Islamic Group Calls for Use of Koran to Take Oath

[Ben Kenobi]

KH:

Hey, thanks for the suggestion. I never thought to use my fingers before.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

If you ask me the, which nobody did, but in my opinion this shouldnt even be an argument. Take the book out of the equation and you have no problem. This topic, like most things that happen every where, is folks still do it cause thats the way it has always been done.
If i recall correctly the last court room I was in the folks just raised their right hand and swore to tell the truth not placing hand on bible, or any other book. This practice is what needs to take place, as well as stressing that that lying is perjury and will result in jail time.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I wonder why anyone still bothers with arguing with BK tbh. Done it once or twice but he's so set in his dogmatic viewpoints that you're not going to budge him, add to that a fair dose of ignorance and basically what you get is a slightly more eloquent Fez, just fundy christian instead of fascist. Might as well argue with your curtains or something for all the good it'll do

I was not gonna say all that but now i am. Come on lets all get real for a bit, Being a newcomer to this site I think that quote goes for most of you men here. Wake up most of you guys here will never budge from your position, why is BK the only one singled out as the one who wont budge?? No offense guys but uh neither do most of yall in your own opinions.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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.

I'm betting your in depth knowledge of the legal systems of countries where the majority of the population professes Islam, is even shakier than your grasp of common law.

How amusing that you should imagine that the legal system in Morocco is the same as that in Iran, or Indonesia.



In England, from my experience, professing Muslims do not swear an oath on the Qu'ran- they affirm.

As do Quakers, of course.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




Catholics are Fundy? Say it ain't so!

As for me not changing my opinions on issues, my confirmation thread is proof that I do change.

Change is good. Slow change is even better.

Depends on the Catholic more than on the general religion itself. You seem to be completely by the book and whenever you make a decision it's based on religious dogma which is one of the definitions of a fundamentalist in my eyes.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lightblue


and whenever you make a decision it's based on religious dogma ...

Frankly from the grievous errors in his posts in this thread I would have said he makes his decisions based on a combination of wishful thinking and blissful ignorance.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Frankly from the grievous errors in his posts in this thread I would have said he makes his decisions based on a combination of wishful thinking and blissful ignorance.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't try to shoot Muslims, and I don't go out of my way to harrass them, or kill them, as what happens to Christians in most Muslim countries who dare to practice their religion openly.

Lies.

Even if you look at the worst of the worst (Iran and Saudi Arabia), you won't see people killed by the government for their non-Muslim faith. If you look at the better countries, you'll see that there are fairly peaceful relations between religions, and the possibility to worship whatever deity you wish to worship (though Islam often has special favours).

As for your BAM that there are no secular courts in the Muslim world: just look at Turkey's courts, and stop BAMing please

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Funny, I don't see any accusations of bigotry thrown at whoha, either by loinburger or by Boris. I wonder why that is.

Because woha's post was a one-liner troll, while your posts are elaborate essays full of ignorance and bigotry?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
IIRC, Prussia was the very first.

No, Prussia was officially Lutheran. While Roman Catholics were tolerated they were restricted in a variety of ways, especially with regards to holding government posts.

For a brief period in the 16th century France tolerated Protestan religions, but of course we all know how that ended.

England's degree of toleration of other Christian religions varied. It tended to be more tolerant of other Protestant sects than to the Roman Catholic Church, largely because the Pope had declared the Church and the royalty of England heretical and had called for the overthrow of both. This was the official position of the papacy until the late 19th century. The Lutherans at least had a treaty granting them the right to exist in those nations in which the rulers chose Lutheranism as the state religion. Under Queen Elizabeth other Christian religions including Roman Catholicism were in fact officially tolerated. There were some catches though. All Christians had to also be members of the state church and were expected to attend and to give tithes. Most of the non-Anglican Protestant churches got around this by having their services later on Sunday or on othe days of the week. Those wishing to practice Roman Catholicism had an additional problem since all priests were required to swear an oath to the monarch. Since the papacy refused to allow this Roman catholic priests were illegal. IIRC though the Hannover monarchs rescinded this requirement, so by the time of the American Revolution Roamn Catholics were able to practice their reigion in England. I'm not certain when the rrestrictions upon government service and entry to the bar were lifted.

[Lefty Scaevola]

The courts I have worked with have problem using any scripture or other symbol of divne truth, or none at all, what ever is appropriate to the witness. Must be something peculier to North carolina and a few other juridictions. All jurisdictions I know of have affirmation as an alternative to oath.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Strawman. I do not see the accusation of PC appeasement anywhere in the thread!



You are bringing religion into a secular court. If it is true, that the bible is irrelevant to Muslims, then it cannot be a conscience issue for them to swear upon it.

Read one or two posts on the first page -- there are a couple of references to "PC appeasement."


Second, where did I say that the Bible has nothing to do with religion? How is the statement that the Bible is irrelevant to Muslims akin to making a stupid claim that the Bible has nothing to do with religion?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Lies.

Even if you look at the worst of the worst (Iran and Saudi Arabia), you won't see people killed by the government for their non-Muslim faith. If you look at the better countries, you'll see that there are fairly peaceful relations between religions, and the possibility to worship whatever deity you wish to worship (though Islam often has special favours).

Huh!

Interestingly enough, the religious groups that seem to suffer the bulk of restrictions and difficulties in these countries are Islamic sects.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Interestingly enough, the religious groups that seem to suffer the bulk of restrictions and difficulties in these countries are Islamic sects.

Yes, but any positive bias (except for Turkey, which doesn't belong to that list) is toward the Muslim denomination that has the government's favour. Islamic state religion tends to help to that effect.

This doesn't negate the fact that even in the worst of the worst of these countries, the government won't kill you for worshipping a non-Muslim God.

[Guynemer]

I can not believe there is even a debate.