Nobody has the guts to stand up and say, no, even if you are not a Christian, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and we're going to use the Bible only.
Otherwise any old text will do. I think that if I am ever called to testify in a North Carolina court I will insist on being sworn in on a copy of The Management of Savagery.
From AP, with thanks to all who sent this in:
RALEIGH, N.C. — If North Carolina is going to let people use a religious text when taking an oath in court, the Bible shouldn't be the only book allowed, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union argued in court Tuesday.A lawsuit filed by the ACLU of North Carolina challenges a state policy that allows only the Bible to be used in such court procedures.
"If the state is going to get into the religious oath business, the state has to be fair," said Seth Cohen, the ACLU's lead counsel on the case....
Filed in July 2005, the lawsuit argues that state law is unconstitutional because it favors Christianity over other religions. It names Syidah Mateen, a Muslim woman who said she was denied the use of the Koran in court.
Naked lunch for me
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp
unfortunately the founding fathers created a loop hole in their creation of the constitution.
instead of"one nation under god" they should have written, "one nation under jehovah"
this is open to misinterpretation and hence muslims see "one nation under god" as their god.
sad, but true.
No. The Kuran should NEVER be used in a court of law in the United States as it teaches lying to the "unbelievers" in utmost seriousness.
If a Muslim (or other) witness took the stand practicing this Islamic teaching (which almost certainly would be supported by most mosques) they would be committing the felony known as PERJURY!
NO. The Kuran can not be used. I HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY IT! I'll say it again too: No-- the Kuran must never be used in US courts of law!
The ACLU be damned if it doesn't know this.
Robert,
I like your earlier oppinion on that topic better. You place your hand on a religious text to affirm your commitment to tell the truth. The text must demand that you tell the truth in this specific case, otherwise that's a deception.
If a group of Muslim can prove that Koran tells them to tell the truth to an infidel court in an infidel country, even if telling the truth may subject a fellow Muslim to punishment in hands of infidels, they should be allowed to use Koran.
If Koran suggests that a reason to do otherwise can be at least considered, for example when actions were motivated by jihad (ie spiritual struggle for Islam with no violence), or didn't violate Sharia (the set of laws that promote social peace and true equality of sexes), then pledge on Koran should be denied.
However, it is purely theoretical. There is no chance of a legal precedent, of a ruling that Koran doesn't teach telling the truth. I guess that's why you changed your opinnion.
Terry Crane,
I didn't change my opinion. I still believe the Qur'an is problematic as the linchpin of an oath to tell the truth to unbelievers. I was in a hurry when I posted this, and in any case I do not feel it incumbent upon me to say everything I believe about any given issue at every opportunity I have to speak about that issue.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
If a Muslim swears on the Quran, then commits perjury in court, if he is charged with perjury any good lawyer who knows Islamic doctrine could beat that perjury charge...and I am pretty sure one would try. "Taquiya"
Here's the solution - Most states do not require or even allow swearing on a religious book. An oath is a promise to the state, not to anybody's god, real or imagined. I consider swearing on a Bible or a Quran or The Joy of Sex phoney.
Muslims could swear on the 'Bumper Fun Book of Jihadi Martyrs'.
What about swearing on Books on Tape? Or iPod?
The whole issue of swearing an oath revolves around the notion of "turth."
When America was founded upon Judeo-Christian notions of truth, everyone generally agreed upon what constituted "truth" and the specifics were a matter for the courts.
If muslims can swear upon the quaran rather than a Bible, then there is no general agreement about what constitutes "truth" because the definitions and notions of "turth" are completely different.
It then makes a mockery of the American system of judgement since "purjury" according to one set of values is complete honesty according to another.
In that case, the only standard that can be relied upon to get anywhere near the 'truth' is few cc's of sodium-penathol and truncheon wielding inquisitor.
Is this really the kind of judicial system we must now descend to just to accomodate the sensibilites of a murderous cult bent on judicial jihad in American courts?
I'll have to disagree with Mr. Spencer. I suspect that any court worth its salt would find the mandate to use a particular religious text for oaths to be an infringement of the prohibition against the establishment of a religion in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (Does that sentence become a new world record for the most prepositions?)
No, I don't think all religions are created equal, and the virtues of American society derive from its Christian nature. As a Jew who is learning about world affairs, I see the clear advantages of living in a Christian society (America) versus a secular one (Europe). Nevertheless, as a sincere believer in my own faith, I could not swear upon the holy book of another religion, so I would not force others to, either.
The Senate debates its immigration bill on Monday May 14. Call your Senator. Fax from NumbersUSA free fax center. Be polite. No amnesty, no guest worker, no family reunification, no expansion in legal immigration. All of that will be pushed by Kennedy.
Just let them "affrim" to tell the truth, since no book is mandatory for anyone.
This avoids having to allow a book to be used that tells Muslims it is okay to lie to the infidels.
Which would amount to swearing on a permission-to-lie slip.
Negating the entire meaning of "swearing" or "affirming".
The Koran does not include the 10 Commandments.
And does not teach the value of "truth", except tactically, for the advantage of Islam's domination of the infidels.
It cannot be allowed in an infidel court.
Some pro bono class action lawyer needs to get this issue in front of the Supreme Court Justices. (An ACLU lawyer would be best, since they are all for separation of church and state.)
It needs to be resolved. And the Koran needs to be understood by infidels everywhere.
Playbook of a pedophile warlord.
Does history record a single instance of someone prevented from committing perjury by swearing on a book?
Let's come up with a new oath.
Bailiff: "The witness will place his hand on his crotch. Do you solemnly swear that you will allow the state to remove your sexual organs if the testimony you are about to give proves to be false?"
Witness: "I...uh...Can I think about this for minute?
"I hearby swear, on this book that allows me to deceive the unbelievers when it is to Allah's advantage, to tell the truth..."
Going on from what Pelayo said maybe it is time to come up with a legal document that requires people to swear to tell the truth according to their (local - meaning world-wide)consitutions, and swearing loyality to their country.
It could take time but there are enough smart people around who could formulate this.Like perhaps Alan Dershowitz??
This would work for all citizens: all religions and atheists as well, plus wiccans etc etc.
I could also be used for immigrants before they are made citizens.
If they cannot do that - out of here!
That should read:
It could also be used for immigrants before they are made citizens.
If they cannot do that - out of here!
(sorry)
And, if I were ever called upon to testify in a North Carolina court, I'd demand that I be sworn-in on the "Liar's Bible, as personally endorsed by the current President of the ACLU and the President of Iran."
Gramfan, we need to keep lawyers out of this as much as possible. The issue is too important. Telling the truth on the stand is a necessity for our system (hell, any system) of justice and we as citizens cannot allow those who profit from that system to make the rules.
The penalty for perjury should be, not cruel and unusual, but harsh and innovative and corporal punishment should not be ruled out.
It is sad, but the truth is that most people have more concern for their precious backsides than for their immortal souls.
Bailiff: "Do you understand that if you lie your a$$ will be in an enormous crack?
Witness: "Yes."
Bailiff: "Proceed."
They should NOT use anything other than the Bible! They know NOTHING of these "other religions!" I swear on Allah to protect Florida!
United States! wallah, allah what a 'lieing religion!' Deception to the max, blood all over the place! We cannot go there and they rule where ever they can and become such a BIG part of everyday decisions! I could scream already!!!
ACLU SUCKS! What a waste!
US Beast-
Testimony comes from the original meaning of the Roman oath- where a man placed his hand over his testes and swore on them to tell the truth.
Their version of "the hand over the heart".
(I don't think they removed the objects if he was lying. But, depending on the severity of the untruth, his head might be permanently dislocated.)
Perhaps it would be prudent to check up on the number of Muslims who actually appear in court to be tried for criminal activity? Then perhaps the number of Muslims already in prison could be looked at? Then we could have a quick look at the number of recent converts already in prison, as the likelihood of re-offending is another factor worth considering. I’m guessing that the numbers you’ll end up with will be quite illuminating and as a result you’ll see that it might make more sense to debate the more immediate concern of where these miscreants should be sent, rather than what book should be used prior to sending them there.
I suspect that the Death Valley Correctional Facility would be a good place for starters and the sooner you build it the better.
You never know, it could end up as busy as the Kaaba and be a popular place for a pilgrimage.
That is funny profitsbeard. It makes since for them! Maybe men should sware upon these as testimony. We may get to the truth faster! Or is that just Nuts!?
profitsbeard
*spits out water all over computer screen* Oh my God! That was so funny!
And being the Romans, they probably threatened removal of a man's manhood if he did not tell the truth, that's why they had men swear on it.
What's next? Wiccan? An L.Ron Hubbard book? Not that I don't respect those that believe-practice-embrace the afore-mentioned texts (this IS America (still))but in a court of law, there ought to be limits. Commit a crime in the US and swear on the book that represents the beliefs of the majority.
The act of placing a hand on a holy text while swearing to tell the truth is mainly symbolic. It is not even required. If someone declares they are atheist they need not swear on any book, but they must promise to tell the truth.
I can see a possibility of using the muslim's desire to swear on a Koran as a tool to be used against them in adverserial court proceedings .
Despite USBeast's commentary ( "ramfan, we need to keep lawyers out of this as much as possible"), ahem... A clever opposing attorney ( and we all know about THOSE guys), schooled in the hatred, violence and deception of Islam that is found in the Koran, might want to take the opportunity to expose that belief in deception (best example, tequiyya) upon cross examination. Credibility of a witness is always open to attack on cross examination. What better way to expose someone's proclivities to lie than to show that his religiuos beliefs condone, or even encourage, deception.
To repeat, the cross examaning attorney would really have to know the Koran and the beliefs he would be attacking.
I'd like to swear on a paperback copy of "The Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger, since I consider that a study in what 'Truth' is and because it's funny as hell.
Leonthepigfarmer wrote:
"unfortunately the founding fathers created a loop hole in their creation of the constitution.
instead of"one nation under god" they should have written, "one nation under jehovah"
this is open to misinterpretation and hence muslims see "one nation under god" as their god.
sad, but true."
Leon, you're spot on. Current scholarly concensus is that Jehovah is actually YAHWEH or YHWH and that this was covered up by the priests of the early church because the name was too holy and too powerful to be used by men.
Further, in the 9th Century, the Church allowed the name God to be substituted for the name of Allah in The Bible in order to get The Bible into the Middle East.
The name of God is YAHWEH, not Allah. If more preachers, The Pope, our leaders and the media would name God as YAHWEH and not just "God" we could clear up the problem right away.
Allahu Akbar is not "God is Great," but "Our God is Greater." This should also be spoken and publicized in our media.
I think that the reason allah never calls itself 'Yahweh' and the reason Mohammed never said allah had the name Yahweh is because the Jewish people supplying Mohammed with theology and stories from the Mishnah would not say the name.
Mohammed and Allah don't know the name Yahweh because Jewish people didn't tell them, since they didn't use the name. If they had mentioned it to Mohammed, Mohammed would have used it.
Allah and Mohammed are unaware of the name Yahweh. Interesting how that works out.
What do you want to swear by?
I'm trying to decide between Brewer's "Dictionary of Phrase and Fable" and Farmer and Henley's "Slang and Its Analogues"? But I admit that the book I would likely be truest too, if I were inclined to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (but I'm not) would be Webster's 2nd.
The Quran cannot be used to swear an oath to the laws of our country and Constitution.
Many of the religious texts in the Quran are in direct contradition of our laws and rights.
Or swear on books which do not exist...some imaginary text. (S. Lem wrote about characters writing "book reviews" on non-existent texts.) let the lawyers figure out if an imaginary text can be claimed to be a "bible." Yeah!
It is useful to have people agree to some kind of standardized statement in which they affirm to tell the truth. That is all part of establishing an understanding, an agreement, on what is to be expected.
Swearing on books seems like an unscientific, primitive, superstitious ritual, particularly when books such as the Bible, Koran, etc. contain so many unscientific and immoral propositions. (Yes there are good propositions in them too; but the person swearing on the book is swearing on the whole package...if not, they'll have to specify which parts are to be or not to be endored). As far as I'm aware, though, the books in question are not equal in their capacity to permit deception; the Quran permits it in some cases, whereas the Bible does not.
Although the Quran* tells Muslims to be honest in general, the problems arise in the exceptions. It specifically permits Muslims to express false oaths if circumstances compell them to do so, provided they do not break their inner oath with Allah/Islam.
*
16:106 Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.
5:89. Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He will take you to task for the oaths which ye swear in earnest. The expiation thereof is the feeding of ten of the needy with the average of that wherewith ye feed your own folk, or the clothing of them, or the liberation of a slave, and for him who findeth not (the wherewithal to do so) then a three days' fast. This is the expiation of your oaths when ye have sworn; and keep your oaths. Thus Allah expoundeth unto you His revelations in order that ye may give thanks.
2:225. Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths. But He will take you to task for that which your hearts have garnered. Allah is Forgiving, Clement.
If a Muslim swears on the Quran, then commits perjury in court, if he is charged with perjury any good lawyer who knows Islamic doctrine could beat that perjury charge...and I am pretty sure one would try. "Taquiya"
You're right. If one is permitted to swear to tell the truth upon a text that permits lying, then there can be no lie. Nor any perjury charge, for the swearing, accepted at face value by the court, was itself based upon a theory that permits lying.
And that's no lie.
The Koran itself should be put on trial especially when it is used as a tool for murder as in the case of the UNC Jiahdist and the six Fort Dix attackers. whe need more of the Zacharias Mossoui's quoting 9:25 in a court of law as inspiration for murdering Americans.
These comments here are good. I suppose, an appropriate conclusion is that if a Muslim is aware of his right to deceive the infidel, then whether he swears on one book or another (or no book) is really not relevant. He may deceive the infidel as he pleases!
If I ever have to go to court I will ask to swear my oath on a copy of MAD Magazine. Or maybe "Hustler" since there are so many lawyers in these court houses.
What a bunch of Hate Mongery you bigot racist are. There are more Christian commiting prejury in our courts than any other religion like Islam.
Previous post: "Further, in the 9th Century, the Church allowed the name God to be substituted for the name of Allah in The Bible in order to get The Bible into the Middle East."
Correction: Further, in the 9th Century, the Church allowed the name of Allah to be substituted for the name of God (YAHWEH) in The Bible in order to get The Bible into the Middle East.