up with.  

It very well could be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, but I don't see any harm in it.