"There is only one book that has been tested and tried. It has been scrutinized, desecrated, burned, spit on and slandered."

Harry Potter?

And this letter undoubtedly comes from one of a Christian faith. Again, the argument of what happens to someone not of Christian faith. There is no regard whatsoever in fear of "swearing" to tell or not tell the truth.

This letter only brings us back to the original stalemate. Nothing is resolved. What to do!

G.L. Herbin is entitled to his belief that the Bible is the Creator's special book. But there are a lot of people who don't. The Constitution recognizes them as free and equal before the law. As far the court system is concerned the issue is not whose holy book is true, but whether to accomadate or exclude different religious beliefs?

"Many people have tried to prove it wrong. But history always proves it right. Science has tried to prove it wrong, but the complexity of our universe proves it right."

So, does this mean that it is okay for me to take my own copy of Darwin's On the Origin of the Species to court next time I am called as a witness?

Bill, this very letter is one reason why church-state separation is a matter near and dear to many hearts. You are correct that the issue should be one of accomodation for all. But the folks like Herbin, who see it as a matter of endorsement by the government of their religion only, make it into an establishment issue.

How long have Christians gone to court, seen the Bible used to establish the "truth" of a witness, and said to themselves "the government acknowledges the Bible as specially connected with all truth"? I expect from day 1, up to today. It it weren't for this common belief that this practice is part of a religious establishment, I wouldn't have a problem with it, and no one would have a problem with other "holy" books being made available for followers of other religions.

But the connection is ingrained in many people, and they have problems with the proposed change. So the battle will go one, I expect.

It is when I read letters like this, that I realize the country is in dire circumstances. Did these people never take a civics class? Is logic lost on them completely?

Some people are not Christian. Therefore, swearing by the Christian Bible means absolutely nothing to them.

Man, people are stupid.

Since most of you are so much wiser than I on this topic, how about explaining something?

The Koran tells it's believers that they are to do anything possible to defeat the people they see as infidels. That includes sacrificing themselves and killing the infidels, their wives and their children. The goal is to make Islam the only religion of the world and no matter what it takes to do that they are obligated to make it happen. So states the Koran.

Why wouldn't a believer of the Koran, place his or her hand on it and swear a false oath if it was, in that person's mind, following the instructions of their Prophet?

OOOO...I learned another little tidd bit about the Koran while at lunch today.

Apparently there is a passage in it that says it is OK for a Muslim to lie to an Infidel.

All of you that are going to explain this for my enlightenment, please add that to your list of explanations.

Please clarify how a person who takes an oath on a book that says it is OK to tell lies can be then accepted as telling the truth after taking the oath?

As I said in the above post, I am rather slow witted in these issues. I hope all of you that jumped in with the support of the peaceful religion of Islam will clear my cloudy mind.

It is quite amazing how many Christian fanatics live in good old GSO. Imagine if they had the free reign to run the country (they might in a few years) - we will become the same thing as Taliban was in Afghanistan - a backward, narrowy-minded nation of religious bigots.

I'm a Bible-believing Christian, but I've no strong feelings about the Bible being used or not being used in a court of law. I don't feel at all threatened because other people don't believe as I do. The truth of the Bible isn't in peril, surely, just because people don't want to 'swear on the Bible?' In any case, the practice of 'swearing on the Bible' seems at odds with what the Bible itself dictates. James 5:12 says: Above all, my brothers, do not swear - not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your 'Yes' be yes, and your 'No,' no, or you will be condemned.

Hey Ver, You might want to consider that Christians are the majority in this fair country. Also figure in that it was founded by the same. Those would be the same Christians that made the laws that keep things moving along.

The consequence of that is they do have free reign to run the country. That's the way it works you know.

You benefit from that in your free choice of your religion or, if you wish, lack of religion.

Where as the Christian's see our law as important and worth preserving, the Muslim's quite clearly stated goal, read the Koran sometime, is to make Islam the only religion, worldwide. You would be a lot better off backing the Christians in this fight. Should they loose you would be eliminated in jig time.

I'm not aware of any passage in the Koran that OKs lying in court as long as you're lying to Christians. And I took a class that encompassed a great deal of the book's teachings.

It's entirely possible that I'm wrong - but such a passage would seem sort of antithetic to what I know about the faith. I'd love to know who enlightened you on this over the course of your lunchbreak, Mac, and where they think they got the information.

Here's a kooky idea: read the book for yourself and decide what such passages mean in context. After all, it would be perfectly (strictly) accurate for me to assert that the Christian Bible endoreses slavery, tells you you can sell your own children, in several places endoreses the murder of women, children and cattle for the glory of God and makes many things the average American Christian does as a matter of course in his daily life (cutting his hair, wearing clothes of mixed-cloth, performing various "unclean acts") sins punishable by death.

But that's not the whole story, is it?

Let us try this. I know I am stupid but what the heck:

Dissimulation = Taqiyya
Islam's attitude towards lying and honoring agreements with non-Muslims.

This conclusion is taken from "The 4th Conference of Islamic Research" at Al Azar University in Cairo, 1970.

Taqiyya

The expression taqiyya means to dissimulate and is used when serving the propagation of Islam or benefiting a Muslim compared to 'infidels'. Lying to 'infidels' is officially acknowledged and is religiously motivated.

Lying is okay

In essence taqiyya means that a Muslim is allowed to hide his or her intentions in a difficult situation. For instance in regard to Koran interpretations, the more mellow verses are emphasized towards people with no thorough knowledge of the matter, and threatening, harsh verses are hidden.

Muhammed did it

Taqiyya was practiced by the Prophet, Mohammed, himself; in negotiations where he fooled his opponents. For that very reason Muslims often enter into agreements intending to break them when they have assumed control of the situation.

Denial

Active Muslims in the West deny the use of taqiyya. This emphatic denial of using taqiyya towards us and the authorities is part of the method used in taqiyya. Often it leads to confusion on behalf of us and negotiating authorities e.g. the Ministry of the Interior.

Common claim

A common example of taqiyya is the claim that Islam does not do missionary work in the West. At the same time Arab states spend four to five billions of dollars for missionary work in Europe per year. In Germany thousands of mosques have been built over the last 15 years.

Fraud is legitimate

Fraud and lies are religiously permitted means in Islam. A negotiated settlement or an agreement with a Muslim is never final.

Joe to save you the trouble of looking things up yourself, here you go. My old Irish granny told me never to ask for something you don't want.

Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”

Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.”

Ishaq:519 “Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘...I must tell lies.’ The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.’”

Qur’an 8:58 “If you apprehend treachery from a people with whom you have a treaty, retaliate by breaking off relations with them.”

Qur’an 8:30 “Allah is the best schemer.”

Ishaq:323 “I am the best of plotters. I deceived them with My guile so that I delivered you from them.”

Ishaq:365/Tabari VII:94 “Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.’ ‘Say what you like,’ Muhammad replied. ‘You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.’”

Qur’an 13:27 “Say, ‘God leads whosoever He wills astray.’

Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’

I await your explanation of how one can assume that a Muslim taking an oath on the Koran can be accepted as telling the truth. That is the issue here, isn't it?

And Joe, least you say, "Out of context." How about considering these also?

[2.224] And make not Allah because of your swearing (by Him) an obstacle to your doing good and guarding (against evil) and making peace between men, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

[2.225] Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts have earned, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing.

[5.89] Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths; so its expiation is the feeding of ten poor men out of the middling (food) you feed your families with, or their clothing, or the freeing of a neck; but whosoever cannot find (means) then fasting for three days; this is the expiation of your oaths when you swear; and guard your oaths. Thus does Allah make clear to you His communications, that you may be Fateful.

Joe, I quote your statement:

"And I took a class that encompassed a great deal of the book's teachings."

I refer you back to "The 4th Conference of Islamic Research" at Al Azar University in Cairo, 1970

Taqiyya

The expression taqiyya means to dissimulate and is used when serving the propagation of Islam or benefiting a Muslim compared to 'infidels'. Lying to 'infidels' is officially acknowledged and is religiously motivated.

Lying is okay

In essence taqiyya means that a Muslim is allowed to hide his or her intentions in a difficult situation. For instance in regard to Koran interpretations, the more mellow verses are emphasized toward people with no thorough knowledge of the matter, and threatening, harsh verses are hidden.

Kind of interesting, don't you think? Perhaps YOU need to read the Koran instead of accepting others guidance through it.

Any time you want some more information, perhaps the parts that direct all Muslims to take any measures to defeat the infidel, that be you and I in case you can't figure that part out, let me know. The neat parts about cutting our heads off and killing our children are quite poignant. They would make great bed time reading stories for the kids.

Hey Mac, comments like "you are better off with Christians than Muslims" hold on sway with me. Just because one group is less insane than the other (I am not implying that Christians or Muslims are insane) does not make me like one group more than the other. Furthermore, this country was founded by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others. Also, "Christians" included Catholics, Baptists, Eposcopalians, Protestants, Mormons, etc. Don't forget that the views of one narrow minded group of bigots don't reflect the views of many other Christians, just like the views of narrow-minded fanatical Muslims don't reflect the views of all Muslims. The country was founded and made strong by diversity, without it - you would still be sitting in the cotton plantation, while the rest of the world would've moved on.

hey verlock,

One entry found for bigot.
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

sounds you qualify along with the rest of us....so what is your point ?

Howdy Ver,

You say:

"Furthermore, this country was founded by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others."

And to spoil the flow you had going you toss Mormons in there some place. They didn't exist when the country was founded.

I'll give you Christians and Jews, but please tell me the names of the Muslims and Hindus that------say signed the Declaration of Independence or contributed to the Constitution, or authored one of the Federalist Papers. Perhaps lead military units during the Revolution, provided funding or any other part of the founding of our country.

As I have said I am one of the stupid ones, so I don't have any recollection of this kind of thing in my schooling, what little there was. You must have been reading a different American History book than I had, once I learned how to read.

Gosh, I can see a problem with your comparing bad Muslims and good Muslims too. That brings us back to the Koran. And there in lies the rub. If they profess a belief in the Koran, hence the founder of the sect, all of which the must do to be a Muslim, their stated goal is to make Islam the only religion.

Good bad or indifferent their stated aim in the world is to kill you or convert you. That is the only options this religion of peace offers its followers. Which one are you going to do, if those wascally Christians loose?

"I'll give you Christians and Jews, but please tell me the names of the Muslims and Hindus that------say signed the Declaration of Independence or contributed to the Constitution, or authored one of the Federalist Papers. Perhaps lead military units during the Revolution, provided funding or any other part of the founding of our country."

So what are you saying, that religious freedom only applies to people whose religion was in America in 1776?

"Gosh, I can see a problem with your comparing bad Muslims and good Muslims too. That brings us back to the Koran. And there in lies the rub. If they profess a belief in the Koran, hence the founder of the sect, all of which the must do to be a Muslim, their stated goal is to make Islam the only religion."

Assuming that is the one true interpretation of the Koran? Maybe you should try reading Tom Paine, Robert Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell because your argument about the Koran is identical to their arguments about the Bible. They could cite chapter and verse from the Bible to prove that slavery, the inquisition, progroms, book burnings, wife beating, and the Salem witch trials were the correct interpretation of the Bible.

You interpret the term founding too narrowly - America was not founded in the span of 50 or so years of revolutionary movement, it was build continually as it is being "founded" continuously by the people who live and work here. Mormons helped to settle the West, and the Chinese (Buddhist by the way) helped to lay down the railroads and settle the West Coast. Muslims are recent arrivals, so yes - maybe they did not contribute as much YET - the operative word being yet here. As an icing - the slaves that were brought to this country and who certainly helped to found it (without signing fancy documents)were animist and TADA - Muslim - especially the ones from Northern and Eastern Africa. They were forced to abandon their faith by religious bigots (much like the ones on this blog). Why do you think the black power movement and Malcome X embrace Islam???

The pattern is clear however - it takes more than one type of Christian (whatever denomination you may be) to found a country, and it took all kinds of people from all kinds of faith to make this country great. So all this bull about people who did not sign declaration of independence not being the real Americans or the real "founders" is baloney. And you should study history beyond the confines of pathetic history education taught in America's public schools.

Well Ver, You interpret the founding of our country any way you wish, one of the neat things we have going on here, you know.

But me, I don't need to interpret founding. Founding means just that, FOUNDING. If it ain't clear to you look it up.

So I go to the words of the Founders for my guidance. None of them have names like Mohamed or Gunga Din or Bok Choy.

From a quaint document called, "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America". (By the way it is called "The Founding Document, sometimes.)

" to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them,"

"they are endowed by their Creator"

"appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world"

"with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence"

Since these guys were Christians I think it clear who they were talking about, but we can dispute that if you wish also.

I just wish I had your education so I could see the other stuff that you seem to think is in there someplace. How about finding it and pointing it out to me. I can't seem to find Mohamed, Hare Krishna, Buddha or Joseph Smith in there anyplace.

The point way back up there was the "founding" of our country. I don't see anyplace, in my posts, that I talked about the growth after the founding, but again, please point it out.

This thing started out as a discussion about using the Koran in a court of law to take oaths on. I think I have made a fairly good case that a person that swears an oath on the Koran cannot be trusted to be telling the truth, since the very book tells it's followers that they may lie if it suits them. Hence a person swearing an oath on the Koran is not very useful in a court that is trying fact.

The FOUNDERS of our country were predominantly Christians, like it or not. From that and the fact that they started from a basis of English law, which also was predominately Christian based, our laws and the way the laws are applied are based on Christian teachings. It is a simple fact. No amount of railroad spikes driven by Chinese, Hummus shops run by Pakistanis, lynchings being re-enacted by blacks is going to change that fact.

Before you send me of to study history why don't you read what I posted and quit making up stuff and sticking it into the conversation. For a person who obviously has a much finer education than I do you don't process information very well.

Bill, You say: "Assuming that is the one true interpretation of the koran."

Try these out for size:

verse 5:17 - "Unbelievers are those who declare: 'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.

Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."

Verse 47:3 - "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."

Verse 48:29 - "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Verse 66:9 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate."

Verse 48:16 - "Say to the desert Arabs who stayed behind: 'You shall be called upon to fight a mighty nation, unless they embrace Islam. If you prove obedient, Allah will reward you well.

If you kind of follow along you can get a sense of what the theme is.

Mac - you are certaintly entitled to consider "the founding documents" to constitute the founding of America, and it is true that they were signed by the dominant class of its time - white, rich, protestant males. However, you are missing a larger point - America is a great country not because of a few documents but because of the people that made it into a great industrial, financial and intellectual center of the Western World. Now, you are entitled to hold on to your narrow minded and, in my opinion, bigoted view that its is only white Christian males that can claim ownership over the founding of America, but this view is simply incorrect, except, perhaps, in a very narrow sense that no no-Christian signed a declaration of independence. If you start looking at the world from a more complex perspective than reading a few ancient documents, its amazing what kinds of things you may find.

A quick reply to common-law being based on "Christian principles" - this view is also incorrect. The principles of common law originated in ancient Germany (that's pre-Christian Germany) and made their way into England through a process of slow cultural assimilation. Ironically, while England embraced the Germanic common law, the rest of Europe turned to the Roman law which is the predessesor of the civil law system now in use in most of Europe today. The larger point here, is that common law, in fact, has nothing to do with Christian theology. In fact, Roman law - civil law is much more closley affiliated with Christian theology because Roman Empire embraced Christianity as its official religion at about the same time as the basic tenants of Roman Law became formalized and canonized. Just FYI.

The whole discussion of what book to use to elicit the truthful confession, however, is asburd in principle simply because the holy text was used to add additional authority (one may say devine authority) to the tribunal to which the witness was expected to answer. The idea being that swearing on a sacred text would make a witness hesitant to descrate it with a lie. While silly, this idea is predicated on the notion that the witness considers the book important enough not to desecrate it with a lie. As such, it is not what the book says, it is what the book is that really frames the discussion.

Oh! I get it now, I am just so dense sometimes.

The pre-Christian German laws made it all the way through something in excess of 2000 years being administered by post-Christian countries without any effect on them by all those evil Christians (including Christian Germany BTW). But suddenly in 1776 all those Christians that founded the United States fixed it all up to suit them. Just don't know why I haven't figured that out before.

But back to the part where you were going to show me where I was not talking about the FOUNDING of our country when I said that.

As far as what book is used for taking an oath. I take it that you feel all warm and fuzzy with accepting a Muslim putting his or her hand on the Koran, a book that tells the believer to lie his ass of if it suits him, and swear to tell the truth.

I find it quite sad that you gave up on the discussion and now resort to calling me names, but that is to be expected from folks such as yourself.

But since you now agree that Christians founded our country, boy it took a long time for you to admit that, perhaps we can get back to how stupid it would be to accept a Muslim swearing to anything Koran or a Betty Crocker Cook Book? I take it you don't get it, their first obligation is to do away with you and I. After that then they can look after themselves.

Mac - you are putting your words into my mouth. I did not say I agreed with you that Christians founded America, I agree with you only insofar as to say that Christians signed a few key documents that estbalished American independence and future system of government. Princeton online dictionary defines founding as the act of starting something new for the first time, introducing something new. I consider founding of America to encompass more than signing a piece of paper, so that's that.

The talk about Christianity influencing common law is, with all due respect, balony. The church had its own law and it was kept completly separate from the secular laws of the land. Our common law is not based on Constitution, by the way - Constituon is in fact interpreted in light of the common law, which, incidentelly, and as I mentioned before is not really founded on Christian principles. Now, I am not saying that Christian philosophy of some sort did not influence some aspects of the law, but I am saying that it is not the primary basis of our legal system in any sense of the way. In fact the code of Hamurabi (yeah, look that up) would probably have as much if not influence on the formation of our legal system than Christian dogma.

Now, I am not prone to bouts of paranoia or egalomania (look that one up to) like you are, evidently, by suggesting that Mustlim's first obligation is to do away with me. I am not defending Islam or Mustlims, anymore than I am defending Christians, I am just pointing out that the principle rationale for using a sacred text is the fear of desecrating it with a lie, not because of something in its content that says it is not ok to lie in principle. I think having to swear on a sacred text is a silly idea altogether, but I think Muslims are as entitled to that idea as Christians.

Ver, try this little quote from the Koran"

Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you."

I know I qualify by the Muslim definition of an infidel, and I bet you do too. You can read back up the thread for the instructions Muslims are given about how to deal with us in that war.

What you should think about is that the Christian faiths have disavowed the blood and guts part of the Bible. The Muslims won't.

The reason the Muslims won't is because the payback for that is to be killed. A way smart fellow like yourself, I am sure, has heard of Salman Rushdie. He still has a death sentence hanging over his head.