A North Carolina judge has ruled that the Quran or any other religious text can be used to administer an oath in court. Before this, one could only use the christian bible, say 'so help me god' without a religious text or by affirming without any religious connotations or texts.
Do you agree or disagree with this ruling?
2007-05-24 13:12:10 · 23 answers · asked by genaddt 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree with it. I am a forensic accountant, and I have to testify in court quite often. I always request that my oath be taken on a book of law and without the words "so help me God". Several times, the judge threatened to fine me and hold me in contempt of court, but the prosecutor (I have never testified for the defense) has always stood by me. I actually got in the habit of bringing my own lawyer with me into court (the only service the ACLU provides for me which doesn't leave that horrible aftertaste in my mouth) to remind the judge that by not allowing me to do as I request, he or she is forcing me to commit perjury under duress. By forcing me, the judge can be arrested on tampering charges, as well as violation of my constitutional rights. This usually occurs when I am set to testify in the South, where many of them still have apparently not received the memo that the war was lost back in 1865. I am licensed in eleven states, three in the South. I much prefer testifying in Japan, since the entire process is less adversarial and relies on facts and evidence. Fighting fraud is much easier here than in the U.S.
2007-05-24 13:26:12 · answer #1 · answered by seattlefan74 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It is late in coming. There never should have been an oath to God to tell the truth. Religious people lie all the time and they say they believe in god. I would rather swear oath to a roll of toilet paper or the dictionary. This would mean more to me than swearing on the bible or any other religious book. You should have the right to not be judged by a bunch or lunatics that believe in lies.
2007-05-24 13:20:05 · answer #2 · answered by God!Man aka:Jason b 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow - and that was in North Carolina.
Yeah, absolutely. If for no other reason than that all we wicked atheists, who run around committing crimes nonstop, tend not to respect the Bible as the Canon of Truth; so swearing on it isn't quite the moral goad that it is (in theory) for "Christians."
The real reason, of course, is that it's an outrageous breach of the separation of Church and State. Even if it's only symbolism!
I can't concede that it's practical to have on hand at every court a copy of every possible sacred text that might be requested; but the whole tradition is antiquated and basically meaningless. There's no need to "physically" swear on anything. If you perjure yourself, it's not God who punishes you.
2007-05-24 13:20:16 · answer #3 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the ridiculous bible continues to be used, then who cares. Christians can lie any time they like. After all, the pretend to know that they are not perfect, so lying is ok, and they claim that they are forgiven, so they still can believe in their going to heaven. It is a dumb game for them. If they can play, then who cares if FSMers put their hands on a bowl of pasta for their oath. At least it would taste much better.
2007-05-24 14:50:55 · answer #4 · answered by Fred 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with it. If you don't believe in God and you swear an oath on a book you don't believe in - isn't that committing perjury right there? So it makes sense that perhaps an oath should actually mean something to the person taking it.
2007-05-24 13:17:42 · answer #5 · answered by swordarkeereon 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
the finished thought of utilising "Holy Scriptures" is to grant extra emphasis to the act, and signify which you're taking an oath below a greater potential. Making people from different religions take an oath on a e book they do no longer evaluate "Holy Scriptures" could defeat that purpose. enable people use whichever non secular script they experience mushy with - we could save in mind that the significant ingredient is they tell the actuality, no longer which e book the swear on...
2016-10-06 00:12:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The purpose for taking the oath is for the witness to commit to telling the truth. If he doesn't believe in the bible, being used, he can claim that he lied because he did not promise his God.
2007-05-24 13:20:05 · answer #7 · answered by Shintz62 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have been an election official. You have to Swear an oath, or affirm that you are telling the truth in order to vote. This has been going on for a long time. No one is discriminated against by having to affirm that they are telling the truth. And as far as swearing on a Koran, I believe it is forbidden.
I have never seen it, nor heard of it being done?
2007-05-24 13:16:34 · answer #8 · answered by great gig in the sky 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If the person involved believes in a specific diety, then yes, they should be allowed to "swear the oath" on that diety for it to have any meaning at all. On the other hand, if someone does not believe in any diety, then what would be the point of swearing on anything other than their own word?
2007-05-24 13:16:05 · answer #9 · answered by Poohcat1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agree. We were all once god fearing citizens, and no one dared to lie if they had sworn on tyhe bible.
Now, its outdated, and to many, like myself , a story book at best. Courts would be better asking people to swear on oath and their Mothers/Childrens lives
2007-05-24 13:17:06 · answer #10 · answered by deadmeatuk2 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋