Islamic Group Calls for Use of Koran to Take Oath

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you're full of ****. Just thought I'd mention that again.

Ah, joy! Such love from my Canadian compatriot.

[Ben Kenobi]

The US isn't a Christian country, as it enforces seperation of church and state. The US has no official religion, so can't really be compared to a Muslim country where they have an official religion.

If there was a Christian country, they may persecute Christians. It just doesn't exist.

As opposed to the folks the Americans revolted from? Defender of the Faith and all?

Where did I ever refer to the US as a 'Christian' country?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why is it bigoted? Christians are persecuted in Muslim countries, while Muslims in Christian countries are treated no differently than anyone else.

Which is irrelevant to Muslims in the U.S., who aren't persecuting anyone. Bringing up what happens in other countries is, as SpencerH said, a spectacular red herring.

The issue is that NC requires someone to do an official oath swearing on a "holy book," but refuses to recognize the Koran as being such. By only allowing the Bible to be used, it is a de facto state endorsement of one view of religion.

So either they should allow people to use whatever book they want (which many places do), or they should just abolish the practice of swearing on a book entirely. But to maintain that non-Christians have to swear on a Bible is simply state-sponsored bigotry. That's the issue being discussed here.

[Ben Kenobi]

So either they should allow people to use whatever book they want (which many places do), or they should just abolish the practice of swearing on a book entirely. But to maintain that non-Christians have to swear on a Bible is simply state-sponsored bigotry. That's the issue being discussed here.

Then you should agree with me, in opposing the use of a Q'uran.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As opposed to the folks the Americans revolted from? Defender of the Faith and all?
If you're refering to the UK, we're also not a Christian country. The Prince of Wales is the Defender of the Faiths, not the Defender of the Faith.


Where did I ever refer to the US as a 'Christian' country?

Are Christians allowed to swear on bibles in Islamic countries? Last I checked, Christians aren't even allowed to practice openly. I don't think swearing on the bible violates the freedom of conscience of anyone, since everyone, regardless off their religious affiliation has to swear on one. Atheists, and skeptics included.

You were arguing that because Muslim countries wouldn't let Christians swear on bibles that the US shouldn't let Muslims do so in US courts. That only holds if the US is a Christian country.

Furthermore, you argued so harshly before about a Christian's freedom of conscience by not prescribing the morning after pill, yet you claim making everyone, including people who detest it, swear on the bible doesn't violate theirs?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then you should agree with me, in opposing the use of a Q'uran.

I think Boris's point was either you have to let people swear on their holy book, or have everyone not swearing, to be consistent. That cna include opposing or supporting the use of the Q'uran.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why is it bigoted?

Ummm... you said that you don't care about the opinions of American muslims because you don't like the opinions of some non-American muslims... and you ask me how you're being bigoted? Are you a moron?

I take it you wouldn't see anything amiss if I were to say "When a christian wishes to change the judicial system of the United States, I don't take much stock in it, since we see how the Inquisition turned out"?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I thought that was the case, but wanted to clarify.



Well, I don't recall that issue ever getting addressed. How does the contract work, and is the contract enforceable, if one of the parties convert?

Ok, lets we're both Orthodox jews Ben (good name for this) and, say, David. ben lends David 50 dollars US. They sign a contract saying that all disputes about the repayment will be referred to the orthodox Bet din of baltimore, and both will abide by its ruling. Now David has, I dont know, some problem paying back the money - a problem that is recognized in Jewish law as giving him the right to defer repayment, but NOT in the state/province law of where they live. Meanwhile, before this happens, Ben coverts to Catholicism. Ben insists on repayment, as per the date in the contract. David, under the contract, takes the case to the Bet din. The bet din rules in davids favor, and gives him a one year extension on the repayment. For the sake of argument lets assume (and i think it IS the case) that bens conversion is irrelevant to the issue of the debt, under jewish law. Ok, not Ben goes to 'state" court. The state court MUST enforce the contract, which stated that BOTH agreed to abide by arbitration of the bet din - the contract did NOT state as long as both are Orthodox Jews (wording which i very much doubt Orthodox jews would insert in a contract). So Ben is stuck. Cause the right of David to go to the Bet Din come from the wording of the contract, NOT from Bens personal religious beliefs subsequent to the signing of the contract. Indeed, if Ben was NEVER a Jew, but signed such a contract anyway, for whatever reason (the bet din is faster than the civil courts and cheaper than the AAA, say) it would still apply.

Think of it this way - if the reference was to the american arbitration association, could i get out of that clause by saying i no longer beleive in private arbitration?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by DanS
Yeh, well. I'm not muslim and it's just an ordinary book to me.

Is there some significance to the phrase "Holy Scripture" that I am not getting? All books are just books. Some books are also considered holy books. Any book that's a holy book can be called a Holy Scripture if you feel like beeing ornate and flowery.

Is this anything like the call-marriage-of-same-sex-couples-"I Can't Believe It's Not Marriage"-and-we'll-support-it madness? Oy.

Originally posted by DanS
It's also to reinforce to the public the seriousness of what is about to be testified. If somebody swears on the Koran, that means nothing to me as a christian.

Uh huh. So... swearing is not just a silly, meaningless ceremony to you?

I am honest because it is the right thing to be. I am honest because I want others to be honest to me. I am honest because that's the social contract to which I agree. I am honest because it keeps my life simple.

If I lie on the stand, I am committing the crime of lying to the court. Euphuistic rituals have nothing to do with it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then you should agree with me, in opposing the use of a Q'uran.

No, I think them swearing on the Koran is fine, as it is for Christians to swear on a Bible, or Jews to swear on the Torah, or me to swear on a copy of the U.S. Constitution, should we all so choose. Hence why I listed both options in my post...

What I don't agree with is your nonsense that it should be fine for non-Christians to have to swear on the Bible.

Furthermore, I find your red herring attempt utterly repugnant and an insult to American Muslims.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by DanS
I think they were being vague as to "holy scripture" in order to accomodate Jews.

So... you'd accept an oath made on the Torah?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by DanS
Nothing. Just that I don't share a belief in god as they view him. I'm not denigrating their belief, just making clear that I don't share their belief. We should have an oath on a belief that everybody shares.

"If I lie to you, may the force of gravity no longer follow the inverse square law", eh?

[Ben Kenobi]

You were arguing that because Muslim countries wouldn't let Christians swear on bibles that the US shouldn't let Muslims do so in US courts. That only holds if the US is a Christian country.

No, I argued that because the Muslims do not have secular courts whatsoever, as evidenced in their persecution of Christians, that their comment on the secular American courts has little merit.

Furthermore, you argued so harshly before about a Christian's freedom of conscience by not prescribing the morning after pill, yet you claim making everyone, including people who detest it, swear on the bible doesn't violate theirs?

To those who do not wish to prescribe the morning after pill, the prescription of such pill is the same as being an accessory to murder.

My question to the atheists, is whether they would ever be willing to swear an oath on the bible, ie, that their opposition to swearing such an oath is of such importance to them, that they would be willing to sacrifice other things in order to decline having to swear on the bible. Then we talk on whether it is a conscience issue.

Many of the atheists here have argued that an oath to nothing is meaningless, which means it is not a conscience issue at all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by DanS
Yeh, well. I'm not muslim and it's just an ordinary book to me.

I am honest because it is the right thing to be. I am honest because I want others to be honest to me. I am honest because that's the social contract to which I agree. I am honest because it keeps my life simple.

A good bourgeois you are.

and yes, Ive read Kant, and i see reasons to not lie that are neither religious nor rooted in the cultural values of a particular class. But not everyone does, and even those who do are weak of will. An oath is to strengthen the weak will. But I suppose with perfected man, intrinsically good, oathes are not necessary.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Are Christians allowed to swear on bibles in Islamic countries?

Aside from Turkey, Indonesia, and maybe Tunis, "Islamic" countries aren't very liberal or civil-rights-oriented. US is, or at least that's the ideal it claims to have been founded on.

I don't think swearing on the bible violates the freedom of conscience of anyone, since everyone, regardless off their religious affiliation has to swear on one. Atheists, and skeptics included.

No, we don't.