To Swear on the Koran or the Bible

This story is a few days old but it caught my attention because there are people who now want to swear on the Koran when taking their oath in court, as opposed to taking their oath by swearing on the Bible.

Is this persecution against the Christian faith in the courtroom or should America allow a person to swear an oath on the book of their religious choosing?  This is sure to be a debate in the days ahead.

Religion In Court: N.C. Judges Say No to Koran, Yes to Bible

Some North Carolina county judges are revealing the constitutional pitfalls of requiring religious oaths in courtrooms.

When a Guilford County Muslim woman went before Judge Tom Jarrell regarding a domestic family dispute, she requested to be sworn in on the Koran, but neither the judge nor the courthouse had one available. She was told either to swear herself in as a witness by placing her hand on the Bible and promise to tell the truth or raise her hand and give affirmation to be honest.

Syidah Mateen did not forget that experience and has mounted a campaign to allow citizens to be sworn in before court proceedings on other religious texts, specifically the Koran. At her suggestion, the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center offered Korans to the Guilford County courthouses in early July only to be rebuffed by the county's top judge.

Guilford Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, according to the News & Record , told the Islamic group "An oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law."

One of the county's judges, however, told the Islamic group that it could donate a Koran or two to the courthouse law libraries.

This already muddled picture was not helped by the Administrative Office of the Courts in Raleigh, which issued a preliminary opinion during the same week Albright declined the Korans. The AOC's opinion stated that North Carolina law does allow citizens to be sworn in using the Koran or other religious text rather than a Bible.

The ACLU of North Carolina joined the fray with a letter to the AOC arguing that state Supreme Court precedent recognizes the validity of faiths other than Christianity and that state officials "must allow all individuals of faith to be sworn in on the holy text that is in accordance with their faith."

The easier solution would be to dump religious oaths from court proceedings. Traditions do die, some with great difficulty and consternation. Citizens before their public courts should be required to tell the truth under penalty of law; they should not be required, pressured or even asked to take a religious oath before engaging in business before those courts.

Indeed, a judge presiding in two other North Carolina counties has realized as much last year.

Judge James M. Honeycutt ordered court officials to remove all references to God in the courtrooms and during oaths. Honeycutt's action caused uproar and stirred the state Supreme Court to get involved, ordering Honeycutt to reverse his policy.

-- Jeremy Leaming

Comments

[Danielle H.]

The problem with reqiring religious oaths before taking the stand is obvious. If you are Muslim, an oath on the Bible holds no value. The same applies to those who are Buddist, Hindu, or even aetheist. If you are anything but Muslim, an oath on the Koran has no value. The emphasis on honesty for the sake of honesty must prevail in the court system. Laws are already in place to deal with those who would lie on the witness stand. A simple oath to tell the truth should be all that is required.