A couple years ago Syidah Mateenasked if she could use a Quran instead when called on to testify in a domestic violence protective order hearing. The judge asked for an opinion on whether that was permissible.
Guilford Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, who sets policy for the county's nine Superior Court courtrooms, said "An oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law."
It is hard not to conclude that North Carolina has endorsed the "Holy Scriptures" of Christians to the exclusion of the "Holy Scriptures" of Muslims. This clearly violates the intent of the first clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
12 comments:
If you force someone to swear on the Bible and they don't believe in the Bible, do they think they have to tell the truth? How stupid do we get?
Some states have adopted a secular oath without the Bible and instead of swearing "so help me God" it is "Upon pain of pergury laws." I agree with Mom, swearing by a God you don't believe in has no force, and the consequence for false testimony should be based on law not faith. What was ruled on in North Carolina, which obviously doesn't have a secular oath law is that the swearing of the oath is based on precedent. It is hard to get lower court judges to overturn precedent.
That is amazing, yet I am sadly not surprised.
Oh how we cheapen our faith in God for a little bit of civil recognition.
anonymous,
Thanks for doing an admirable job of presenting a theocratic interpretation of the first amendment.
what one should really take note of is the extra irony,
muslims use the OT and NT as part of their holy scripture too,
by the court saying that their (muslims) Qu'ran isn't holy, why aren't they extending it to the rest of muslim holy scripture?
that would knock our scripture out as well...
kinda odd irony, don't ya think?
I've never really understood what swearing on anything really accomplishes. It's illegal to lie on the witness stand with or without an oath, isn't it? Any attorneys out there to help? I'd be interested in what the readers think we should do with Matthew 5:34 (But I say to you, do not swear at all ....)?
I am not an attorney, but I have taught a high school street law class for over ten years. There are numerous religious groups that refuse to take an oath or swear on the witness stand because of that scripture. Quakers, Amish, come to mind, there might be others. They are allowed to "affirm" that their testimony is truthful. It is rather semantic, but somehow both sides are satisfied.
Ps, FYI
It is the Jehovah Witness that hold it against their religion to pledge, and that led to the Supreme Court ruling that you cannot force a student to say the pledge of allegiance at school.
Annonymous, Though I believe it shoudl be permissible for a Muslim to swear on the Quran, I agree with your assessment of the Establishment clause of the Constitution. Bruce, if you disagree, I certainly wish you would defend that position rather than hurling insults at those with reasoned arguments. This is the typical liberal approach (i.e.If law and truth are not on your side, attack your opponent) As one of your regular readers, and a first-time contributor, I sincerely await a response to anonymous' view of the establishment clause. I hope you will not leave me viewing you as the typical liberal.
Joel & anonymous,
I thought anonymous said enough to refute his own position.
Either the U.S. Constitution and its amendments are the supreme law of the land, or each state has the power to enact laws that override the U.S. constitution.
Anonymous is more than welcome to express the opinion that the First Amendment only applies to laws that the U.S. congress enacts. As he has acknowledged, that is a typical theocratic response.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court determines how the constitution will be interpreted.
If the President puts enough theocrats on the Supreme Court the theocratic interpretation will prevail.
To this point, it has not prevailed.
One thing is certain. Making Muslims or anyone else swear on a Bible is not going to make them Christians. Neither will it assure that they will tell the truth when they testify in court.
anonymous,
You indicated yourself that the 14th amendment has been interpreted to apply the U.S. Constitution to the states.
The Supreme Court made that determination. Until that decision is reversed it is the law of the land. That means that the First Amendment does prohibit North Carolina from establishing a state religion.
Anonymous,
You give me a headache.*deep sigh* I'm retiring for the night.
Post a Comment