Welcome to the Realm™ - Version 5.0...
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





In yet another People’s Exhibit™ of how the Limp-dicked Llama-humping Left™ sides with the enemies of this country (what is this now, Number 3,836,949,003?), that veritable bastion of tolerance (except when it comes to conservatives or Christians), the ACLU, is throwing yet another tantrum in the name of the so-called “seperation of church and state”.

This time, they’re kvetching about the oath one swears when taking the stand in court.

In an effort to end the Bible’s monopoly on the swearing-in procedure in the courtroom, the American Civil Liberties Union is now suing the state of North Carolina.

A lawsuit has been filed in Superior Court in Wake County, N.C., on behalf of the organization’s statewide membership of approximately 8,000 individuals of many different faiths, including Islam and Judaism.

Ah yes.  The tried-and-true tactic of going through the courts to get what you can’t get through any other means.  Doing an end-around to thwart the will of the people, most of whom I’m guessing don’t want to be sworn in on a book written about the Pedophilic Pseudo-Prophet™.

“The government cannot favor one set of religious values over another and must allow all individuals of faith to be sworn in on the holy text that is in accordance with their faith,” said Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director of the ACLU-NC. “By allowing only the Christian Bible to be used in the administration of religious oaths in the courtroom, the state is discriminating against people of non-Christian faiths.”

Perhaps this moron could spend a little time actually reading  the Constitution before trying to spew his crap about what emanations & penumbras it supposedly contains.  Last we checked, that particular clause – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – meant that there shall be no Church of the United States in the manner that there’s a Church of England.  Quick, where’s that Church of the US monastery again?

(crickets)

Uh-huh.  Riiiiiiiiight…

Current law mentions laying one’s hand on the “Holy Scriptures,” which officials heretofore have interpreted as meaning the Bible.

The ACLU seeks a court order clarifying that the existing rule is broad enough to allow the use of multiple religious texts.

I dunno – I don’t think there’s much holy about a book that tells its followers to kill all the infidels, or talks about Big Ol’ Mo and his 9-year-old child-bride, y’know?

“In the alternative, if the Court does not agree that the phrase ‘Holy Scriptures’ in North Carolina state statute must be read to permit texts such as the Quran, the Old Testament and the Bhagavad-Gita in addition to the Christian Bible, then the ACLU-NC asks the Court to strike down the practice of allowing the use of any religious texts in the administration of religious oaths,” said a written statement from the civil-liberties group.

See, this is what they’ve been driving at all along with this legal POS.  This is just another step in the ACLU’s ongoing war to remove Christianity from our heritage, and remake this great country into its own sniveling image.

The swearing-in issue began last month after Muslims from the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center in Greensboro sought to donate copies of the Quran to courtrooms in Guilford County.

The gift was rejected by the county’s top two judges, noting an oath based on the Quran was not legally binding.

It isn’t, of course, but that’s not the reason I’d’ve  cited in rejecting it.  Somehow, I’d have trouble accepting a gift that says I have to stick my ass up in the air and pray to a black rock several times daily, lest I lose my head.

Gifts like that would tend to end up in my fireplace, KnowWhutImeanVern???™

I suppose it’s no small wonder, then, that the American Camel-humper’s Liberties Union would side with them on this.

ESAD, ACLU.



22 Comments to “So help me…Allah???


  1. Dr Herb Gamiscut — July 27, 2005 @ 6:34 pm

    The complaint does not seek to replace the Bible in any way. No one would be forced to accept it against their will as the holy text on which to be sworn in.

    What, then, is the exact objection to this?

  2. Dr Herb Gamiscut — July 27, 2005 @ 7:12 pm

    Whoops. Let’s try that second sentence again.

    "No one would be forced to accept the Quran against their will as the holy text on which to be sworn in."

  3. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant — July 27, 2005 @ 7:24 pm

    The complaint does not seek to replace the Bible in any way. No one would be forced to accept it against their will as the holy text on which to be sworn in.

    Note the alternative “remedy” that the ACLU suggests, Doctor.  The ACLU knows that the Qu’ran would never pass muster here as a holy text on which one swore an oath – particularly given that many of its followers have vowed to destroy this country.  The American people would revolt at such a concept, and the judicial system is undergoing enough criticism as it is.

    So they conveniently suggest that, if you can’t put the Qu’ran in, you take the Bible out.  This is quite a clever ploy on their part, and I for one hope that a more  clever jurist sees right through it.

    What, then, is the exact objection to this?

    The objection I have (besides just objecting to the ACLU on principle) is that I – and a lot of others like me – do not want a court system for which our tax dollars pay to have anything to do with a so-called “holy text” that calls all who do not believe in it “infidels” and advocates killing us in the name of Allah.  The Qu’ran is not a book that embodies that for which America stands, and it should not be a part of our legal system.

    Thanks for a great question, sir.

  4. Dr Herb Gamiscut — July 27, 2005 @ 8:17 pm

    “So they conveniently suggest that, if you can’t put the Qu’ran in, you take the Bible out.”

    There is no such suggestion in the complaint. What it asks is, that “the Court, in the alternative, enter a declaratory judgment that N.C.G.S. § 11-2 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Constitution of North Carolina”.

    N.C.G.S. § 11-2 does not specify the Christian Bible. It may have been interpreted as such, but it is evident that the complaint is designed to test that interpretation.

    It is also worth mentioning that the complaint seeks to include several other holy texts of several other religions. The intimation that the ACLU is seeking solely to make the Quran a part of the legal system is misleading.

    The full text of the complaint is available for review.

  5. Alan K. Henderson — July 28, 2005 @ 12:30 am

    Is Dianetics on the list list of swearing-in holy texts? Let’s sue Tom Cruise for something and find out.

  6. republicanuk — July 28, 2005 @ 3:37 am

    What the ACLU doesn’t want to bring up is that there already exists the right to AFFIRM an oath on the part of people who do not wish to swear on the Bible. The ONLY people whose behaviour the Bible affects are those who believe in it.

    The swearing of an oath on the Bible is a reminder to the Christian witness in a court, or citizen sworn into public office, that he is asking to be held accountable to GOD for the veracity of his testimony, or his faithfulness in discharging his duty.

    It is interesting that I read a quote in David Barton’s “Original Intent” that the founding fathers would accept a person of another religion swearing by their gods (they specifically mention the ‘Mahammodean’ (old term for muslim) and the ‘Hindoo’, so long as the gods by whom they swear have a system of eternal reward for righteousness and punishment for sin. (Presumably to keep the conscience and behaviour of the swearer in check. They probably did not know about the “it’s ok to lie to infidels” bit.)

    What the founding fathers did NOT view kindly is the oath-taking of someone who did not view his actions as accountable to an eternal, divine judge in eternity. They did not trust such a person because their oath meant nothing. Thus, a mohammadean or hindoo (to use their language) was morally superior to an athiest/agnostic.

    I don’t have the book in front of me, so I can’t give the references, but I bet someone out there does.

    Again, I’m a Canuck so my understanding of the American system is still developing, but that’s what I came away with.

  7. republicanuk — July 28, 2005 @ 3:39 am

    Oh, and OF COURSE the ACLU wants the Bible out.

    They believe that the government SHOULD establish their religion as the official state religion. They just think it’s ok, because it’s athiesm.

    It worked so well in Russia and China, why not try it here?

  8. republicanuk — July 28, 2005 @ 3:43 am

    Hey Spats!

    Didja catch the Err America scandal? Seems that gov’t grants for Ahlzimers (sp) and children got ‘invested’ into air-america. Big bucks, too. Conflict of interest between boards of directors and that kind of good stuff.

    Malkin’s got the details.

  9. Dr Herb Gamiscut — July 28, 2005 @ 4:23 pm

    “The ONLY people whose behaviour the Bible affects are those who believe in it. The swearing of an oath on the Bible is a reminder to the Christian witness in a court, or citizen sworn into public office, that he is asking to be held accountable to GOD for the veracity of his testimony, or his faithfulness in discharging his duty.”

    Precisely. Therefore, having a non-Christian witness sworn in on the Christian Bible is tantamount to giving said witness license to lie on the stand. It makes much more sense to use the text that the witness considers holy.

    “OF COURSE the ACLU wants the Bible out.”

    The complaint filed in North Carolina does not support this assertion.

  10. republicanuk — July 29, 2005 @ 10:31 am

    “The complaint filed in North Carolina does not support this assertion.”

    This was in their plan B in the NC.
    There are plenty of other without-A-CLU actions which would support this assertion.

  11. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant — July 29, 2005 @ 3:43 pm

    The complaint filed in North Carolina does not support this assertion.

    Doctor, it’s the ACLU, whose reputation far preceeds them.  They are well known for wanting God as far removed from public life as possible.  They’re notorious for wholly embracing the first part of the Establishment Clause, while totally ignoring the second part (“the free exercise thereof”).

    Suffice to say, we view with deep suspicion anything they might say or do.

  12. Dr Herb Gamiscut — July 29, 2005 @ 5:24 pm

    “This was in their plan B in the NC.”

    I do not understand what you are claiming here. Please elaborate.

  13. Dr Herb Gamiscut — July 29, 2005 @ 5:30 pm

    “Doctor, it’s the ACLU, whose reputation far preceeds them. They are well known for wanting God as far removed from public life as possible.”

    And yet this complaint, if successful, will ensure that more holy texts, recognized as such by citizens of many religious persuasions, will be used in court. This hardly seems the action of an organization that wants to remove God from public life.

    “They’re notorious for wholly embracing the first part of the Establishment Clause, while totally ignoring the second part (“the free exercise thereof”).”

    Again: The NC complaint is designed to enable more citizens of North Carolina to freely exercise their religious preferences in court.

  14. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant — July 29, 2005 @ 5:55 pm

    Again: The NC complaint is designed to enable more citizens of North Carolina to freely exercise their religious preferences in court.

    If  that’s the case, Doctor, then said citizens of North Carolina can petition their legislative assembly to enact legislation making it so.  This is an end-around designed to circumvent the legislative process by an organization well-known for its opposition to Christianity on behalf of two individuals who were offended that their gift was rejected by two judges who have better things to do than to keep a slew of so-called holy texts on hand.

    I mean, where does it stop?  What about texts for Cthulu, Maitreya, Kabbalah, Buddhism, Shintoism, Eastern Orthodox, etc?  I mean, using your logic – you make an allowance for one other, you have to make allowances for all  the others, do you not?  Who gets left out in the cold under this scenario?

  15. Dr Herb Gamiscut — July 29, 2005 @ 6:51 pm

    “I mean, using your logic – you make an allowance for one other, you have to make allowances for all the others, do you not?”

    This is, of course, the well-known slippery slope argument. And it’s an invalid argument. There is nothing about the legalization of additional holy texts that requires the outcome you postulate. There are many such instances in existing law — the legalization of tobacco and alcohol while other recreational drugs remain illegal, for instance.

    “Who gets left out in the cold under this scenario?”

    Is it necessary that other American citizens be left out in some way?

  16. Dr Herb Gamiscut — July 29, 2005 @ 6:59 pm

    “[The] citizens of North Carolina can petition their legislative assembly to enact legislation making it so.”

    Hunh. From your comment of 03:43 PM above, I was under the impression that you were in favor of the free exercise of religion — and that the First Amendment already guaranteed that free exercise.

    Why, then, would further legislation be necessary?

  17. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant — July 30, 2005 @ 7:39 pm

    This is, of course, the well-known slippery slope argument. And it’s an invalid argument.

    Why, Doctor?  Because you  say so?  I need only point to the issue of same-sex marriage to demonstrate the validity of the “slippery-slope” argument.  After the not-so-Supreme Court screwed up the Lawrence v. Texas  ruling in 2001, those of us on the right immediately predicted that the next  thing the sodomite community went for would be, in fact, same-sex marriage.

    Lo and behold.

    There is nothing about the legalization of additional holy texts that requires the outcome you postulate.

    Again I ask – because you  say so?  How do you know that the Buddhists won’t sue to have their  “holy texts” included?  Or the Shintoists?  Or the Kabbalahists?  Or…

    There are many such instances in existing law — the legalization of tobacco and alcohol while other recreational drugs remain illegal, for instance.

    And that’s being worked on even as we have this discussion.  At some point, as much as we try to hold this back, these drugs will, I’m afraid, be decriminalized – and the “slippery-slope” argument will have proven itself yet again.

    At this juncture, I will remind you that the function of the Court is to adjudicate law – not bend over and grab its ankles for any minority group that comes along and announces that it’s “offended” about something.

    Particularly a group that seeks our overthrow and destruction.

    From your comment of 03:43 PM above, I was under the impression that you were in favor of the free exercise of religion — and that the First Amendment already guaranteed that free exercise.

    Why, then, would further legislation be necessary?

    For the same reason that many of the amendments come with the following section:  “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

  18. Dr Herb Gamiscut — July 30, 2005 @ 9:45 pm

    “Why, Doctor? Because you say so?”

    Um, no. Because it meets the requirements for being a slippery-slope argument: postulating a series of increasingly undesirable outcomes if a given event is allowed to transpire.

    There are many good references to the logical fallacies available on the web.

    “Again I ask – because you say so? How do you know that the Buddhists won’t sue to have their “holy texts” included? Or the Shintoists? Or the Kabbalahists?”

    Again: because nothing requires the sequence of events to unfold as you claim they will. The universe is not required to obey you.

    Do you really want witnesses of other religions sworn in on texts that do not hold any religious significance to them? How would that serve the cause of justice?

    “At this juncture, I will remind you that the function of the Court is to adjudicate law”

    And that is exactly what the complaint requests: that the Court determine the legality of the interpretation of the North Carolina law.

    “For the same reason that many of the amendments come with the following section: “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.””

    There is no such statement in the First Amendment.

    Now, answer my earlier question: Is it necessary to you that other American citizens be left out in some way?

  19. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant — July 31, 2005 @ 10:36 am

    “Why, Doctor? Because you say so?”

    Um, no. Because it meets the requirements for being a slippery-slope argument: postulating a series of increasingly undesirable outcomes if a given event is allowed to transpire.

    That wasn’t the target of the “why”, Doctor, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you knew that.  Nice dodge.

    There are many good references to the logical fallacies available on the web.

    This isn’t a logical fallacy, as I’ve already demonstrated.

    Again: because nothing requires the sequence of events to unfold as you claim they will. The universe is not required to obey you.

    Another dodge.  In other words, you don’t know for certain that the aforementioned groups won’t sue, nor can you know.

    Glad we could clear that up.

    Do you really want witnesses of other religions sworn in on texts that do not hold any religious significance to them? How would that serve the cause of justice?

    How would it serve the cause of justice to swear an oath on a text that says that it’s okay to lie to infidels?  Or did you forget that: 1) that’s what the Qu’ran says, and 2) that’s what they consider us to be – infidels?

    And that is exactly what the complaint requests: that the Court determine the legality of the interpretation of the North Carolina law.

    No, sir, it’s a thinly-veiled attempt by a group known to be hostile to Christianity to yank God out of yet another facet of our society.  It’s an attempt to get an unelected judge to give them what elected officials, and the people who voted for them, clearly would not have.  It is, quite frankly, a frivilous lawsuit, and the ACLU should be held in contempt for even bringing it.

    “For the same reason that many of the amendments come with the following section: “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.””

    There is no such statement in the First Amendment.

    There’s no Church of the United States, either, so I’d say that the First Amendment has been satisfied.

    Now, answer my earlier question: Is it necessary to you that other American citizens be left out in some way?

    Since, as has already been pointed out here, no American citizen is required to swear their oath upon the Bible, but merely affirm that they will tell the truth while on the stand, no American citizens are being left out of the judicial process, Doctor – no matter how much you may fantasize that they are.

    See, the universe isn’t required to obey you,  either.

  20. Dr Herb Gamiscut — July 31, 2005 @ 4:22 pm

    That wasn’t the target of the “why”, Doctor, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you knew that.

    I do not possess telepathic powers. Nor do you. Explain the “target”.

    This isn’t a logical fallacy, as I’ve already demonstrated.

    False. Your argument quite clearly meets the requirements of the slippery slope fallacy.

    In other words, you don’t know for certain that the aforementioned groups won’t sue, nor can you know.

    Exactly. Neither can you. You’ve just shot down your own slippery slope argument.

    How would it serve the cause of justice to swear an oath on a text that says that it’s okay to lie to infidels?

    How does it now serve the cause of justice to swear an oath on a text that says it’s okay to execute children? See Exodus 21:15 and 21:17, or Deuteronomy 2:33-34.

    No, sir, it’s a thinly-veiled attempt by a group known to be hostile to Christianity to yank God out of yet another facet of our society.

    Unless you can show the exact language in the complaint that asks the Court to remove the Bible from the courtroom, the only possible conclusion is that the complaint does not support your claim.

    Since, as has already been pointed out here, no American citizen is required to swear their oath upon the Bible, but merely affirm that they will tell the truth while on the stand, no American citizens are being left out of the judicial process, Doctor – no matter how much you may fantasize that they are.

    You yourself asked “Who gets left out in the cold?” when their texts are not used in the courtroom. So it is clear that you interpret the exclusion of non-Christian holy texts as leaving non-Christians “out in the cold”.

    I am asking you why you find that necessary.

  21. Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant — July 31, 2005 @ 10:45 pm


    That wasn’t the target of the “why”, Doctor, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you knew that.

    I do not possess telepathic powers. Nor do you.

    No, I don’t.  My skills run more towards reading comprehension.

    Explain the “target”.

    Go read it again, Doctor.  Better yet, I’ll explain it to you.  That you call the slippery-slope argument “invalid” certainly doesn’t make it so – especially since I’ve already debunked your silly little meme concerning that.


    This isn’t a logical fallacy, as I’ve already demonstrated.

    False. Your argument quite clearly meets the requirements of the slippery slope fallacy.

    BS.  Again, I’ve already debunked you, and Lawrence v. Texas  isn’t the only example.

    But you go right on believing that if you want to.  Frankly, it ain’t my problem.


    In other words, you don’t know for certain that the aforementioned groups won’t sue, nor can you know.

    Exactly. Neither can you. You’ve just shot down your own slippery slope argument.

    BS again.  If this POS lawsuit should somehow succeed, then precedent will have been set.

    You really should quit while you’re behind, sir.  Arguing logic doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.


    How would it serve the cause of justice to swear an oath on a text that says that it’s okay to lie to infidels?

    How does it now serve the cause of justice to swear an oath on a text that says it’s okay to execute children? See Exodus 21:15 and 21:17, or Deuteronomy 2:33-34.

    Oh, very  nice dodge, Doctor, very  nice.

    Putting aside for a moment that execution of the innocent was never  advocated in the Scriptures, what does that have to do with the issue of truthfulness on the stand, as opposed to a book that openly advocates lying to those not of the Islamic faith?

    (This oughta be good.  Someone pass me the popcorn…)

    Unless you can show the exact language in the complaint that asks the Court to remove the Bible from the courtroom, the only possible conclusion is that the complaint does not support your claim.

    Go back and read the post again, Doctor, really.  The statement from the NC ACLU debunks you yet again.

    You yourself asked “Who gets left out in the cold?” when their texts are not used in the courtroom.

    Again, that’s if  this POS lawsuit succeeds – which, if there’s any intelligence on the bench, will not happen.

    So it is clear that you interpret the exclusion of non-Christian holy texts as leaving non-Christians “out in the cold”.

    Once again,  since no one now is forced to swear on the Bible, no one is left out – not even the Islamoturds who are whining about two judges having rejected their little book.

    Tell you what, Doctor – you can have the last word.  It’s been a nice exchange, but I’m really getting weary of proving you wrong time after time.

  22. Dr Herb Gamiscut — August 1, 2005 @ 4:28 pm

    That you call the slippery-slope argument “invalid” certainly doesn’t make it so…

    There are, indeed, valid slippery-slope arguments. But as I pointed out, there are examples in US law where A and B are legalized, but C and D, which one might expect to follow have not been. That is the form of your argument, and your C and D do not necessarily follow.

    BS. Again, I’ve already debunked you, and Lawrence v. Texas isn’t the only example.

    “BS” is proof of nothing. You have yet to show why your argument does not meet the classic form of the slippery slope.

    BS again. If this POS lawsuit should somehow succeed, then precedent will have been set.

    That was not your argument. Your argument was that if the Quran were to be used in American courtrooms, a raft of other holy texts would be, as well. I suggest you stick to defending the argument you made, not the one you now wish you had made.

    Putting aside for a moment that execution of the innocent was never advocated in the Scriptures…

    The citations I gave prove that it is, in fact.

    …what does that have to do with the issue of truthfulness on the stand, as opposed to a book that openly advocates lying to those not of the Islamic faith?

    I am addressing the question from a more general perspective. Your argument against the Quran, as near as I can make out, is that it advocates immoral activity. As I have indicated, such activity is spoken of approvingly in the Christian Bible as well.

    Go back and read the post again, Doctor, really. The statement from the NC ACLU debunks you yet again.

    Show us the exact language in the complaint that asks the Court to remove the Bible from the courtroom. So far, all you have been able to do is repeatedly insist that it does so, without a single shred of evidence to back up your claim.

    Once again, since no one now is forced to swear on the Bible, no one is left out – not even the Islamoturds who are whining about two judges having rejected their little book.

    Once again, it was you who interpreted the refusal to use non-Christian holy texts as someone being “left out in the cold” — those are your words.

    And once again, you refuse to explain why you find it necessary to leave some American citizens out.

    Explain why you find that necessary, please.


_____________________________________________________

    
_______________
 
 
Glossary -  Disclaimer - Privacy Policy - History - The SpatulaFAQ
This blog is best viewed with your eyes. 
It helps, though, if you have Microsoft Internet Explorer  set about 1024x768 1280x1024 with your Favorites window activated on the left deactivated.  (At least until I can get a better handle on how WordPress works.)

(KORRIOTH:  Oh, great.  More wormholes.)

Mozilla Firefox doesn't do too badly, either; in fact, it's His Rudeness' browser of choice.
You can  use Nutscrape,  if you so desire - but why in blazes would you want to use a browser from a company that had to hide behind Janet El Reño's skirt to be successful?

And don't even  get me started on Opera or Chrome.  I'm not about  to trust any browser that won't let me change its color scheme.
Spatula City BBS! was based on WordPress platform 2.6 (it's 3.05 3.31 now), RSS tech , RSS comments design by Gx3.