North Carolina Debates Use of Koran

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dragoon68, May 8, 2007.

  1. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a test.

    'Freedom of Religion' has always been a Baptist distinctive.
    Be carefull what you say here: if you are a Baptist. :wavey:
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,127
    Likes Received:
    221
    I don't have a problem with a someone using Koran.

    But.....
    What could an atheist demand to use?
    What if a KJO refused to give the oath on a NASV ect
    Would a Jew be allowed to use only the Books of Moses?
    Could a Christian be allowed to use only the New Testament

    and the list goes on and on

    These are not facetious situations, they very well could happen.

    Again, I don't see a problem. Overall all I think demanding only the Bible is much ado about nothing.

    Thoughts?

    Salty
     
  4. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    Could I use a Koran and then claim that since I hold it to be false it does not hold me to any truth?
     
  5. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since our court system is not a church, and since our court system is not church operated, I don't see the big deal. When I went for jury duty back in December (got excused btw) the jury room looked like an old church sanctuary (literally). There were the pews lined up with four or five Holy Bibles laying on each. In the front of the room were the judge's bench and chair, a video player, and a desk with a computer on it. When it came time for us to be "sworn in", they went through two "statements". The first was with the Bible and used the phrase "I swear" and "so help me God", the second omitted the words "swear" and "so help me God" (I don't recall what was used instead). This is not big city USA either. Our little county courthouse is small, and the lady who was in charge of the jury candidates was "country" with a capital "C". I guess we could call her a good ol' gal? Anyway, my point is that even out here in the sticks we have to deal with various different belief systems (etc).

    I was impressed with our courtroom. It was larger than I thought it would be, very nice, and very high-tech. The judge in charge of the case was the “Senior Resident Superior Court Judge”. This was a big-wig judge, but he was as nice as he could be to us jury candidates. After all he excused me from jury duty due to my graduate school attendance. He has my vote next time around! :laugh:
     
  6. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    More islamitization of America. They are winning bit by bit.
     
  7. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    With all due respect, I think you are overreacting.

    I am not nearly as concerned with what book a person uses in court as I am seeing that they tell the truth. There has been many people take the oath to tell the truth on the Bible and then lie an the witness stand.
     
  8. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regrettably, I fear it is true and they're using our own law to facilitate it.
     
  9. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    It use to be that when a person swore upon the Holy Bible saying "... so help me God" it meant they asked God to cause them to spoke only and wholy the truth and implied an inherent fear of lying under such an oath. This gave the listeners a bit more confidence that they where hearing the truth although they still had to use judgement to discern it as some would lie regardless.

    Now, perhaps, we have come to the point that there is no such fear or reverence in our testimony? Perhaps we live in the "crossed-fingers" era where it is preferrable not to commit to telling the truth?

    If one can swear upon a meaningless book such as the Koran of a false god or prophet such as Mohammad and it be counted as good then they might as well just be excused altogether from the validation of their truthfulness.

    How can you swear to tell the truth upon a book of lies?
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,127
    Likes Received:
    221
    In the military, you may substitute the term "I affirm"

    Salty
     
  11. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's true that you may substitute "affirm" for "swear" but you still must proclaim "so help me God" at the end.

    "I, {NAME}, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

    This is specified in the United States Code.
     
    #11 Dragoon68, May 9, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2007
  12. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    If I were in court in a muslim country, I would appreciate the option of swearing on the Bible instead of the Koran.

    I hope to extend the same courtesy to Muslims in north america.


    I also thank the Quakers of the late 1600s in England who insisted on the concept of solemn affirmation in court cases as an option to oaths on the bible. They fought for this because of their belief that oaths were unbiblical based on their interpretation of Matthew 5:34-37.

     
  13. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    "Let your statement be 'Yes, yes,' or 'No, no,' anything more than these comes of evil," said Jesus?

    Alright, then, how is inserting "affirm" not evil if "swear" is? It's still "more than these," ain't it?
     
  14. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't believe there are many Quakers around to defend their position. So I will try to do so.

    Jesus is saying that our words should dependable without making oaths on things we consider sacred to make those words "more dependable".

    A solemn affirmation performs the same function of swearing on the bible by saying that we will be truthful, without making an oath on something we consider sacred, like the bible, heaven, earth, Jerusalem, one's head or Grandma Bessy's grave.
     
    #14 Gold Dragon, May 9, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2007
  15. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a very old argument!

    The reason Jesus said what He did was that people were cleverly trying to avoid the consequences of swearing by God by substituting something other than the name of God. They substituted the name of the earth or the heavens thinking this would make their lies less sinful. The same could be said of double talk, evasive answers, literal vs. factual responses, "define sex" type responses, etc. that are not truthful. Jesus cut off all those excuses and told them to just say "yes" for yes and "no" for no in their conversations pointing out that all these substitutes belonged to God just as they're own head.

    Jesus did not, by saying this, prohibit a Christian from taking a solemn oath before a court of law, or for an office of government, etc. He did not prevent a Christian from swearing or affirming to others that they would tell the truth and beg the help of God in so doing. That is the meaning of "So help me God." which is very different than saying "By God, I ..." or "By my bank account, I ...". Some people consider the word "swear" too close for comfort to those in the Holy Bible and so they prefer to substitute "affirm". The overall meaning of the oath remains unchanged. They are not swearing in the sense of the prohibition explained by Jesus.
     
    #15 Dragoon68, May 9, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2007
  16. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    The only question is whether saying the word "swear" violates what Jesus taught while saying the word "affirm" does not. And the answer is it's both or neither that violates it.
     
  17. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Swearing or an oath is often performed on something, usually of sacred significance.

    An affirmation is a statement about the dependability of one's words with no attachment to any other sacred entities.

    I personally believe it is possible to swear or make an oath without the use of a sacred object and be in agreement with what Jesus taught. Some modern oaths are made in a similar fashion to affirmations.

    However swearing on the bible is using a sacred object as a "witness" to ones truthfulness.
     
  18. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    Not to me it isn't. A Bible-- the physical object-- is just a bunch of pages bound together.
     
  19. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Then a solemn affirmation would have much more meaning to you than swearing on the bible.
     
  20. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    The only thing either of them would mean is accepting a legal obligation to be truthful, which all either should mean for anybody.
     

Share This Page

Loading...