No Bibles, No Qurans in Courts
January 16, 2007
(Washington, D.C., January 16, 2006) Humanists take a unique approach to
today's North Carolina Court of Appeals ruling that an American Civil
Liberties Union suit, which calls for the addition of the Quran to the Bible
for use in court oaths, may go forward.
"We humanists have watched the various attempts to maintain a Christian
tradition in American courtrooms, and the effort has become convoluted to
the point of absurdity," said Mel Lipman, a constitutional attorney who is
president of the American Humanist Association. "Today we see a seemingly
noble attempt to support diversity and inclusiveness by adding a second
religious text, the Quran. But where will it all lead?
"Will the courts soon be expected to stock an entire religious library?
Imagine every court in the land also having to have on hand the Pali
Tripitaka for Buddhists and the Upanishads for Hindus, as well as the
Satanic Bible for Satanists and numerous other texts for various other
sects. Perhaps courts will be forced to adopt a BYOB approach, where
potential witnesses or even court officials are told, 'Bring Your Own Book.'
And if somebody wants to swear on The Little Engine that Could, they
could!"
"This plan for pluralism may sound laudable on the surface but it only
highlights the problem inherent in trying to include a religious text in a
secular justice system," added AHA Executive Director Roy Speckhardt.
As recently as the early twentieth century some state courts didn't allow
people who didn't believe in a god to give testimony because such
individuals wouldn't be able to honestly swear an oath on the Bible. So
freethinkers and humanists began an active campaign to allow for secular
oaths in every state--a campaign that has achieved overwhelming success. And
no American court today bans testimony by nontheists.
"For over a century humanists and freethinkers have struggled to make sure
that nonreligious people are allowed a secular oath in our courts,"
Speckhardt further said. "But it is now clear that this concession was
inadequate because it singles nonreligious people out in a way that can bias
the jury, and it opens the door for confusion like that seen in today's
case. So we are now calling for complete secularization of our judicial
system."
"Courts of law are a purely secular institution," concluded Lipman. "The
courts have no business singling people out for their particular religious
beliefs or their lack of such. Information of this sort, if not relevant to
the case at hand, can tip the scales of justice. So the time has come to
take an action long overdue and completely secularize the oath process. It's
the only sure way to be completely even handed and fair to everyone."
