ACLU Sues to Have Quran Approved for Use in Court Oaths

[-Cp]

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

 

[archangel]

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!

 

[dilloduck]

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

Beginning to step the slippery slope to allowing religious law to take precendence over US law. ? (as long as it's not Christianity)

 

[mattskramer]

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

Sounds good to me. I have no objection.

 

[no1tovote4]

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?

 

[Nuc]

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.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

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......

 

[Bonnie]

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?

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...

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

 

[mattskramer]

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......

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.

 

[Bonnie]

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.

Point of fact though he did get away with it as he should have been booted from office which much of the blame for that lies in those who voted for impeachment but not for him stepping down from the office of President, the fact that he later admitted it and paid money is of little value to the country. That fact that it was over adultery does little to shade the point that it was still perjury by the most powerful man elected to uphold the Constitution. He had no character and the fact that the media portrayed Clinton as the victim of some kind of witchunt while the evil Ken Starr who was APPOINTED to investigate this was absolutely shameful journalism. So really he did get away with it.

 

[mattskramer]

Point of fact though he did get away with it as he should have been booted from office which much of the blame for that lies in those who voted for impeachment but not for him stepping down from the office of President, the fact that he later admitted it and paid money is of little value to the country. That fact that it was over adultery does little to shade the point that it was still perjury by the most powerful man elected to uphold the Constitution. He had no character and the fact that the media portrayed Clinton as the victim of some kind of witchunt while the evil Ken Starr who was APPOINTED to investigate this was absolutely shameful journalism. So really he did get away with it.

He was punished, though not severely, for perjury. In the sense that he was not removed from office, he got away with it. I see your point. I think that if a president (any president (Democrat or Republican)) lies to a grand jury - about anything - then the president should be swiftly kicked out of office.

 

[GotZoom]

So when the witness places his hand upon the Koran, he says, "I swear to Allah"?

In our tradition, placing out hand on the Bible and "swearing" means that we will tell the truth.

What does his/her placement upon the Koran mean for them?

 

[USViking]

This case is active in my home town of Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina, U.S.A.,

and I take the side of those who wish to swear on any "Holy Scriptures" they hold holy,

and on the side of those, such as me, who do not believe in the holiness of any scripture, and wish to swear on their heart, hope to die.

The Constitution of the State of North Carolina clearly allows this interpretation, in my opinion, and I am sure the presently dissenting judges will be overruled.

 

[colehart]

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.

This sounds a bit like the terminator movie. Scary! It could happen!

 

[Bonnie]

He was punished, though not severely, for perjury. In the sense that he was not removed from office, he got away with it. I see your point. I think that if a president (any president (Democrat or Republican)) lies to a grand jury - about anything - then the president should be swiftly kicked out of office.

Very true!! It's about standards.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

oooooh.... yes, he REALLY got punished! If you call a slap on the hand a punishment.... plus I forgot to mention that he also was guilty of suborning perjury and obstruction of justice....

In another time, a president was forced to resign for lesser offenses.

Basically.... the Senate blinked and he got away with it by a few votes.... otherwise, Mr. Clinton probably might have been the first president to have been convicted of a crime. Obviously, politics, not justice was being served on that day.

P.S. On a similar note, rapper "Lil Kim" has been sentenced to a year plus a day imprisonment and fined $50,000 for perjuring herself before a grand jury. I guess she didn't have Bill Clinton's friends. I have to ask, if a black woman who sings for a living can go to jail and be fined for perjury (she claimed she was not at the scene of a shooting), why can't a sitting president (for claiming he did not have an affair with an intern)? I don't believe I'm the one who is letting their political bias cloud their judgement in this case.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-07-06-lil-kim-sentencing_x.htm?csp=36