There has been a minor debate over using the Koran for oaths in North Carolina. Here is FOXNews account (tip to LGF):
Traditionally, witnesses taking the stand in court are sworn in by placing their hand on the Bible (search).
But when Muslims in Guilford County, N.C., tried to donate copies of the Koran (search) for courtroom use, judges turned them down.
Chief District Court Judge Joseph Turner (search) says taking an oath on the Koran is not allowed by North Carolina state law, which specifies that witnesses shall place their hands on the “holy scriptures,” which he interprets as the Christian Bible.
“We’ve been doing it that way for 200 years,” he said. “Until the legislature changes that law, I believe I have to do what I’ve been told to do in the statutes.”But the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the American Civil Liberties Union are challenging the Guilford County Courts.
“This was the first time that we had a judge … going on record and stating unilaterally what is a holy scripture and what is not — what we believe to be a violation of the establishment clause,” said Arsalan Iftikhar of CAIR.
I don’t know why this should be a problem, since this issue was settled law in England before the American Revolution. In 1744 in Omichund v Barker, the Chancery Court held that a Hindu could testify and be sworn (while touching a Brahmin) but not an atheist, since for the oath of a Hindu “still the substance is the same, which is that God in all of them is called upon as a witness to the truth of what we say.”
In US v. Ward, 989 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1992), Ninth Circuit Judge Fletcher wrote:
In Omichund v. Barker, 1 Atk. 22, 45 (1744), Lord Chief Judge Willes wrote, “It would be absurd for [a non-Christian witness] to swear according to the Christian oath, which he does not believe; and therefore, out of necessity, he must be allowed to swear according to his own notion of an oath.” See also Atcheson v. Everitt, 1 Cowp. 382, 389 (1776) (Mansfield, L.C.J.) (“[A]s the purpose of [the oath] is to bind his conscience, every man of every religion should be bound by that form which he himself thinks will bind his own conscience most”).
Certainly, one way or the other, a higher court is highly likely to allow a Muslim to swear on the Koran (as Erwin Chemerinsky is quoted as asserting).
It is interesting to consider that some sects (such as Quakers) do not allow swearing, and that many courts do not use a Bible but merely require that witnesses affirm the substance of the oath.
My daughter (the 18 year old Christian) points out to her atheist father that Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount (unlike Luke’s) forbids the swearing of oaths:
Matthew 6: 22 (New American Bible): “Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.’
But I say to you, do not swear at all;
23 not by heaven, for it is God’s throne;
nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
24 Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.
Comments are closed.