News-Record.com

I find this story of interest because it opens a can of worms regarding state endorsement of religion. Up to now, many Christians couldn't have cared less if anyone was offended about being asked to swear regarding their truthfullness on a book they didn't believe, calling on help from a god they believe is false. As a viable alternative, the government allows a simple affirmation without any religious connotations.

Well, that sort of thing is just peachy for folks like me. But now we have the question of Muslims wanting to swear to Allah. Cool... we'll get the courts to stock up on Arabic printings of the Qur'an. What if a Jew is asked to testify in a case and asks to swear by the Torah in Hebrew, calling on YHWH? Oops, I guess we need to get another book! Next comes a Hindu juror who would only feel comfortable swearing to Vishnu on a copy of the Gita.

Heck, we could get copies of the Upanishads, the Tibetan Book of the Dead... exactly how many "holy books" are out there? Makes one wonder what the Wiccans and Scientologists make of it all.

Yep. Big ol' can of worms, that's what we have here. Might be fun to watch.

I don't want to swear on the Bible and think that whole practice should be dropped altogether. Nobody should be swearing on anything, not the Bible, Quaran, Torah, moon rocks, ring pops -- NOTHING!

Ooooh! Could I swear on moon rocks?! That'd be COOL!! {;-)

But seriously, I agree. Just make sure everyone who gets on a witness stand affirms publicly that they're planning to tell the truth. What could be wrong with that?

Nancy, you wrote, "I think the Bible was initially chosen because it was considered a holy book for one group." See, it's the "the Bible" part of your sentence that got the good judge publicity he didn't want. "The" has to leave the conversation regarding holy scripture and be replaced by "Christian Bible" or "Catholic Bible" or "Hebrew Scriptures" or "Quraan," or other specific terms because the country, like Greensboro, is getting only more diverse.

This cannot and must not be treated as "anti-Christian." Including more, respecting more, understanding more is anti-NOTHING and anyone who tries to move the conversation that way is acting against what the Founding Folks had in mind; against why this country was established in the first place.

All change, even change for the better, can be painful.

I feel that the way the laws were written and the way the State Constitution are written, the intent is the Bible used by those of the Christian faith. When these documents were written, the diversity of faith traditions was EXTREMELY small. Therefore, sadly, no one had the foresight to see what could happen in years to come.

This matter also brings to mind something that happened about a year ago in Davidson County. There, a Judge, stopped having people swear on the Bible entirely, except at their request. He did this because of the diversity of the faith traditions of the people that he saw coming through his court. Sadly, a higher Court ruled that his practice violated the State Constitution and therefore, was invalid. So, he had to return to using the Bible of those of the Christian faith.

I wonder how these two situations will fit together and unfold further.

Pesonally, as I read and understand the Constitution of the State of NC, swearing on the Bible of the Christian faith is the only acceptable method, aside from affirming to tell the truth. Which is the only thing that I would do due to my Christian faith convictions.

I have to wonder about the usefulness of the religion's morals when a Christian distrusts another Christian so much that he makes him swear on a Bible to ensure he tells the truth. Do they really need to remind one another that hellfire is just around the corner for liars?

You'd think either self-respect or the prospect of a prison term for perjury would get most people to tell the truth without having to throw eternal damnation into the mix. But maybe that's just me.

Besides, didn't Jesus frown on swearing on anything? Why, yes, he did.

There is absolutely no reason why the Koran should be used in our courts........An editorial comment in our paper-written in under the Young Voices column-makes the argument that we should allow the Koran because it is the religion of millions of people. Using that analogy we can say that since millions of people are involved in car accidents that now everyone should have an accident as well.
I understand this may be a bit alarmist but there are many Muslims who would like nothing better than to create a theocracy based on their misguided views of God.

Yeah, and they are far outnumbered by Christians who want to do the same thing. Using your logic, I think we can make a case for keeping all holy books -- including the Bible -- out of America's courts.

The chance of a Christian theocracy in the USA is slim to none...Heck we cant even have Christmas trees in our schools without worrying that we are offending someone....The Bible has religious and cultural meanings to most of us..Allow the Koran and more will be asked!

Toby, no matter what you say about Muslim activists, the exact same can be said of Christian activists.

I agree with you Eric. America is not the country of Christians, it's the country of Americans, which means that people of all faiths live here and pay taxes. I don't think we should cater to one religion over another and frankly, I don't hold much truck with the whole swearing on a Bible practice as you might note from my earlier posting. So, no, there should be no Quaran or Torah or Bible being sworn upon in court. I say remind me that if I lie I can do jail time for perjury cause most folks are not very concerned about the punishment they may or may not receive once they die from a God they may or may not believe in to start off with, you know?

No this might not be the country of Christians but for better (and many times worse) it was founded by those who were. But placing the Koran on the same level of the Bible in our society is tantemount to disregarding our own religious culture. This religious culture is takes us from the preaching of the Puritans to the Methodist preachers on horseback and the black preachers who spoke to both the slaves and to any whites who would listen and to the messages of Dr. Martin Luther King. Now we are asked to just dump this all; and not even mention religion? or allow the religious beliefs of what many people consider an intollerant and suppressive faith to make headway into our society? I hope that will not be the case.
Now should we just have no mention

What I said -- twice now -- is that we should not be swearing on any religious book or symbol in court. Some folks believe if you repent, God forgives and you can still go to heaven. So, they may swear on the Bible, lie on stand and then repent. Viola! All is right with the Lord! If we want to elicit the truth then we should focus on reminding those who testify what the real-life immediate consequences are, such as imprisonment, fines etc., as opposed to after-life consequences that the witness may or may not believe in.

Actually that should be Voila! Seven years of french and that was the best I could do. (smile)

Hi govwriter...Yes I've read it twice and understand what you mean. Back in the olden days swearing on the Bible carried considerable emotional and moral weight. Believe it or not I still find it inspiring to be asked to swear on the Bible (and I'm not that old). And, of course, I understand the legal ramifications for perjury much better than the after life ones. But by throwing the Bible out without any thought is just chipping away at a cultural heritage which to many people is very important. Heck, we cant even celebrate Christmas in our schools, lest we make other people "feel" bad! My point still remains; No, to the Koran in our courts!

Replace them all with MY holy book: the holiday edition of the Neiman-Marcus catalogue.
Hey, why not? That book exemplifies all that America was founded on: consumerism, greed, a sense of entitlement and materialism.

In my opinion, a person’s identity is as closely related to his or her faith tradition as it is to his or her race, gender, or sexual orientation. It is something intrinsic to the individual's self description. It is traditional in US courts that evidence of truth telling is given by taking an oath on a religious text. A person may decline to take such an oath, and simply affirm without an oath that he or she is telling the truth. However, this may cause some jurors to have doubts about the credibility of such a witness. Yet, to tell a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or practicioner of any other faith tradition that they may only take an oath by using a (Protestant) Christian Bible is, in effect, saying to them and to the court, you must “tell the truth like a Christian.” It is like telling a woman she must “tell the truth like a man” or telling a person of color that he or she must “tell the truth like a white person.” This is an archaic, divisive, and disrespecting tradition that, in my opinion, must be changed.

Tell the truth like a white man or tell the truth like a woman? a gay or a transsexual-heck I suppose truth doesnt really matter at all since everything is relative and were all so wonderful and unique.
The choice is very simple if you wish to use the Bible to swear on; then please do; if you dont; then dont!
....And since the latest news from London let me go ahead and say that I dont want the followers of Islam to begin to negate our cultural and historical heritage. Do not be fooled by people who preach tolerance but dont practice it themselves.

....Let's be honest, Islam does not want to live in a multicultural society...To a Muslim there is no God but Allah and those who dont believe are nothing but infidels or kaffirs. Go to an Islamic site on line and read the hatred expressed towards Jews and Christians. To Muslims the Bible is nothing but a corrupt book, not worthy to be considered holy. How many Muslim countries have those cute little multicultural fesivals or wax poetic about other cultures? None!