Islamic Group Calls for Use of Koran to Take Oath

[Ben Kenobi]

I wouldn't feel bound to tell the truth because of that act. I'm bound to tell the truth because...I dunno, service to Society. The Greater Good. The threat of Perjury.

If Christians are required to make an oath, and atheists are not, then you are holding the Christians to a higher standard. If all that is required, is a simple declaration that your word ought to be enough, then there isn't much need for folks to swear by anything, now is there?

[Zkribbler]

In California, there's no holy book involved. You simply raise your right hand (if any) and swear to tell the truth, so help you God. -- Or, you can affirm.

But for those places which use a holy book, I'd say the Koran has to qualify.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DanS


Swearing an oath is a public ritual. You can't be a neutral observer in this; rather you are a participant. If somebody swears on the Koran, then I cannot fully participate in that ritual and hence it loses power.

What an incredibly odd point of view. It seems rather obvious to me that the whole point of swearing on a Bible is ensure that you tell the truth because you personally have sworn to your God that you won't be lying.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whatever commands the judiciary system of islamic countries does not prevent the US to adopt oaths which are not offending the religious beliefs of minorities.

When a muslim wishes to change the judicial system of the United States, I don't take much stock in it, since we see how their justice works back home. Up in Canada, Muslims are now insisting that they be granted specific rights to appear before a Muslim court rather than a secular one, yet to have the force of the secular courts behind the Muslim ones, in order to enforce the decisions.

So the folks defending the separation of the church and state, are not going to find much in common with the Muslim concepts of either the state or the courts.

It is not true that atheists and skeptics have to swear on a book, they are authorise to limit themselves to an affirmation (*serment sur l'honneur*)

Interesting. Are Christians also permitted to avoid making an oath?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Are Christians allowed to swear on bibles in Islamic countries? Last I checked, Christians aren't even allowed to practice openly.

An amazing red herring.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I don't think swearing on the bible violates the freedom of conscience of anyone

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi since everyone, regardless off their religious affiliation has to swear on one. Atheists, and skeptics included.

Nope.

The strange thing to me is that I would have thought that christians would not want non-christians to swear an oath on the Bible since it demeans the act and the religion.

[DanS]

Originally posted by JohnT
Ahhh. Now I get it.

Next time, don't be so damnably oblique!

I just thought you were doing a Dinodoc, where one sentence of busting somebody's balls makes clear that you know all of arguments involved, but are laying low to see if anybody actually makes some interesting points.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
At least I despise all religions but you are just being a bit of a bigot!

Hello, Mr. Pot! You see Mr. Kettle over there? You are both black.

[DanS]

That has to be the most apt crosspost in which I have ever participated.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spencer:

What I find it funny that the folks who value the separation of the church and state, are siding with the Muslims who want to infuse the act of swearing in an oath with much more religious significance than previous.

The strange thing to me is that I would have thought that christians would not want non-christians to swear an oath on the Bible since it demeans the act and the religion.

Some Christians, myself included, believe that you shouldn't be swearing oaths on the bible at all. So the act, in itself, has very little religious significance.

[BeBMan]

Alternatively to books they should allow to swear on Poly threads

[Starchild]

Originally posted by DanS


I think this view has some merit, but let's face facts. Swearing on a koran might mean something different than swearing on a Bible or swearing on a portrait of Vishnu or whatever. Since I am not a full participant in the ritual, I cannot know the full import of their oath.

Facts? I see no objective, independent and reproducible data here.

I'm really just trying to get into your head and figure out the reasoning because, from where I stand on the spiritual rainbow, it's a bit like watching someone argue that violet is not purple.

To be fair, I've been to Catholic masses and, while I don't fully understand what's happening, I can see that some people are getting a lot out of it. Likewise, a person watching me read some Bertrand Russell wouldn't know what's going through my head but they should see that I'm getting something from the experience.

Ultimately, I'll never know what goes through your head when you swear on a Bible or what goes through a Muslim's head when he swears on a Koran. Hell, I can't even know what would go through a fellow atheist's head when he affirms his intentions to tell the truth.

You're never a full participant in any ritual because, though you may have similar experiences, you'll never exactly know what the other person is feeling. Most of the time, you just have to work under the benefit of the doubt that they're experiences are roughly anagolous to yours, which is what I do when I see religious people swear on their holy books.

And Ben, I'm more than happy for atheists to swear to tell the truth. Just not to any god because I wouldn't see that as meaningful to them. By far the best system is the Californian one, where the holy books are taken out and a person swears or affirms depending on what they see as appropriate.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
That has to be the most apt crosspost in which I have ever participated.

All the interesting points have been made. Don't really see why it's an issue myself. If a Muslim wants to swear on the Koran rather than the Bible in a State where the Bible is used for oaths, he should be allowed to do so. Ignorant protests that it is a "piece of doggerel" or not "holy scripture" are irrelevent to the point. Besides PH deserved it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Spencer:

What I find it funny that the folks who value the separation of the church and state, are siding with the Muslims who want to infuse the act of swearing in an oath with much more religious significance than previous.

Well the point is that swearing an oath should be viewed as a serious act by the oath taker. If one is religious then swearing by those beliefs would have to be construed as the most serious of oaths. While the best alternative from a "seperation of church and state perspective" is to use a secular oath, some individuals may indeed feel more bound by a religious oath.

Some Christians, myself included, believe that you shouldn't be swearing oaths on the bible at all. So the act, in itself, has very little religious significance.

Yes, an interesting viewpoint. One that makes sense to me.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
When a muslim wishes to change the judicial system of the United States, I don't take much stock in it, since we see how their justice works back home.

Do you wish to qualify this statement so as to not come across as a bigot?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS


If you are a citizen of the United States, then you cannot be a disinterested observer in any case happening in North Carolina. You're fully invested in our judicial system.

as a citizen of the ancient and soveriegn Commonwealth of Virginia, I must contest that remark.