Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

A judge has thrown out a lawsuit over the inability of Muslims to use a Quran for courtroom oaths, as reported here.

The ruling stated that the ACLU and Muslim Syidah Mateen failed to show that a legal controversy exits between the state of North Carolina and the plantiffs.

Here are the essentials:

The judge did not address whether state law allows people to use non-Christian texts for oath-taking, the main issue the ACLU wanted resolved.

"We're disappointed the judge did not reach the merits (of the case)," said ACLU lawyer Seth Cohen, who confirmed Thursday's ruling. "We're confidant we would have won on the merits."

Although this is only one case, it could be an important issue in the months to come, that is, if we are determined to "stay the course."

The issue surfaced after Guilford County's two top judges turned down a gift of Qurans from a Greensboro Islamic center after deciding than an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath.

State law refers to someone laying his hand on the "Holy Scriptures," which they interpret to mean the Christian Bible. As an alternative, the law allows someone to affirm to tell the truth while holding their hand upraised.

When the state Administrative Office of the Courts declined to intervene, the ACLU took the issue to court, arguing that the term "Holy Scriptures" is broad enough to include many religious texts.

A couple of notable things, worthy of discussion by the Cortex community:

1. What constitutes "Holy Scriptures"?

2. If non-Christians are forced to swear on a Christian text, are they bound by perjury rules?

In theory, I suppose, we expect everyone who appears in a court of law to speak the truth.  Just as we expect witnesses before Congress to speak the truth as well, whether they are sworn in or not.

Yeah.