"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-9F3352.22062312072005@news.giganews.com...

In article <1121182926.004712.273200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"D-word" <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote:

GREENSBORO, N.C. - Legislators may be asked to decide if the Quran and
other religious texts can be used for courtroom oaths, said a

spokesman

for the agency that manages state courts, as the ACLU pressed for a
response on the texts' use.

The legal foundation of the ACLU of North Carolina has called on the
state Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a policy allowing

the

Quran and other religious texts for oath-taking in North Carolina
courtrooms.

Both said an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath under state law,
which refers to someone laying his hands on the "Holy Scriptures." The
two judges interpret that to mean the Christian Bible.

If a court decided "Holy Scriptures" do not include the Quran, then

that

would violate the First Amendment's establishment clause by favoring

one

religion over another, he said.

I love the ACLU. This is poetic American justice, liberal style.
Shoving that religious hypocrisy down the throats of conservatives and
Christians on principal alone. *Beautiful*. Want to hang the 10
Commandments in the courtroom? No problem -- but now that you have
raised this issue we will of course need to look at the Constitution
consistently in that regard. Be careful what you wish for. They opened
the door to interpretion of the use of the bible in the courtroom as
violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment -- which it
clearly is. I don't see how, logically, any ruling to the contrary
will stand scrutiny. Watch the high court try to square dance around
this one in their opinions (because that is where this debate is
eventually headed). No one would have given it any thought until they
tried to bring MORE of their religious iconography into the courtroom.
Fucking brilliant. The high court might be mostly on the conservative
side of center but even they can't silence logic.


Comic books baby, I want to swear on comic books. Maybe I will send
the idea along to the ACLU....

I want to swear on a stack of Playboy magazines. :-)

I bet you do! <snicker>

I'll swear on a stack of "Heavy Metal" magazines. That or "Vampire Tales" :)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:06:23 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

In article <1121182926.004712.273200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"D-word" <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote:

GREENSBORO, N.C. - Legislators may be asked to decide if the Quran and
other religious texts can be used for courtroom oaths, said a spokesman
for the agency that manages state courts, as the ACLU pressed for a
response on the texts' use.

The legal foundation of the ACLU of North Carolina has called on the
state Administrative Office of the Courts to adopt a policy allowing the
Quran and other religious texts for oath-taking in North Carolina
courtrooms.

Both said an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath under state law,
which refers to someone laying his hands on the "Holy Scriptures." The
two judges interpret that to mean the Christian Bible.

If a court decided "Holy Scriptures" do not include the Quran, then that
would violate the First Amendment's establishment clause by favoring one
religion over another, he said.

I love the ACLU. This is poetic American justice, liberal style.
Shoving that religious hypocrisy down the throats of conservatives and
Christians on principal alone. *Beautiful*. Want to hang the 10
Commandments in the courtroom? No problem -- but now that you have
raised this issue we will of course need to look at the Constitution
consistently in that regard. Be careful what you wish for. They opened
the door to interpretion of the use of the bible in the courtroom as
violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment -- which it
clearly is. I don't see how, logically, any ruling to the contrary
will stand scrutiny. Watch the high court try to square dance around
this one in their opinions (because that is where this debate is
eventually headed). No one would have given it any thought until they
tried to bring MORE of their religious iconography into the courtroom.
Fucking brilliant. The high court might be mostly on the conservative
side of center but even they can't silence logic.

Comic books baby, I want to swear on comic books. Maybe I will send
the idea along to the ACLU....

I want to swear on a stack of Playboy magazines. :-)

No, you can't eat the centerfolds....

In article <Xns9691530A22F97grogsnomailcom@216.168.3.30>,
Grogs <grogs@nomail.com> wrote:

*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in news:nemo0037-
C1DFC0.05213812072005@news1.west.earthlink.net:

Yeah, it's getting a lot of play around here. Today in the newspaper,
one idiot wrote to the editor that Muslims couldn't have their holy book
in the courts until they all condemned the 9/11 attacks.

I think they're not really thinking on this, but when have they ever?

You've got to love the logic. Since you won't apologize for an act some
people with the same religion as you committed, we won't let you swear in
on the Qur'an. Instead of swearing on something you take seriously, you'll
have to use this Bible, which doesn't really mean anything to you, instead.

If they decide to allow the Qur'an to be used, it does raise some
interesting questions though. My understanding is that Muslims have to
perform a purification ritual before they touch the Qur'an. Normally, it's
something like washing the hands to the elbow, feet to the knee, and the
head, but at certain times (such as after sex) a full bath is required.
Would this mean that a Muslim witness could refuse to swear in because he
hadn't purified himself? Would they complain because the baliff hadn't
purified himself when he held up the Qur'an for them to swear on?

Interesting point. I haven't read any local Muslim leaders mentioning
this issue. I may have to raise that question on one of the local blogs.

In the meantime, I've written my state legislators, asking them to
consider changing the laws to remove all references to "holy scripture"
and just use secular affirmations. It's the logical way to go, so of
course it'll never fly here. But I thought I'd give it a whirl...

In article <Xns9691530A22F97grogsnomailcom@216.168.3.30>,
Grogs <grogs@nomail.com> wrote:

*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in news:nemo0037-
C1DFC0.05213812072005@news1.west.earthlink.net:

Yeah, it's getting a lot of play around here. Today in the newspaper,
one idiot wrote to the editor that Muslims couldn't have their holy book
in the courts until they all condemned the 9/11 attacks.

I think they're not really thinking on this, but when have they ever?

You've got to love the logic. Since you won't apologize for an act some
people with the same religion as you committed, we won't let you swear in
on the Qur'an. Instead of swearing on something you take seriously, you'll
have to use this Bible, which doesn't really mean anything to you, instead.

If they decide to allow the Qur'an to be used, it does raise some
interesting questions though. My understanding is that Muslims have to
perform a purification ritual before they touch the Qur'an. Normally, it's
something like washing the hands to the elbow, feet to the knee, and the
head, but at certain times (such as after sex) a full bath is required.
Would this mean that a Muslim witness could refuse to swear in because he
hadn't purified himself? Would they complain because the baliff hadn't
purified himself when he held up the Qur'an for them to swear on?

Interesting point. I haven't read any local Muslim leaders mentioning
this issue. I may have to raise that question on one of the local blogs.

In the meantime, I've written my state legislators, asking them to
consider changing the laws to remove all references to "holy scripture"
and just use secular affirmations. It's the logical way to go, so of
course it'll never fly here. But I thought I'd give it a whirl...

--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002