Islamic Group Calls for Use of Koran to Take Oath

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It costs them money to stock and to be able to supply rare drugs. I don't see all pharmacists being required to deliver all drugs to people, rather I would think that they would supply the drugs that do sell well, and make them money. They are not a public service, they are a business.

A regulated business. One that's regulated to sell the morning after pill. Pharmacists are required to deliver certain drugs to people, and that's laid down in law.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, the decision not to supply the morning after pill, is entirely a decision of the pharmacist. I don't see any compelling public need for the drug.

However the law does say there's a need, and regulates that it's *not* the decision of the pharmacist. And the law says that because a lot of people believe there's a need, and they vote for politicians that don't remove it as being a need. The decision of what drugs a pharmacists must supply is entirely the decision of the regulating authority. The pharmacist may add extras if they wish.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Drogue

What other religion does it represent, in the form it's used (with the NT)?

The bible is used as a religious book, hence the part of the oath that says "so help me God", and the bible in it's entirity represents only Christianity.

Well, Christianity and Catholicism. Although in the latter it's only a secondary source to the Pope.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It costs them money to stock and to be able to supply rare drugs. I don't see all pharmacists being required to deliver all drugs to people, rather I would think that they would supply the drugs that do sell well, and make them money. They are not a public service, they are a business.

Secondly, the decision not to supply the morning after pill, is entirely a decision of the pharmacist. I don't see any compelling public need for the drug.

And that is why rarely used drugs isn't in stock, but when needed, they get it. And yes, pharmacies are both a public service and a business - they deliver nessecary drugs and make an earning of it. And no, it's not the pharmacists decision to deliver a drug or not if a person needs it - "Sorry, we don't sell this drug that is essential to your survival because we don't earn enough on it - oh, don't bother to try another pharmacist in 300 miles range - they think the same".

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I still don't think that if the state requires everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, to swear on the bible that this is a violation of the establishment clause.

According to this, you certainly agree that it's just fine that a islamic state is opressive against christians - please make up your mind.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Well, Christianity and Catholicism. Although in the latter it's only a secondary source to the Pope.

Catholicism is Christianity?

[Kontiki]

Just taking a poke at Ben.

[Drogue]

Ah Then carry on

[BlackCat]

Sadly, it seems that BK has lost his fighting capacity - is he getting old and trying to hide it with his new ava ?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by JohnT


Like DanQ and MarkG? Won't they be surprised to find themselves "conservative" and "all the same to you."

Looks like you're having trouble quoting - did you mean to make that reply to that post? It looks kind of disjointed to me... though I do like how you copied my use of the word doggerel. GMTA.

Son, it was deliberate imitation, and was meant to be noticed.

I thought DanS, a Christian, was calling the Koran worthless. I responded that the Bible is just as worthless to me, as an agnostic/atheist.

Sorry you couldn't follow that one...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I have more respect for Muslims and their beliefs than they have for mine. So I suggest, that you be careful where you tread with your flames

Worst mixed metaphor of the day

Goddamnit Ben. The self-pwnage is thick in this thread. Do yourself a favour and quit while you're behind...

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh yes it is! It's a clear cut violation of the Establishment Clause. According to the Agostini test, the government here violates their requirement to not advance or inhibit religion (they advance Judeo-Christian religions and inhibit Muslims religion in the courtroom).

Sure it matters. First of all, in the question of whether the use of a bible in a courtroom advances Christian religion in any form is dubious. In fact, as already argued, Christians themselves can object to this use, so to say that it advances Christianity is doubtful. The same can be said of the Jewish folks. The bible does not represent them, especially when it also includes the New Testament.

To say that the Judaism and Christianity are one and the same is contrary to what each religion teaches. Ergo, it cannot be said that the bible advances this construct labelled as the 'Judeo Christian religion'.

Secondly, whether the establishment clause prohibits the inhibition of religion is not clear. There are certain circumstances where limitations and restrictions can be placed among the public expression of religion in order to protect the public order. One obvious case, would be regulations upon public religious festivals and parades. It may be considered an inhibition to require certain restrictions and regulations, yet it would not be considered a violation of the establishment clause.

Also, it is questionable whether this instance inhibits the promotion, or the practice of Islam in the United States. No one who is a Muslim would stop becoming one just because they were denied a Koran in court.

Now, the last question, is whether there is a rationale behind the restriction of the courts to the use of the bible only in the courtroom. As we have debated here, the use of the bible is not in any religious context, in the sense that one is taught material in the bible, or that to understand the ritual, one must first have knowledge of the bible. The idea is that everyone ought to be treated the same way, and in the united states, that means swearing them in on a bible. The regulation is in no way intended to restrict Islam, or any other religion, nor is it intended to promote or advance Christianity, and can in fact be said to be contrary to the teachings of Christ.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First of all, in the question of whether the use of a bible in a courtroom advances Christian religion in any form is dubious.

No, it isn't. It's quite clear cut. You are using the Christian Holy Book to swear oaths on! It can't get more clear cut than that.

To say that the Judaism and Christianity are one and the same is contrary to what each religion teaches. Ergo, it cannot be said that the bible advances this construct labelled as the 'Judeo Christian religion'.

They are both part of the similar religious tradition. You cannot neatly and quietly seperate out Judaism and Christianity and say the law must apply to one or the other. What a massive loophole for people to advance religious beliefs!

whether the establishment clause prohibits the inhibition of religion is not clear

Of course its clear. Read Agostini v. Felton. The inhibition of a religion while others are untouched will not pass muster.

There are certain circumstances where limitations and restrictions can be placed among the public expression of religion in order to protect the public order. One obvious case, would be regulations upon public religious festivals and parades. It may be considered an inhibition to require certain restrictions and regulations, yet it would not be considered a violation of the establishment clause.

That applies to ALL religions and does not discriminate on the basis of beliefs.

it is questionable whether this instance inhibits the promotion, or the practice of Islam in the United States.

Oh come on! Even YOU can't be this dense. What do you think will happen when Muslims are told that they can't use their own Holy Book to swear oaths on and have to use the Christian book? Perhaps that may, I dunno, indicate that their religion isn't as valued in the courtrooms of America. They may be inclined to hide their religion more.

As we have debated here, the use of the bible is not in any religious context, in the sense that one is taught material in the bible, or that to understand the ritual, one must first have knowledge of the bible. The idea is that everyone ought to be treated the same way, and in the united states, that means swearing them in on a bible. The regulation is in no way intended to restrict Islam, or any other religion, nor is it intended to promote or advance Christianity, and can in fact be said to be contrary to the teachings of Christ.

You have to be kidding. Why require swearing on the Bible? Why can't other books be used? Is it to assert that the US is a Christian country? It seems like it, doesn't it? And why prevent Muslims from swearing on their book? Could it be to assert that their Holy Book just isn't good enough?

Stop with the charade, Ben. A reasonable person would conclude that this violates the establishment of religion and all 9 Supreme Court justices would. Though if you want, you can try to pretend you are a lawyer familiar in US Constitutional law, even though you are woefully deficient.

[Boris Godunov]

Why even argue with Ben about what is or isn't constitutional? As his stupid remark to me about "One Nation, Under God" shows, he doesn't even know what the U.S. Constitution says. In fact, he has regularly gotten his ass whooped in questions of U.S. law and the Constitution. I wonder if that might be because his only lessons in U.S. Constitutional law have probably come from fundamentalist Christian sources.

[Boris Godunov]

If the use of the bible isn't a religious context, then why the hell would the law be saying one must use a "holy book," and then those upholding say that only a bible counts? How on earth is that anything BUT a religious context?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sure it matters. First of all, in the question of whether the use of a bible in a courtroom advances Christian religion in any form is dubious. In fact, as already argued, Christians themselves can object to this use, so to say that it advances Christianity is doubtful. The same can be said of the Jewish folks. The bible does not represent them, especially when it also includes the New Testament.

To say that the Judaism and Christianity are one and the same is contrary to what each religion teaches. Ergo, it cannot be said that the bible advances this construct labelled as the 'Judeo Christian religion'.

You miss the point totally. There are no debate about wether christianity are advanced or not - the question is wether people who prefers the quoran has the right to swear by this instead.

Secondly, whether the establishment clause prohibits the inhibition of religion is not clear. There are certain circumstances where limitations and restrictions can be placed among the public expression of religion in order to protect the public order. One obvious case, would be regulations upon public religious festivals and parades. It may be considered an inhibition to require certain restrictions and regulations, yet it would not be considered a violation of the establishment clause.

I guess that most judges will clear the court if someone are trying to make a religious parade or festival in the courtroom. This has nothing to do with the issue.

Also, it is questionable whether this instance inhibits the promotion, or the practice of Islam in the United States. No one who is a Muslim would stop becoming one just because they were denied a Koran in court.

Noone has spoken a word about promoting religion.

Now, the last question, is whether there is a rationale behind the restriction of the courts to the use of the bible only in the courtroom. As we have debated here, the use of the bible is not in any religious context, in the sense that one is taught material in the bible, or that to understand the ritual, one must first have knowledge of the bible. The idea is that everyone ought to be treated the same way, and in the united states, that means swearing them in on a bible. The regulation is in no way intended to restrict Islam, or any other religion, nor is it intended to promote or advance Christianity, and can in fact be said to be contrary to the teachings of Christ.

Ehhr, no. How are you to swear upon a book that you are not familiar with ? What if this book actually tells that it is fine to lie despite it's against your nature ? I'm not claiming that the bible allows that, but if you isn't familiar with it and it's understandings, you really don't know what you are swearing.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Why even argue with Ben about what is or isn't constitutional?

Well, there is a world outside the us and I certainly don't wan't such kind of law to get a toe inside here - it's bad enough that some tried to make it sane to implement a little islamic bloodmoney law here - fortunatly they got bashed from almost the total spectre of politicians.