North Carolina Debates Use of Koran

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:

 

Could I use a Koran and then claim that since I hold it to be false it does not hold me to any truth?

 

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:

 

More islamitization of America. They are winning bit by bit.

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Not to me it isn't. A Bible-- the physical object-- is just a bunch of pages bound together.

 

Then a solemn affirmation would have much more meaning to you than swearing on the bible.

 

The only thing either of them would mean is accepting a legal obligation to be truthful, which all either should mean for anybody.