It’s true, I actually do agree with the ACLU, sort of, for once:
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.
Now, I abhor the ACLU’s method’s, the scare tactics, the extortion, the threats, blackmail, and, in this case, the lawsuits, but, our country was founded on religious freedom. Sure, it was about Christian beliefs, but respect should be given and respect should be shown. All religions (except the truly wacko ones) should be respected. Otherwise, we give up one of our core principles. All religion should be the same in the eyes of the law (except the really kooky ones.)
It’s a tough call. We have seen what the tenents of Islam have done. We should allow them to swear on the Quaran, though, but not to appease them, but because it is the right thing to do, based on those same principles of religious freedom that the Pilgrims came to this land for.
I just have to wonder if the ACLU had ever considered asking the NC Legislature. Probably not. It’s not their way. What is the old saying about the end not justifying the means?
This is one of those things that I can’t believe it takes legislation OR litigation to solve. Why wouldn’t any judge simply honor the request of anyone being sworn in to use whatever religious text they wish? I mean what would even be the point of having a non-Christian swear upon a bible to tell the truth? It’s like me swearing upon a dictionary — it holds no meaning or signifigance and hardly assures that I’m going to tell the truth.
TonyB said it, and I agree. What would be the point?
I am entertained by what a secular person would swear on? A book of Einstein’s theory? Really, what would it be?
It seems disturbing that people would be allowed to swear oaths on the Koran, given Shiite Islam’s doctrine of taqiyyah – which allows Muslims to lie, under certain circumstances.
Lunch: 7/27/2005
Try one of these specials with your lunch: Stop the ACLU! sees a win for the Boy Scouts. Pirate’s Cove finds agreement with the ACLU. Trey Jackson is selling shirts. bookofjoe found something for the ladies. Riehl World View takes
Yeah, it would seem strange given their past performance (muslims), but we would be giving them the right based on our principles, not theirs.
People ARE currently allowed to swear on nothing, if they so desire. That’s why this is not only unnecessary, but decidedly a method to push Christianity aside.
Islam IS one of those “wacky” religions. From http://thewideawakes.org/archives/2005/07/27/bible-quran-tv-guide%e2%80%94whatever/
“Whether or not you believe in the Bible’s spiritual components is, in a court of law, not as important as whether you believe in the democratic principles its moral teachings helped to forge. And Muslims do not believe in those principles.”
THAT’S why this makes no sense.
I see the point you are making, yet I also see Ogre’s point, and Julie’s. The Muslims are allowed to lie, so partly it would be pointless, and a waste of taxpayers money for something unnessecary, yet I agree with the ACLU on principle. However, it is hard for me to believe there is not an underlying motive here. The ACLU usually fights to get religion out of government facilities, not put one in.
I see y’alls points, which is why I disagree with the ACLU’s motives and methods. I just think that we should allow the swearing, if they want to, on their own religious text, because of the religious freedom that we are founded on. Realistically, this is more important for the witnesses, then the criminals.
Fundamentally, what purpose does swearing in on the Bible serve? Let me be Devil’s Advocate here. Is it primarily a symbol, an outward sign of one’s honesty? Does it magically make the swearer tell the truth, or at least really think about what they’re about to say (even if they’ve already memorized their lawyer-fed lines)? Is it just to make honest folks feel good while swearing in, if they know that they’re innocent? (It would for me, I suppose.)
Or is it simply going through the motions by a court system, let alone a nation, that’s forgotten what honesty truly is? How many times do folks swear in and then lie anyway, or tweak and twist, defining “what the meaning of the word is is”?
Not to be so damn cynical, but as a Christian I see such foulness being done in the name of Christ [white supremicists, Jim Jones, David Koresh, thieving tele-evangelists (though there are legit ones of course!), Pumpkinhead Ted Kennedy] that I literally cringe whenever I see a putative wackjob swearing on the Holy Bible.
It’s a meaning thing: if it has meanining for the swearer that’s nice. It should have meaning for the society, but that’s waning. Though our nation was founded on Christian principles, I’m not sure that this quaint rite is all that valuable today.
Heh, don’t get me started on teh ACLU. Jay nailed that one re motives… what’s going on with that?
Ogre brings up a good point. Who gets to decide which religions are whacky or kooky? My religion may be whacky to you and vice versa.
ACLU and Religion: Be Very Concerned
Photo courtesy of the San Diego Union Tribune
SAN DIEGO San Diego voters have approved a ballot measure aimed at keeping a 29-foot cross erected to honor Korean War veterans at its location on a city-owned hilltop.
A judge ruled that the measure nee…
Oaths for the Oath’s Sake
MaryHunter over at Bacon Bit’s has ACLU Thursday, or more correctly an anti-ACLU Thursday. I find it troubling that a institution began to champion freedom now usually champions thinly disguised relativism