Friday Interview: Oaths On The Koran

Welcome to Carolina Journal Online’s Friday Interview. Today, Carolina Journal Radio’s Donna Martinez interviews Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the NC Chapter of the Americans for Civil Liberties NC Chapter. Rudinger explains the ACLU’s lawsuit against the state to allow religious texts, other than the Bible, to be used by witnesses swearing oaths in the state’s courts. The interview aired on Carolina Journal Radio (click here to find the station near you).

Martinez: A procedural controversy that began in a Guilford County court house in June has now itself become an issue for a court to decide. At issue? Whether or not witnesses preparing to testify in North Carolina should be allowed to take the oath to tell the truth by placing their hand on a religious text other than the Bible.

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina says, yes, and that two Guilford County judges were wrong when they denied the request to use the Ku’ran. To make their point, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina. Joining us to explain the issues at the litigation is Jennifer Ruttinger, executive director of the ACLU North Carolina. Jennifer, welcome.

This began when a person of the Muslim faith requested that the Koran, not the Bible, be used for her swearing-in when she was a witness in a Guilford County courtroom. Why did the ACLU become involved?

Rudinger: Well, initially what happened in that case is that she was not allowed to use the holy text in accordance with her faith, which is Islam, and we heard about this and it sparked a debate. There was an Islamic center in Guilford that offered to donate a bunch of Korans to the court system — to be on hand to be used for this purpose — and the court system said, “No, thank you.”

So, interfaith groups, Muslim groups, the ACLU — a number of folks have weighed in on this — and it’s been an ongoing debate for about a month and a half now. We wrote a letter to the Administrative Office of Courts at the end of June. The Administrative Office of Courts is the rulemaking body for the court system, and we asked them to issue a statewide rule that would interpret an existing statute, which says people may lay their hand on the Holy Scriptures. We asked the AOC to interpret Holy Scriptures broadly enough to be inclusive of multiple religious texts.

Several weeks later the AOC got back to us and basically punted the ball. They declined to take any action. So we do not believe that the legislature needs to do anything about this. The statute as it is drafted, we believe, is broad enough already to be inclusive of multiple faiths.

Martinez: So really, you’re looking for the North Carolina courts system to clarify the definition of Holy Scriptures. Right now, as it’s been used, evidently that is interpreted as only the Bible. Although, people do have an option when they’re sworn in to have no text used at all, correct?

Rudinger: That is right. There are three different statutes in North Carolina that govern the administration of oaths in the courtroom. The statute that we are challenging, at least in how it is being applied in our courts, says that people who wish to take a religous oath may do so by laying their hand on the Holy Scriptures.

The other two statutes give people the options of taking a religious oath by raising their hand in the air without the use of any text or book whatsoever. And the third option is a secular oath where “affirm” replaces the word “swear” and the words “so help me God” are deleted. Those second and third options are perfectly fine in the way that they are being administered, but the first option — where people may use the holy scriptures — is being applied in our courts to mean only the Christian Bible.

Martinez: So you view that as discriminatory?

Rudinger: Absolutely. By allowing only the Christian Bible to be used in the administration of religous oaths in the courtroom, our state government is discriminating against people of faith who happen not to be Christian. The government cannot take sides in the religion debate and must remain neutral.

Martinez: Now those who support the policy as is, and therefore would oppose your lawsuit, really make two arguments as I have read about this and listened to what is very animated conversation on talk radio. Let’s talk about a couple of those. The first one was made in a Raleigh News & Observer story that ran on July 27, and it came from a lawyer with a group called Liberty Counsel, which is based in Florida.

The gentlemen, Mr. Erik Stanley, is quoted in that story with this quote: “The ACLU is not attempting to bring accomodation. That already exists. They’re trying to erase history. Courtroom oaths have always been done on the Bible.” That’s the end of his quote. He is correct that there is long standing tradition and history in this country of the Bible as Holy Scriptures, as holy text. How do you respond to his argument?

Rudinger: Well, we certainly cannot continue discriminatory practices just because that’s how we’ve always done things. It is a well settled precedent that the government must remain neutral and it cannot discriminate against religion or endorse or promote religion. It just has to treat all religions equally.

So I don’t think that gentleman from Liberty Counsel had actually read our complaint, because what we filed in court is not seeking to take the Bible out of the courtroom. We have no objection to people choosing to be sworn in on the Bible if that is the holy text in accordance with their faith. What we are seeking is for the courts to interpret the phrase “Holy Scriptures” broadly enough to be inclusive of other texts and other faiths in addition to, not instead of, the Bible.

Martinez: The second argument that those who are opposing you on this discuss a lot, has to do with the slippery slope. And that is, if this goes forward — someone can choose which religious text they would like to be sworn in with in a courtroom —where does it really end and who decides? For example, if someone were to be, let’s say a Satanist, and walked into a courtroom and said that they wanted to be sworn in with a book that discussed Satanism, would that be appropriate? Would it be an option if your lawsuit prevails?

Rudinger: That is their constitutional right. It really is. The government should not be in the business of deciding what relgions are appropriate or acceptable and what religions are not. If I were an attorney who had a witness who wanted to, I might ask my witness to choose another option.

But if our statutes allow the use of texts for people of faith, then it has to be open to all religious texts. So we are asking for inclusion of the Old Testament, of the Bhagavad-Gita, of the Koran, of whatever text is in accordance with somebody’s faith. And our courts do have a long history of deciding religious liberty cases and having to ask the question, first of all, what is the religion?

Martinez: This is a very emotional issue and you have done a number of interviews, and typically you get a response from folks who are opposed to you—basically saying that you are trying to eliminate the Bible from the courtroom. And even though you have a response that’s very logical and based on your postion in the lawsuit, it still doesn’t seem to get through to people who are very concerned. How do you respond to the emotion of your lawsuit?

Rudinger: I understand. I understand people of faith who are wanting to continue to use the Christian Bible, and we say, “you absolutely should be able to continue to use the Christian Bible in the courtroom.” We are simply asking folks to consider that we are a religously diverse society and nobody is trying to replace Christianity. We just need the govenment to not take sides.

We need the government to adopt policies that are inclusive of all people of faith, particularly when you are swearing people into the courtroom and you want them to tell the truth. It really, if for their faith, it would be a more important oath, something they would take more seriously. If they could swear in on their text, then it just makes good sense as well as being constitutional required.

Martinez: What’s next in the suit?

Rudinger: Well, the state has about a month to file their answer to our complaint, and then at some point it would be schduled for hearing in Wake County Superior Court, and it may ulitmately end up in the North Carolina Supreme Court to interpret our exisiting statutes.