Debate Brews Over Use of Koran in Court

Quote:

---

Monday, August 22, 2005



GREENSBORO, N.C. — Traditionally, witnesses taking the stand in court are sworn in by placing their hand on the Bible (search).

But when Muslims in Guilford County, N.C., tried to donate copies of the Koran (search) for courtroom use, judges turned them down.

Chief District Court Judge Joseph Turner (search) says taking an oath on the Koran is not allowed by North Carolina state law, which specifies that witnesses shall place their hands on the “holy scriptures,” which he interprets as the Christian Bible.

“We’ve been doing it that way for 200 years,” he said. “Until the legislature changes that law, I believe I have to do what I’ve been told to do in the statutes.”

But the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the American Civil Liberties Union are challenging the Guilford County Courts.

“This was the first time that we had a judge … going on record and stating unilaterally what is a holy scripture and what is not — what we believe to be a violation of the establishment clause,” said Arsalan Iftikhar of CAIR.

Their case is solid, according to one Duke University (search) law professor.

“I have absolutely no doubt that higher courts, if it gets there, will say that persons of Muslim faith can swear on a Koran rather than a Christian Bible,” said Erwin Chemerinsky. “The case law is so clear here that a person doesn’t even have to swear on a Bible to be a witness so long as they’re willing to promise to tell the truth

---

LINK with video

I found this story on Rush Limbaughs site. Heres some of what he had to say about it.

Quote:

---

Okay, do you see where this is going? It's bye-bye United States of America. It's bye-bye original intent of the Framers of the Constitution.

It's bye-bye all of that. (interruption) What is your problem, Mr. Snerdley? This is simply -- When you immigrate to America, you assimilate to the American culture. There is no state-sponsored religion here, but it says if you're going to swear an oath in court, you do so on the Bible. So I guess this means -- if the lawyer Erwin Chemerinsky is right -- that if the Supreme Courts of the land overturn this and say, "Whatever your religion is, you can bring that in and swear on it,

---

For once I dissagree with Rush. Foe one the law says swear on the holy scriptures. To a Muslim would that be the Koran. Whats the use of them swearing on something that isnt holy to them? I say the lawyer for once is correct. I know Id believe a Muslim who swore on the Koran over one who swore on the bible.

LINK

what is the use of swearing on the bible anyway for non-religious people?

it is an absurdity

one shouldnt be forced to swear to anything as people are going to say whatever is in their own interests regardless of oath

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

For once I dissagree with Rush. Foe one the law says swear on the holy scriptures. To a Muslim would that be the Koran. Whats the use of them swearing on something that isnt holy to them? I say the lawyer for once is correct. I know Id believe a Muslim who swore on the Koran over one who swore on the bible.

---

Yep, I would prefer they swear on something that carries weight to *them.* ("Testimony" has swearing on ones testes as the root...which might not be too effective for eunuchs or women.)

What do they do in Utah, for the mormons? I'm not trying to be facetious. How do they handle this?

Does a judge like this have any business being on the bench?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Does a judge like this have any business being on the bench?

---

Well the judge isn't supposed to make law, just apply it. He did say that the legislature should address this point which IMO is the correct way to go about it. The legislatures have a tendency to shirk their responsibilities if the issue is controversial.

“We’ve been doing it that way for 200 years,” he said. “Until the legislature changes that law, I believe I have to do what I’ve been told to do in the statutes.”

A 200 year precedent shouldn't be something a judge lightly tosses aside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Well the judge isn't supposed to make law, just apply it. He did say that the legislature should address this point which IMO is the correct way to go about it. The legislatures have a tendency to shirk their responsibilities if the issue is controversial.

“We’ve been doing it that way for 200 years,” he said. “Until the legislature changes that law, I believe I have to do what I’ve been told to do in the statutes.”

A 200 year precedent shouldn't be something a judge lightly tosses aside.

---

It his responsibility to interpret that law too. In this case it clearly conflicts with Federal protections of rights. He should be erring on the side that best protects those involved. I can't see how insisting that someone swear on a symbol of some other faith qualifies as such.

Judges also have a tendency to shirk their responsibilities in such cases. To me it shows either religious bias by the judge, lack of basic reasoning, or lack of will to do the right thing in the face of potential opposition.

Another activist judge, like Judge Ten Commandments. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

It his responsibility to interpret that law too. In this case it clearly conflicts with Federal protections of rights. He should be erring on the side that best protects those involved. I can't see how insisting that someone swear on a symbol of some other faith qualifies as such.

Judges also have a tendency to shirk their responsibilities in such cases. To me it shows either religious bias by the judge, lack of basic reasoning, or lack of will to do the right thing in the face of potential opposition.

Another activist judge, like Judge Ten Commandments. ~:rolleyes:

---

But the Right doesn't see it that way. To them he's a hero, not an activist judge. If he had done the opposite, then he would be accused by the Right of legislating from the bench and judicial activism. It's only judicial activism when it's done by someone they don't like.

A Muslim may swear on both the Koran AND/OR the Bible, as both are holy books to a Muslim, which he is supposed to believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

LINK with video

I found this story on Rush Limbaughs site. Heres some of what he had to say about it.



For once I dissagree with Rush. Foe one the law says swear on the holy scriptures. To a Muslim would that be the Koran. Whats the use of them swearing on something that isnt holy to them? I say the lawyer for once is correct. I know Id believe a Muslim who swore on the Koran over one who swore on the bible.

LINK

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

For once I dissagree with Rush. Foe one the law says swear on the holy scriptures. To a Muslim would that be the Koran. Whats the use of them swearing on something that isnt holy to them? I say the lawyer for once is correct. I know Id believe a Muslim who swore on the Koran over one who swore on the bible.

---

Good sentiment! Making them swear on a Christian bible seems pointless really... it’s not like they need to introduce a new oath (change any references to the Bible to the Koran, or whatever your holy text is) or procedure.

However, how 'holy scripture' can only be interpreted to mean the Christian bible and nothing else seems a little silly (reminds me when I was taught that old laws should be interpreted by their connotation, not denotation). Even if 'holy scripture's were only bibles at the time (how many non-Christians lived there at the time the law was passed?) the choice of those words over something more restrictive indicates to me that the legislators intended to be more inclusive then that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Yep, I would prefer they swear on something that carries weight to *them.* ("Testimony" has swearing on ones testes as the root...which might not be too effective for eunuchs or women.)

What do they do in Utah, for the mormons? I'm not trying to be facetious. How do they handle this?

---

Been in court in Utah - they use the Bible - since that is the basis of their religion. But that was about 15 years ago - so it might have changed.

I agree with you Gawain. But just to be the Devils Advocate... in the last census here, a large group of people registered their religion as "Jedi". It was a kind of statement I suppose. But should those people be allowed to swear on the Jedi scrolls. Should people in the org be allowed swear on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Who draws the line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Yep, I would prefer they swear on something that carries weight to *them.*

---

It is a obsolete custom, dating back to the days when religion had an entirely different place in public life. In a court of law you should speak the truth or face the consequences. It is of no use to have people swearing on a book, on the moon or on their mother's grave. That is mumbo jumbo.

I don't think that any sort of holy book should be necassary, but as long as it is, I think the Bible, Quran, Torah and any other sort of book is fair game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

But the Right doesn't see it that way. To them he's a hero, not an activist judge. If he had done the opposite, then he would be accused by the Right of legislating from the bench and judicial activism. It's only judicial activism when it's done by someone they don't like.

---

Since I agree that Muslims should swear on the Koran your point is simply wrong.
The legislature is the body whose duty it is to create law, not judges. They should be the ones who step up to the plate.

Quote:

---

But the Right doesn't see it that way. To them he's a hero, not an activist judge

---

AS I and now sharrukin have said this is not so. If he were an activist judge he would have changed the law from the bench and allowed the Koran. He just said if that what the legislator wants then pass a law. Again many of us on the right think the law already says the Koran could be used as it states they have to swear on holy scriptures. Whats really needed here is a clarification of just what that means. This to me is not a right or left issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

But should those people be allowed to swear on the Jedi scrolls. Should people in the org be allowed swear on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Who draws the line?

---

You bring up a very good point. What if some one worships "abokasix"? Would that allow them to say "GET ON WITH THE QUESTION BEFORE I GET CONSTAPATED AND WE WOULDNT WANT THAT WOULD WE!! WOULD WE?" When asked to put their hand on the bible???

I agree with gawain.

I am a christian and if I had to swear on a koran....I would not be a happy camper. So I can see why they won't swear on the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Yep, I would prefer they swear on something that carries weight to *them.*

---

The only problem with that logic is that Muslims are commanded by the Koran and Muhammed to lie to infidels and are also commanded to break treaties or any other contract with people other than Muslims. I'll try to look it up in the Koran and post it, unless someone would care to google it for me, I'm cooking dinner tonight!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

For once I dissagree with Rush. Foe one the law says swear on the holy scriptures. To a Muslim would that be the Koran. Whats the use of them swearing on something that isnt holy to them? I say the lawyer for once is correct. I know Id believe a Muslim who swore on the Koran over one who swore on the bible.

---

And for once (well, aside from Israel discussions) I agree with you Gawain. This is not a matter of who's religion is "better." This is a matter of whether we want people to make what they view as a valid (in their own eyes) oath to tell the truth in court.

This judge saying that the Quran is not "holy scripture" is either an idiot or a bigot, and I'm really not sure which is worse in a judge.

:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

AS I and now sharrukin have said this is not so. If he were an activist judge he would have changed the law from the bench and allowed the Koran.

---

Actually, G, this guy has legislated from the bench. The current law only specifies "holy scriptures." Under that law, the Quran would definitely qualify, as it is holy scripture.

This judge has just changed the law, because under his ruling, he has effectively changed the legal requirement for the swearing of oaths from "holy scripture" to "The Holy Bible."

Not only that, the larger implication is that a court in the United States has now openly said that the Quran is not "holy scripture," and from there it's not much of a leap to "Islam is not a valid religion." And that has huge implications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Actually, G, this guy has legislated from the bench. The current law only specifies "holy scriptures." Under that law, the Quran would definitely qualify, as it is holy scripture.

This judge has just changed the law, because under his ruling, he has effectively changed the legal requirement for the swearing of oaths from "holy scripture" to "The Holy Bible."

Not only that, the larger implication is that a court in the United States has now openly said that the Quran is not "holy scripture," and from there it's not much of a leap to "Islam is not a valid religion." And that has huge implications.

---

Laws are set by precedent which is how they are to be interpreted by those who apply them. This means the way the law has been understood for 200 years. 200 years sets a precedent as to what the law means. They are not set by creative licence as to what the words might mean in other circumstances. The judge is doing the responsible thing by telling the legislature it is their duty to act, one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Actually, G, this guy has legislated from the bench. The current law only specifies "holy scriptures." Under that law, the Quran would definitely qualify, as it is holy scripture.

---

I did mention that was my reason for saying he was wrong . However this came into my head.

Quote:

---

Laws are set by precedent which is how they are to be interpreted by those who apply them. This means the way the law has been understood for 200 years. 200 years sets a precedent as to what the law means

---

The judge could have gone either way. He chose to abstain and pass it on the the legislator where it belongs. Its is a loose interpretation though Ill give you and it should be changed or at least clarified to include the holy scriptures of any religion. Yes even vodoo.

Do the Hatians have a holy book?