"A lawsuit filed by the ACLU of North Carolina challenges a state policy that allows only the Bible to be used in such court procedures." The premise by the ACLU is "If the state is going to get into the religious oath business, the state has to be fair," said Seth Cohen, the ACLU's lead counsel on the case, " reported Fox News.
It seems to me that the ACLU is a few steps from drawing the conclusion that if a person doesn't have to swear an oath on a book they don't believe in, and if they don't have to swear on the book that is the foundation for this nation's civil rights and ethics, then neither should they be judged by them. In fact, they want to move in the direction where first, the Bible is not allowed to be recognized as the foundation for ethics and civil rights in this country, and second, as a multicultural society, they should NOT be judged by any other set of religious or cultural beliefs other than their own.
Is it conceivable that the ACLU would argue for a case like this? If so, in the Muslim community they wouldn't be in want of clients to represent.
Muslims in England, in Canada, and in the United States have started to demand that they only be held accountable by Sharia--the beliefs they have submitted themselves to. And if Muslims are granted that "special" treatment, then in all fairness, why shouldn't atheists demand that the courts only judge them by their own atheistic beliefs. And for that matter, why shouldn't unionized industries and guilds demand that they only be judged by their corporate charters and mission statements for their industry practices?
This makes a mockery of the court system, and begins to make void the U.S Constitution.
If groups could only be judged by their own beliefs, most people---as of today--would see that as the breakdown of society, returning us to tribalism and clans.
The problem with the premise stated by the ACLU is that the United States 1. has always been in the business of swearing in, and 2. the United States was NOT founded by the Koran or another religious book that the nation's ethical and moral laws are derived.
The Courts use the Bible because it is the court itself--not necessarily the person being sworn in--that recognizes the authority of the Bible as the basis for civil law in our society.
It also signifies that the Court is comprised of finite humans who error in judgment, lack omniscience, and that even if the court misses its execution in justice, he/she who has sworn in has done so in the presence of God, the judge of all the earth. Even if the person escapes temporal judgment, they can not escape the final judgment.
"But an attorney from the state Attorney General's Office urged Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway to dismiss the case. "The main complaint of the ACLU and the plaintiff is a political one, not a legal one,' attorney Valerie Bateman said."
It's another attempt by the ACLU to knock out from under the nation, its ultimate authority, its foundations of ethical law and human rights.
Link to Article: