Remove Holy Scripture from courts
The following is a Counterpoint:
By Barbara Hands
It was with despair that I first read Eric Collins’ article (June 18, News & Record) concerning Judge Albright’s decision not to allow a witness to swear her oath of truth on the Quran.
Collins reported that "the language of the law -- which refers at one point to laying one’s hand on the ‘Holy Scriptures’ -- precludes someone from being sworn in using the Quran." Many maintain that a Holy Scripture would be a sacred book of any individual religion and that it is narrow-minded to consider it to be only the Bible.
I thought it strange that such a well-respected man as Judge Albright would make what seemed to be such an insensitive remark, so I did a little research. I found that the judge did make an unfortunate assumption in thinking that the general public understands the use of the term Holy Scripture. In the many sources I checked, the term Holy Scripture refers to the Bible in particular, and not, as I had previously thought, to the sacred text of any individual religion.
Judge Albright has done his job in upholding the letter of the law. Let us not misdirect our dissatisfaction. Though a change in the law could be cumbersome, if supporters of other religions are unhappy with the judge’s ruling, they should lobby for a change. Should we have copies of the sacred texts of all religions available: The Bible for Christians, except one containing the Apocrypha for Catholics; the Old Testament only for Jews, the Quran for Muslims, the Bhagavad-Gita for Hindus? Many different Protestant denominations read from different translations of the Bible. Should the courts also provide a King James Version, a Revised Standard Version, a New International Version, and a New English Version, among others? The list could go on if each religion and variation of each religion was to be represented.
Collins claims that the law goes back to 1777 when some form of Christianity was the most popular religion. It is understandable that the term "Holy Scripture" was written into the law.
Rather than recognize all religious possibilities, perhaps it is time for the courts to remove the symbol of any one particular religion and require witnesses to swear an oath on their own conscience or fear of the law, if they are found to be lying, rather than out of fear of hellfire and brimstone.
The writer is a philosophy instructor at UNCG.
Comments (12)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I wonder if an american being tried in...say,Iran, would they be allowed to swear on the bible?
Posted on July 4, 2005 7:30 AM
jon,
it seems we americans have homogenized the Christian faith and values so as to accomodate and make all inclusive all comers. other countries are not so accomodative. i am a believer but wonder what value there is on imposing a non believer to take an oath invoking God's name ? i would be cooperative and proud to stand before a group of people and say "so help me God", but some may cite james 5:12 as reason not to take an oath of any kind.
Posted on July 4, 2005 8:12 AM
The Bible is "too good" to be in any type of courtroom. Go spend an hour in the hallways before court lets in. There are no rich people there. Everyone looks like they just left a knifing at a Motley Crue concert. 95% get a slap on the wrist and have to pay a fine. Status is achieved by getting to say "Swisha"(whoo-hoo). The detached courtroom employees have that look of "it is you, and will never be me". To whip out the Bible in prejudicial conditions such as this is nothing short of blasphemy.
Posted on July 4, 2005 8:47 AM
jon, what does anything done in courts of another country have to do with what is done in America?
I think the ceremony for starting testimony or jury service in our courts should be secular. Just give an affirmation that you understand the consequences of doing anything illegal in giving testimony or judgement, and get on with the process.
How hard could that be for anyone, regardless of their religion?
Posted on July 4, 2005 9:24 AM
Anyone being sworn in court may raise their hand and affirm to tell the truth instead of using a Bible.
Why should we need any other options?
Posted on July 4, 2005 11:57 AM
Eric, I never said it had anything to do with the courts in other countries. Just wondering.
Posted on July 4, 2005 1:03 PM
Throw the court for a twist!
Next time swear on the Bible, then recite the Muslim prayer out loud. Everyone wins!
Posted on July 4, 2005 8:42 PM
Frank, ever wonder why we have the option to swear on a Christian Bible? What does that really buy us, in the course of our court proceedings?
Posted on July 4, 2005 8:56 PM
Might as well remove the "holy scriptures" from court. IMO, nothing but heathens (crooked judges, lawyers, sherrif deputys, etc.) work in those places anyway, and the majority of the folks having to go there to be tried could give a rats ass about the "holy scriptures", of course until they've been in jail a while find "God".
Whats the point?
Posted on July 4, 2005 10:30 PM
That's right, Lilly. Why Bother?
Posted on July 5, 2005 2:10 AM
Steve/Lilly/Others.
The use of the Bible as it is being used now in courts is blasphemy. I agree 100%.
Maybe if they'd bother opening the book every once in a while and actually reading it, it might serve a better purpose.
Posted on July 5, 2005 1:05 PM
HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
Use whatever you like, it doesn't matter!
You all lie!!!!!!
HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
Posted on July 5, 2005 2:15 PM