ACLU Sues to Have Quran Approved for Use in Court Oaths

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by -Cp, Jul 27, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    When witnesses are sworn in, the religious texts of non-Christian faiths should be allowed in North Carolina courts along with the Bible, the ACLU argued in lawsuit filed against the state Tuesday.

    Denying the use of other religious texts would violate the Constitution by favoring Christianity over other religions, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina said in its lawsuit.

    When witnesses are sworn in, the religious texts of non-Christian faiths should be allowed in North Carolina courts along with the Bible, the ACLU argued in lawsuit filed against the state Tuesday.

    Denying the use of other religious texts would violate the Constitution by favoring Christianity over other religions, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina said in its lawsuit.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/27/101320.shtml
     
  2. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Fuck(parden my Kerry French) the ACLU they can put their heads on the Islam platter if they choose...but not this vet...up theirs!
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Beginning to step the slippery slope to allowing religious law to take precendence over US law. ? (as long as it's not Christianity)
     
  4. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Sounds good to me. I have no objection.
     
  5. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    So I have to swear on a Dhammapada? Odd...

    Anyway, correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere that the Koran directly allows a Muslim to lie to an "infidel", why would it be any better than them swearing on air?
     
  6. Nuc
    Offline

    Nuc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,377
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +141
    If the purpose of taking the oath is that it might improve the chances of the witness telling the truth, what is the effectiveness of using books the witness doesn't believe in?

    Let them take the oath on the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Dhammapada, or on their Grateful Dead LP's if that's what they believe in.

    And before the "gang" start going berserk on this remember that most court cases are mundane matters. If a Moslem is testifying about a car accident what's the problem with them giving the oath on the book they believe in? We're not talking Gitmo here.
     
  7. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    If the Islamists take this country over, the first ones they'll go after are the ACLU (civil rights in a theocracy? Are you kidding?), the NOW (women don't have rights in Islam), the gays (perverted sodomites), most of Hollywood (drugged crazed, atheistic, and immoral), academics (they think too much) the anti-war crowd (troublemakers), Communists (they don't believe in Allah, they're atheists and they start trouble), the Park Avenue liberals (rich degenerates with more money than brains) and in short, most of the useful idiots on the Left who helped them win the war on terror. They helped them win by undermining the war effort (in the name of "dissent"), tried to normalize immorality, and basically undermine what made this country great. Once they've outlived their usefulness, don't believe for a minute that the Islamists will let them live. Afterwards, we can look forward to a long dark age that will probably last a millennium or so, much like the fall of the Roman Empire brought about the first Dark Ages. Of course, not only will liberty and basic rights be abolished, but the standard of living throughout the world will drop dramatically as well as the life expectancy of people. Not only will people die by the sword ("convert to Islam or die"), but from ignorance as well. Since free thought will be extinguished, so will the investigation of science, medicine, technology.....

    And of course, the liberals that remain will quietly grumble amongst themselves that it was all George Bush's fault, after all "he didn't do enough to stop these people from taking over the world, just like he didn't do enough to stop 9/11...." and even then, they won't get it.
     
  8. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    Yes, and let's not forget, that, regardless of how they swear in, they can lie under oath as long as it's only about sex......
     
  9. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    You know I had no problem with it either till I read your post and realized how a Muslim may see everyone in the court as the enemy (infidel) therfore have carte blanche to lie their asses off... :laugh:

    To top it off, I like many are extremely wary of the ACLU's motives in this.......I smell a rat :(
     
  10. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Are you implying that Bill Clinton got away with perjury? If so, let me give you some facts.

    On April 12, 1999, Judge Susan Wright found the president in contempt for lying in his January 1998 testimony when he denied the Lewinsky affair. Judge Wright ordered the president to pay nearly $90000 to Paula Jones's lawyers. The day before he left office, President Clinton agreed to admit to giving false testimony in the Jones case and to accept a five-year suspension of his law license and a $25000 fine in return for an agreement by the independent counsel, Robert W. Ray (Ken Starr's successor), to end the investigation and not prosecute him.

    Please don't let your political bias shield you from the specific facts.
     

Share This Page