NC Judge Forbids use of Koran to swear in witnesses.

[TheMightyFavog]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0720/p02s02-usju.html?s=zmf

RALEIGH, N.C. – As Muslim-Christian relations are under the spotlight around the world,US judges sometimes face a vexing question: Can witnesses raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth ... on the Koran?

The recent refusal by a Guilford County, N.C., judge to allow a Muslim woman to swear upon Islam's holy text before testifying is, in part, a new First Amendment challenge. And here in the Tar Heel state, the idea of swearing on books other than the Bible has reinvigorated a debate on the relationship between faith and truth that goes back to the founding documents of both the Carolinas and the country.

(snip

Guilford County Superior Judge W. Douglas Albright, a 1777 North Carolina law clearly says oaths are made upon the "Holy Scriptures" - which scholars agree is a clear reference to the Bible. The Administrative Office of the Courts has so far declined a request by Muslim groups to make a rule change that would force judges to allow other religious oaths.

(snip)

"We don't have a state-run religion in this country and it's an honor to worship here, but some traditions that we've had for 200 years need to stay," says Michele Combs, communications director at the Christian Coalition in Washington.



:banghead:

[thinkingwoman]

1. slide over a little

I want to join you at the wall.

:banghead:

Criminy these people are whackjobs.

[wli]

2. pure manure

Atheists have been refusing to swear on any holy book altogether for some time now. Muslims should get the Koran (and atheists should not be newly compelled to swear on any holy book). Jews should get the Torah as well, and so on, and so forth.

[TheMightyFavog]

4. On a Torah?

Wouldn't that be a little difficult seeing as how a Torah is a large scroll rather than a book? IIRC, you aren't even allowed to touch the parchment, much less put your hand on it.

You could use a Chumash or Talmud, though.

[wli]

6. sorry, I'm not up to speed on Judaica

Talmud or whatever is appropriate of course. My mistake.

[johnnomac]

14. Or a "Jewish Bible"

Which, IIRC, is almost exactly the same as the Old Testament.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. A friend of mine was in court a few years ago....

... in the King County (Washington) Superior Court, I think it was. He was a witness in the trial of someone charged with assault with a deadly weapon (he was at a bar when another patron, in a fight with someone else, had pulled out a gun.) When his turn came to testify, he was asked his choice of Scriptures. Being an atheist, he made the somewhat sarcastic statement that he only considers the US Constitution to be Holy Writ.

A bailiff stepped out for about two minutes and came back in with a law book open to the first part of the United States Constitution. He asked, "Will this be acceptable?" My friend said yes and was duly sworn in, right hand on the Preamble.

[G2099]

3. To a Muslim the Qur'an is "Holy Scriptures"

To a Muslim the Qur'an is considered more "holy" a "scripture" than the Bible.

[China_cat]

8. An oath on the bible for a (devout) Muslim

wouldn't mean any more than an oath on one of the Harry Potter books.

[johnnomac]

12. Not exactly

IIRC, many Muslims have a lot of respect for the Bible, and believe in many prophets (including Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus), they simply do not believe that Jesus was the son of God. So it would have a bit more meaning than a Harry Potter book. But it probably wouldn't have any more meaning than a Born-again Christian swearing on the Book of Mormon.

[bluestateguy]

5. Sounds like a question for Judge Roberts

n/t

[wli]

7. point well taken!

[no_hypocrisy]

9. How about "none of the above" and swear on the Constitution?

[johnnomac]

13. That makes a lot more sense

I mean, I would consider myself a born-again Christian, and I have a lot of issues with forcing people to swear on the Bible. If I were in court, I would certainly be willing to, but swearing on the Constitution or something similar would certainly be better.

[LiberalFighter]

10. Oath should not be any different than what is REQUIRED for NC Governor

I emphasized required because it may not be the same as what they follow now.

[Ian David]

11. If you ever want to make a notary public steaming mad, do what I did...

When she asked me to sign my affirmation in her book, I crossed out the words, "so help me god."

In any case, if I should ever be called to swear an oath upon a book of any kind, I intend to use a copy of "Catcher in the Rye."

Unless I'm a defendant-- in which case, I will swear upon anything that won't piss-off the judge.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. Speaking as a Notary Public....

I've witnessed many jurats in the years I've been a notary. Most of the oaths I've seen do not have "so help me God" in them, but then, I work in Washington which is pretty open about such matters. If someone were to cross "so help me God" from an oath, my only obligation is to get the signer to initial the change. After that, I ask the signer to raise her right hand and read the oath as it is / has been changed, then I can do my bit.

Some states, however, do have "so help me God" as part of the required legal wording. Striking out any part of the oath runs the risk that the jurat is not legally binding and, therefore, not legally enforceable. Worse, it can make it a felony for the notary to sign and seal the jurat because it is not a legal oath, which is probably why your notary got steamed. That is a matter of state law, so getting pissed at the notary doing her job and covering her butt will not help the situation. The folks you should take issue with are the state's legislators; they can change the law, notaries public can not.

[sakabatou]

15. In other words, welcome to the Inquisition

[RiDuvessa]

16. This is absurd.

This issue has already been decided.

"In US v. Ward, 989 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1992), Ninth Circuit Judge Fletcher wrote:

In Omichund v. Barker, 1 Atk. 22, 45 (1744), Lord Chief Judge Willes wrote, "It would be absurd for to swear according to the Christian oath, which he does not believe; and therefore, out of necessity, he must be allowed to swear according to his own notion of an oath." See also Atcheson v. Everitt, 1 Cowp. 382, 389 (1776) (Mansfield, L.C.J.) ("s the purpose of is to bind his conscience, every man of every religion should be bound by that form which he himself thinks will bind his own conscience most")."

It seems like a higher court will most likely affirm a Muslim's right to swear on the Koran.

It's interesting that some religions do not allow you to swear, in which case you generally affirm. President Polk was sworn in this way.

Many courts don't have you swear on any religious book anymore, they just have you affirm the substance of the oath.

Either way, this judge doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[rateyes]

19. How about we just ask this question of every witness,

every person signing a contract under penalty of perjury, etc.

If you don't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, we are going to throw your sorry ass in jail. You understand?

[Zenlitened]

20. That, I like!

:thumbsup: