January 16, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
media@aclu.org
ACLU is Challenging State's Refusal to Allow Religious Oaths Not Sworn on the
Bible
RALEIGH, NC - A unanimous North Carolina Court of Appeals today ruled that
the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina can proceed with its
lawsuit challenging state courts' practice of refusing to allow people of
non-Christian faiths to swear religious oaths using any text other than the
Christian Bible.
"We are very happy with the Court of
Appeals' decision today," said Seth Cohen, General Counsel for the ACLU of North
Carolina and lead counsel in this case. "This is an important issue that
affects thousands of people of faith across North Carolina who are not of the
Christian faith, and we look forward to a hearing on the Constitutional
questions raised by this case."
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in July
2005 in Superior Court in Wake County on behalf of the organization's statewide
membership of approximately 8,000 individuals of many different faiths,
including Islam and Judaism. In November 2005, the ACLU added another
plaintiff to the case, Syidah Mateen, a Muslim woman who was denied the option
of using the Quran when she was being sworn in as a witness in a court
proceeding in Guilford County. She was told that the only holy text used
in the courtroom is the King James Version of the Bible.
In
December 2005, a superior court judge dismissed the ACLU lawsuit, ruling that
neither Mateen nor the ACLU could present a "case or controversy" that was ripe
for judicial review - in other words, that the harm suffered by the plaintiffs
in this case was too speculative to merit review by a court. Today,
writing for a unanimous Court of Appeals, Chief Judge John Martin reversed the
dismissal, allowing the case to proceed. Judges Elmore and Jackson joined
in the opinion. The opinion is available online at:
www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2007/060062-1.htm.
The
ACLU lawsuit seeks a court order clarifying that North Carolina's existing
statute governing religious oaths is broad enough to allow the use of multiple
religious texts in addition to the Christian Bible. In the alternative, if
the court does not agree that the phrase "Holy Scriptures" in the North Carolina
state statute must be read to permit texts such as the Quran, the Hebrew Bible
and the Bhagavad-Gita in addition to the Christian Bible, then the ACLU is
asking the court to strike down the practice of allowing the use of any
religious texts in the administration of religious oaths.
"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 of
North Carolina. "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."
Prior to filing its
lawsuit, the ACLU of North Carolina wrote to the Administrative Office of the
Courts in June 2005 calling upon that rule-making body to adopt a policy
allowing the use of the Quran and other religious texts for the swearing of
oaths in court proceedings. The Al Ummil Ummat Islamic Center had
previously offered to donate copies of the Quran to the Guilford County court
system for this purpose. Muslim groups, the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, and interfaith religious organizations also called upon the state
courts to respect religious diversity in North Carolina by allowing the use of
multiple religious texts in addition to the Bible.
On July 14, 2005, the Administrative Office responded that it was
declining to adopt any rule concerning the use of religious texts and indicated
that either the legislature or a court ruling would have to decide this
question. The ACLU said it does not believe that the existing statute
needs to be amended by the legislature. This lawsuit asks the court for an
interpretation of the phrase "Holy Scriptures" that is broad enough to include
multiple religious texts.
Existing North Carolina statutes also
allow for the use of a religious oath to be sworn "with upraised hand," without
the use of any religious text, and for the use of a secular oath such that the
word "affirm" replaces the word "swear" and the words "so help me God" are
deleted. The ACLU lawsuit does not concern either of these two options and
addresses only the use of a religious oath that also involves the use of a
religious text.
The state Attorney General has 30 days to decide
whether to seek discretionary review by the North Carolina Supreme Court.
If the North Carolina Supreme Court does not review the ruling by the Court of
Appeals, then the case will go back to the Superior Court for a review of the
Constitutional challenge to the statute.
