ACLU of N.C. & Syidah Matteen v. State of North Carolina
Encyclopedia
ACLU of N.C. & Syidah Mateen v. State of North Carolina is a court case in the state of North Carolina
within the United States of America
. One of the main plaintiffs is Syidah Mateen an American-Muslim
of Greensboro
, North Carolina
. She and the North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
are calling for the state courts of North Carolina to rule that it is acceptable under the laws of the state for non-Christians to swear on religious texts of their own faith rather than the Bible
of Christianity
.
, Mateen a lifelong Muslim asked "Do you have a Qur'an
available?" Matten recalled later that she "was actually shocked that they didn't have any."
North Carolina's state law "allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath in three ways: by laying a hand over 'the Holy Scriptures,' by saying 'so help me God' without the use of a religious book, or by an affirmation using no religious symbols."
When told that there was no Qur'an in the courthouse Mateen's testimony was allowed after she agreed to affirm that she would be truthful.
While Mateen claims that Judge Jarrell told her that "all the courtrooms needed copies of the Quran", Jarrell maintains he told her only that "he would look into the legality of such oaths if she wanted to bring a Quran in the future."
. After moving to North Carolina, her father, L'Fatihah Mateen, established the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center in Greensboro and served as its prayer leader (he died in 1997). In 2005 Syidah Mateen, not realizing that the lack of a Qur'an for oaths at the courthouse might be mandated by law, joined with other Muslim-American's at the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center "to donate copies of the Qur'an to Guilford County's
two courthouses." The Center's imam
, Charles Abdullah "working through a judicial assistant, was prepared to hand over the Qurans", but two Guilford judges declined to accept the texts, saying "an oath on the Qur'an is not a legal oath under state law."
In Raleigh
, the lawyer for North Carolina’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) issued a preliminary opinion that said “that state law allows people to be sworn in using a Quran rather than a Bible”. This was refuted by Guilford County's Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright who sets policy for the county's nine Superior Court courtrooms. Judge Albright stated flatly “An oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law.” He maintained that the statute means the Bible and that if that is to be changed it is up to the North Carolina Legislature, "It's gotten way out there: They've got everything from the Book of Mormon
to the Book of Wicca
on the list. Our position is that the statute governs not only the type of oath, but the manner and administration of the oath, and that it's now a legislative matter to straighten out."
Guilford Chief District Judge Joseph E. Turner "told [Imam] Abdullah that he could not accept the Qurans for the courtrooms." After the Judges' statements the AOC's spokesman Dick Ellis said "We are not aware of any courtroom that has ever allowed anybody to swear on anything but the Bible." Judge Jarrell the presiding officer in the case where Mateen testified did not make any comment but "deferred any decision to the judges that set courtroom policy". Judge Turner did ask Imam Abdullah to "donate a copy of the Quran to the law libraries in the county's two courthouses" which the imam did.
In an interview with reporters on the matter Mateen stated "This is a diverse world, and everybody does not worship or believe the same. We'll just have to get in touch with the right people and determine our next move." It was added that Mateen "worries that people might consider her testimony less credible if they see her unwilling to swear on a holy text."
Currently the North Carolina General statute on oath taking (§11-2) states: (emphasis added) “Judges and other persons who may be empowered to administer oaths, shall (except in the cases in this Chapter excepted) require the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures, in token of his engagement to speak the truth and in further token that, if he should swerve from the truth, he may be justly deprived of all the blessings of the holy book and made liable to that vengeance which he has imprecated on his own head.”
Prior to 1985 amendments to N.C.G.S. § 11-2, the statutory section read that Judges shall “require the party sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Evangelists
of Almighty God”.
(CAIR) issued a press statement, “By stating that only one book qualifies as ‘Holy Scriptures,' the court may be making an inappropriate endorsement of a single set of religious beliefs. Eliminating the opportunity to swear an oath on one's own holy text may also have the effect of diminishing the credibility of that person's testimony.” CAIR's Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar
said "CAIR will offer a free copy of the Quran to any judge in North Carolina or throughout the United States for use in oaths or for personal awareness of the holy text." CAIR's Legal Director in Washington D.C, Arsalan Iftikhar
, said of the case, "This shows there's a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment, especially here in the United States."
, Jewish and Buddhist faiths” sent a letter to Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, who said an oath on the Quran is not lawful. The letter noted that “North Carolina is an increasingly diverse place and says that religious differences need to be respected.” It went on to say “In North Carolina, we continue to be people who take our religious beliefs and practices very seriously. But we no longer live in the Bible Belt
. Today, we live in the Bible
-Talmud
-Qur'an
-Veda-Dhammapada
-Guru Granth Sahib
-Kitabi Iqan
Belt. It is imperative for our civic leaders, school teachers, judges, and law enforcers to appreciate and respect the religious differences found in our population.”
The executive director of FaithAction (an interfaith organization) Rev. Mark Sills, signed the letter and said that the Qur’an oath case "struck us as an issue that needs to be confronted." He asked Christians to imagine what it would be like to live in a place where the Bible was not allowed for oaths, saying "That just feels like a slap in the face." Rev. Julie Peeples, pastor of Greensboro's Congregational United Church of Christ signed the letter and said "I think it's an opportunity to foster greater respect for all the traditions we have in Greensboro." The superintendent of the Greensboro District of the United Methodist Church, Rev. Frank Stith, said “it makes sense for people to be able to use a book that means something to them,” explaining “The point is to have something that stands behind someone's word.”
became involved when on On June 28, 2005 they called on the AOC to "adopt a policy allowing the use of the Quran and other religious texts for the swearing of oaths in court proceedings." When on July 14, 2005 the state Administrative Office of the Courts declined to intervene (indicating "that either the legislature or a court ruling would have to decide this question") the ACLU took the issue to court”. In July 2005 they argued in court that "the term 'Holy Scriptures' appearing in the statute refers not only to the Christian Bible, but also to other religious texts including, but not limited to, the Quran, the Old Testament
, and the Bhagavad-Gita." The ACLU argued that since in 1985 “the term ‘Gospels’ was eliminated from the section [on oaths] and the terms ‘Holy Evangelists of Almighty God’ was changed to ‘Holy Scriptures,’ the message sent by the Legislature was clear: no longer would the Christian Bible be the only religious text which could be used in a swearing ceremony. Stated differently, the term ‘Holy Scriptures’ is broad enough to include the Quran.” The state attorney general's office argued in court papers that the ACLU lacked the right to sue because there is no controversy between them and the state of North Carolina. This led them to add Muslim Syidah Mateen as a plaintiff on November 29, 2005.
Michele Combs, communications director of the Christian Coalition said "We don't have a state-run religion in this country and it's an honor to worship here, but some traditions that we've had for 200 years need to stay."
Erik Stanley , a lawyer for the Christian law group Liberty Counsel
claimed the suit “was not simply intended to include other faiths.” He went on to say “The ACLU is not attempting to bring accommodation. That already exists. They're trying to erase history. Courtroom oaths have always been done on the Bible.”
In his ruling Judge Smith dismissed Mateen's case, in part "because Mateen was able to testify that day, no legal controversy remained." Judge Smith "did not address whether state law allows people to use non-Christian texts for oath-taking, the main issue the ACLU wanted resolved." The executive director of the North Carolina chapter of the ACLU, Jennifer Rudinger, said “it would be very difficult for a person wishing to swear on a non-Christian text to halt a courtroom proceeding to pursue a legal challenge on the issue.” Mateen said “Had I known that it would be taken to this point, I wouldn't have affirmed. I could have postponed everything until they got some Qurans.” The ACLU was also surprised that Judge Smith cited “lack of an actual controversy” as a reason for dismissal because Grady Balentine the lawyer for the state attorney general's office did not make that argument. Balentine had only argued “that the law gives people another option if they don't wish to swear on the Christian Bible.”
On Dec. 15, 2005, a week after Smith’s ruling, the N.C. chapter of the ACLU announced they would appeal the decision. Their lawyer Seth Cohen told reporters “that the organization disagrees with the judge's finding” and that he was “confidant they will win in the N.C. Court of Appeals.” Cohen went on to say “It's a shame that this matter cannot be resolved sooner. All we have ever asked is that people of all faiths be able to put their hands on the holy text of their choice. It's that simple. We don't understand why this is such a big deal.” Cohen also said that members of Judaism have thrown their support behind the case as they would like to be able to swear on the Tanakh
, and that this joining over the issue was one of the things “that's gotten lost in this case.”
The Court reviewed the history of the case noting that "When Ms. Mateen appeared as a witness, she requested that her oath to tell the truth be sworn on the holy text of her religious faith, the Quran. When her request was denied and because she would not swear on the Christian Bible, her options were to affirm without the use of a religious text or be denied the opportunity to testify. …Ms. Mateen chose to affirm to tell the truth, and she now seeks a declaratory judgment determining whether, under N.C.G.S. § 11-2, she has the right to swear on her holy text, the Quran."
The Court held that the case should go forward, because without a court decision on the matter a conflict was unavoidable, saying "Under these circumstances, Ms. Mateen clearly demonstrated her intent to avail herself of her asserted right to swear on her religious text and her intent to litigate that right. The State has clearly demonstrated, by its refusal to permit witnesses to swear on any text other than the Christian Bible, its intent to continue the course of action; thus, its actions are not speculative [which would not merit allowing the case to go forward]. … ACLU-NC argues that it is not a matter of ‘if’ one of its [8,000] members who would prefer to swear on a different religious text will be called to serve as a juror or witness, but rather it is a matter of ‘when.’ We agree."
The court stressed that it was only calling for the case to go forward, and was not itself judging the cases merits, saying "The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether either plaintiff has presented a justiciable controversy in their complaint. We conclude the complaint is sufficient to entitle both plaintiffs to litigate their claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act, though we are careful to express no opinion on the merits of those claims."
Seth Cohen, General Counsel for the N.C. ACLU stated “We are very happy with the Court of Appeals’ decision today. 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.”
Mateen repeated her position in an interview after the Appeals Court allowed the case to go forward, saying she always "felt like, in this day and time, that they would at least have the three major religious texts in the courtroom. If it was a Quran in the courtroom and a Christian was in there, would they want to testify on a holy Quran?"
Noelle Talley spokeswoman for the state Attorney General confirmed that the office is “reviewing the ruling but hasn't decided about an appeal.”
's Professor of Religion, Thomas Tweed said "This North Carolina case is another example of the ways America's expanding religious diversity is coming into conflict with established practices in the public arena."
New York University
law professor Noah Feldman
said "This case is a cousin to the Ten Commandments case in Alabama, where a judge does something that's pretty obviously unconstitutional, with a goal of sending a message ... that he's for fundamental religious values."
The Christian Science Monitor noted that in contrast to Judge Albright most American judges in recent history “have apparently given other oaths wide latitude. In a federal terrorism case in 1997 in Washington D.C., for instance, the judge allowed Muslim witnesses to swear to Allah
. And the practice isn't new: Mochitsura Hashimoto
, the Japanese submarine commander who testified in the court martial of a US Navy captain in 1945, was allowed by a military tribunal to swear on his beliefs of Shinto
, the ancient religion of Japan
.”
The Christian Science Monitor also quoted Manish Vij, a New York blogger for Sepia Mutiny
who said, “The only thing more compelling [to] ... South Asian Muslims is to literally swear upon your mother's head, and mothers aren't as convenient to drag around in court as a copy of the Koran.”
have linked this story with Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress
that involved Rep. Keith Ellison
(D-MN) the first American-Muslim elected to the US Congress. It should be noted however that Ellison's desire to use a Qur'an at the ceremonial reenactment of his oath while symbolically important, was never a judicial issue. The official swearing-in was en masse and involved no texts whatsoever. Both of the main figures taking issue with Ellison, Dennis Prager
and Rep. Virgil Goode
(R-VA), made sure to clarify that they were not asking for him to be banned from serving if he insisted on using a Qur'an instead of a Bible at his reenactment photo-op. In this regard the Matten case is far more significant.
One commentator laid out the likely outcome should the Matteen case not be judged on its merits, saying one day a non-Christian would appear before a North Carolina judge and would "create an impasse in court when he refuses to swear on the Bible and declines to affirm an oath, insisting he should be allowed to place his hand on the Quran or some other holy book and promise before his God to tell the truth." The judge could then "hold the uncooperative witness in contempt, in effect punishing a person who simply asks that his religious beliefs be granted the same respect as those of a Christian. ...[and] While holding the witness in contempt, the judge also could bar the testimony that would have been offered—thereby jeopardizing the case of one party or the other. ...Or the judge could let the witness testify without swearing or affirming to tell the truth. But that would invite a challenge to the validity of the testimony—another legal controversy."
North Carolina
North Carolina is a state located in the southeastern United States. The state borders South Carolina and Georgia to the south, Tennessee to the west and Virginia to the north. North Carolina contains 100 counties. Its capital is Raleigh, and its largest city is Charlotte...
within the United States of America
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
. One of the main plaintiffs is Syidah Mateen an American-Muslim
Muslim
A Muslim, also spelled Moslem, is an adherent of Islam, a monotheistic, Abrahamic religion based on the Quran, which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God as revealed to prophet Muhammad. "Muslim" is the Arabic term for "submitter" .Muslims believe that God is one and incomparable...
of Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina
Greensboro is a city in the U.S. state of North Carolina. It is the third-largest city by population in North Carolina and the largest city in Guilford County and the surrounding Piedmont Triad metropolitan region. According to the 2010 U.S...
, North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina is a state located in the southeastern United States. The state borders South Carolina and Georgia to the south, Tennessee to the west and Virginia to the north. North Carolina contains 100 counties. Its capital is Raleigh, and its largest city is Charlotte...
. She and the North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." It works through litigation, legislation, and...
are calling for the state courts of North Carolina to rule that it is acceptable under the laws of the state for non-Christians to swear on religious texts of their own faith rather than the Bible
Bible
The Bible refers to any one of the collections of the primary religious texts of Judaism and Christianity. There is no common version of the Bible, as the individual books , their contents and their order vary among denominations...
of Christianity
Christianity
Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings...
.
Mateen as witness in 2003
In 2003 Syidah Mateen (a computer analyst for radiology clinics, born in 1964) was a witness set to testify in a domestic violence protective order hearing, before Guilford District Judge Tom Jarrell. When asked to swear on a King James Version of the BibleKing James Version of the Bible
The Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Version, King James Bible or KJV, is an English translation of the Christian Bible by the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611...
, Mateen a lifelong Muslim asked "Do you have a Qur'an
Qur'an
The Quran , also transliterated Qur'an, Koran, Alcoran, Qur’ān, Coran, Kuran, and al-Qur’ān, is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God . It is regarded widely as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language...
available?" Matten recalled later that she "was actually shocked that they didn't have any."
North Carolina's state law "allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath in three ways: by laying a hand over 'the Holy Scriptures,' by saying 'so help me God' without the use of a religious book, or by an affirmation using no religious symbols."
When told that there was no Qur'an in the courthouse Mateen's testimony was allowed after she agreed to affirm that she would be truthful.
While Mateen claims that Judge Jarrell told her that "all the courtrooms needed copies of the Quran", Jarrell maintains he told her only that "he would look into the legality of such oaths if she wanted to bring a Quran in the future."
Attempted donation rebuffed
Mateen's parents had converted to Islam in the early 1960s while living in Flint, MichiganFlint, Michigan
Flint is a city in the U.S. state of Michigan and is located along the Flint River, northwest of Detroit. The U.S. Census Bureau reports the 2010 population to be placed at 102,434, making Flint the seventh largest city in Michigan. It is the county seat of Genesee County which lies in the...
. After moving to North Carolina, her father, L'Fatihah Mateen, established the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center in Greensboro and served as its prayer leader (he died in 1997). In 2005 Syidah Mateen, not realizing that the lack of a Qur'an for oaths at the courthouse might be mandated by law, joined with other Muslim-American's at the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center "to donate copies of the Qur'an to Guilford County's
Guilford County, North Carolina
Guilford County is a county located in the U.S. state of North Carolina. In 2010, the Census Bureau estimated the county's population to be 491,230. Its seat is Greensboro. Since 1938, an additional county court has been located in High Point, North Carolina, making Guilford one of only a handful...
two courthouses." The Center's imam
Imam
An imam is an Islamic leadership position, often the worship leader of a mosque and the Muslim community. Similar to spiritual leaders, the imam is the one who leads Islamic worship services. More often, the community turns to the mosque imam if they have a religious question...
, Charles Abdullah "working through a judicial assistant, was prepared to hand over the Qurans", but two Guilford judges declined to accept the texts, saying "an oath on the Qur'an is not a legal oath under state law."
In Raleigh
Raleigh, North Carolina
Raleigh is the capital and the second largest city in the state of North Carolina as well as the seat of Wake County. Raleigh is known as the "City of Oaks" for its many oak trees. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the city's 2010 population was 403,892, over an area of , making Raleigh...
, the lawyer for North Carolina’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) issued a preliminary opinion that said “that state law allows people to be sworn in using a Quran rather than a Bible”. This was refuted by Guilford County's Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright who sets policy for the county's nine Superior Court courtrooms. Judge Albright stated flatly “An oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law.” He maintained that the statute means the Bible and that if that is to be changed it is up to the North Carolina Legislature, "It's gotten way out there: They've got everything from the Book of Mormon
Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement that adherents believe contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2600 BC to AD 421. It was first published in March 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr...
to the Book of Wicca
Wicca
Wicca , is a modern Pagan religious movement. Developing in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a Wiccan High Priest named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft," and its adherents "the Wica."...
on the list. Our position is that the statute governs not only the type of oath, but the manner and administration of the oath, and that it's now a legislative matter to straighten out."
Guilford Chief District Judge Joseph E. Turner "told [Imam] Abdullah that he could not accept the Qurans for the courtrooms." After the Judges' statements the AOC's spokesman Dick Ellis said "We are not aware of any courtroom that has ever allowed anybody to swear on anything but the Bible." Judge Jarrell the presiding officer in the case where Mateen testified did not make any comment but "deferred any decision to the judges that set courtroom policy". Judge Turner did ask Imam Abdullah to "donate a copy of the Quran to the law libraries in the county's two courthouses" which the imam did.
In an interview with reporters on the matter Mateen stated "This is a diverse world, and everybody does not worship or believe the same. We'll just have to get in touch with the right people and determine our next move." It was added that Mateen "worries that people might consider her testimony less credible if they see her unwilling to swear on a holy text."
State law at issue
North Carolina's oath-taking practices "date to 1777 but have evolved over the years." North Carolina's legislature first passed the oath-taking statutes in 1777. At that time, the title of the statute was 'Administration of oath upon the Gospels.' In 1985 the word "Gospels" was replaced by the term "Holy Scriptures".Currently the North Carolina General statute on oath taking (§11-2) states: (emphasis added) “Judges and other persons who may be empowered to administer oaths, shall (except in the cases in this Chapter excepted) require the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures, in token of his engagement to speak the truth and in further token that, if he should swerve from the truth, he may be justly deprived of all the blessings of the holy book and made liable to that vengeance which he has imprecated on his own head.”
Prior to 1985 amendments to N.C.G.S. § 11-2, the statutory section read that Judges shall “require the party sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Evangelists
Four Evangelists
In Christian tradition the Four Evangelists are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the authors attributed with the creation of the four Gospel accounts in the New Testament that bear the following titles:*Gospel according to Matthew*Gospel according to Mark...
of Almighty God”.
CAIR's comments
When it was announced that the Qur'an was not to be allowed for swearing before testimony, the Council on American-Islamic RelationsCouncil on American-Islamic Relations
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is America's largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization that deals with civil advocacy and promotes human rights...
(CAIR) issued a press statement, “By stating that only one book qualifies as ‘Holy Scriptures,' the court may be making an inappropriate endorsement of a single set of religious beliefs. Eliminating the opportunity to swear an oath on one's own holy text may also have the effect of diminishing the credibility of that person's testimony.” CAIR's Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar
Arsalan Iftikhar
Arsalan Iftikhar is an American international human rights lawyer, global media commentator and author of the book . Arsalan is the founder of and also a regular weekly commentator for the National Public Radio show "Tell Me More" with Michel Martin...
said "CAIR will offer a free copy of the Quran to any judge in North Carolina or throughout the United States for use in oaths or for personal awareness of the holy text." CAIR's Legal Director in Washington D.C, Arsalan Iftikhar
Arsalan Iftikhar
Arsalan Iftikhar is an American international human rights lawyer, global media commentator and author of the book . Arsalan is the founder of and also a regular weekly commentator for the National Public Radio show "Tell Me More" with Michel Martin...
, said of the case, "This shows there's a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment, especially here in the United States."
Interfaith support for allowing Qur’an oaths
On July 6, 2005 a group of more than 20 religious leaders from the Guilford County area, “including those of ChristianChristian
A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament...
, Jewish and Buddhist faiths” sent a letter to Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, who said an oath on the Quran is not lawful. The letter noted that “North Carolina is an increasingly diverse place and says that religious differences need to be respected.” It went on to say “In North Carolina, we continue to be people who take our religious beliefs and practices very seriously. But we no longer live in the Bible Belt
Bible Belt
Bible Belt is an informal term for a region in the southeastern and south-central United States in which socially conservative evangelical Protestantism is a significant part of the culture and Christian church attendance across the denominations is generally higher than the nation's average.The...
. Today, we live in the Bible
Bible
The Bible refers to any one of the collections of the primary religious texts of Judaism and Christianity. There is no common version of the Bible, as the individual books , their contents and their order vary among denominations...
-Talmud
Talmud
The Talmud is a central text of mainstream Judaism. It takes the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history....
-Qur'an
Qur'an
The Quran , also transliterated Qur'an, Koran, Alcoran, Qur’ān, Coran, Kuran, and al-Qur’ān, is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God . It is regarded widely as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language...
-Veda-Dhammapada
Dhammapada
The Dhammapada is a versified Buddhist scripture traditionally ascribed to the Buddha himself. It is one of the best-known texts from the Theravada canon....
-Guru Granth Sahib
Guru Granth Sahib
Sri Guru Granth Sahib , or Adi Granth, is the religious text of Sikhism. It is the final and eternal guru of the Sikhs. It is a voluminous text of 1430 angs, compiled and composed during the period of Sikh gurus, from 1469 to 1708...
-Kitabi Iqan
Kitáb-i-Íqán
The Kitáb-i-Íqán is one of many books held sacred by followers of the Bahá'í Faith; it is their primary theological work. One Bahá'í scholar states that it can be regarded as the "most influential Koran commentary in Persian outside the Muslim world," because of its international audience. It is...
Belt. It is imperative for our civic leaders, school teachers, judges, and law enforcers to appreciate and respect the religious differences found in our population.”
The executive director of FaithAction (an interfaith organization) Rev. Mark Sills, signed the letter and said that the Qur’an oath case "struck us as an issue that needs to be confronted." He asked Christians to imagine what it would be like to live in a place where the Bible was not allowed for oaths, saying "That just feels like a slap in the face." Rev. Julie Peeples, pastor of Greensboro's Congregational United Church of Christ signed the letter and said "I think it's an opportunity to foster greater respect for all the traditions we have in Greensboro." The superintendent of the Greensboro District of the United Methodist Church, Rev. Frank Stith, said “it makes sense for people to be able to use a book that means something to them,” explaining “The point is to have something that stands behind someone's word.”
ACLU involvement
The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties UnionAmerican Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." It works through litigation, legislation, and...
became involved when on On June 28, 2005 they called on the AOC to "adopt a policy allowing the use of the Quran and other religious texts for the swearing of oaths in court proceedings." When on July 14, 2005 the state Administrative Office of the Courts declined to intervene (indicating "that either the legislature or a court ruling would have to decide this question") the ACLU took the issue to court”. In July 2005 they argued in court that "the term 'Holy Scriptures' appearing in the statute refers not only to the Christian Bible, but also to other religious texts including, but not limited to, the Quran, the Old Testament
Old Testament
The Old Testament, of which Christians hold different views, is a Christian term for the religious writings of ancient Israel held sacred and inspired by Christians which overlaps with the 24-book canon of the Masoretic Text of Judaism...
, and the Bhagavad-Gita." The ACLU argued that since in 1985 “the term ‘Gospels’ was eliminated from the section [on oaths] and the terms ‘Holy Evangelists of Almighty God’ was changed to ‘Holy Scriptures,’ the message sent by the Legislature was clear: no longer would the Christian Bible be the only religious text which could be used in a swearing ceremony. Stated differently, the term ‘Holy Scriptures’ is broad enough to include the Quran.” The state attorney general's office argued in court papers that the ACLU lacked the right to sue because there is no controversy between them and the state of North Carolina. This led them to add Muslim Syidah Mateen as a plaintiff on November 29, 2005.
Christian social conservative groups respond
Steve Noble, of Called2Action a Christian advocacy group headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina held that the option to affirm and not use the Bible should be sufficient, telling reporters “Since you don't have to swear on the Bible, what's the problem? Given the fact that it's a Judeo-Christian nation, when we say Holy Scriptures we mean the Bible.”Michele Combs, communications director of the Christian Coalition said "We don't have a state-run religion in this country and it's an honor to worship here, but some traditions that we've had for 200 years need to stay."
Erik Stanley , a lawyer for the Christian law group Liberty Counsel
Liberty Counsel
Liberty Counsel is a non-profit public interest law firm and ministry that provides free legal assistance in defense of "Christian religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the traditional family." Liberty Counsel is headed by attorney Mathew D. Staver, who founded the legal ministry with...
claimed the suit “was not simply intended to include other faiths.” He went on to say “The ACLU is not attempting to bring accommodation. That already exists. They're trying to erase history. Courtroom oaths have always been done on the Bible.”
December 2005 ruling
On Dec. 5, 2005 Superior Court Judge Donald L. Smith (serving as an emergency judge) heard arguments on the case in a hearing that lasted less than a half hour. Lawyers on both sides were given seven and one-half minutes to make their case and no witnesses were heard. Assistant Attorney General Grady L. Balentine Jr. argued “that state oath-taking law is constitutional because it allows people to affirm if they don't wish to swear on the Christian Bible. No one is required to do that, that's our only position in this case.” The ACLU’s attorney Seth Cohen argued that if "Holy Scriptures" is interpreted to not include non-Christian texts, then the law is unconstitutional, as “the exclusive use of the Christian Bible for courtroom oaths violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution.” Both lawyers answered one of the Judge’s questions by agreeing to “a longstanding legal tradition: When a law is susceptible to multiple interpretations, a judge should always rely on the interpretation that makes the law constitutional.”In his ruling Judge Smith dismissed Mateen's case, in part "because Mateen was able to testify that day, no legal controversy remained." Judge Smith "did not address whether state law allows people to use non-Christian texts for oath-taking, the main issue the ACLU wanted resolved." The executive director of the North Carolina chapter of the ACLU, Jennifer Rudinger, said “it would be very difficult for a person wishing to swear on a non-Christian text to halt a courtroom proceeding to pursue a legal challenge on the issue.” Mateen said “Had I known that it would be taken to this point, I wouldn't have affirmed. I could have postponed everything until they got some Qurans.” The ACLU was also surprised that Judge Smith cited “lack of an actual controversy” as a reason for dismissal because Grady Balentine the lawyer for the state attorney general's office did not make that argument. Balentine had only argued “that the law gives people another option if they don't wish to swear on the Christian Bible.”
On Dec. 15, 2005, a week after Smith’s ruling, the N.C. chapter of the ACLU announced they would appeal the decision. Their lawyer Seth Cohen told reporters “that the organization disagrees with the judge's finding” and that he was “confidant they will win in the N.C. Court of Appeals.” Cohen went on to say “It's a shame that this matter cannot be resolved sooner. All we have ever asked is that people of all faiths be able to put their hands on the holy text of their choice. It's that simple. We don't understand why this is such a big deal.” Cohen also said that members of Judaism have thrown their support behind the case as they would like to be able to swear on the Tanakh
Tanakh
The Tanakh is a name used in Judaism for the canon of the Hebrew Bible. The Tanakh is also known as the Masoretic Text or the Miqra. The name is an acronym formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Masoretic Text's three traditional subdivisions: The Torah , Nevi'im and Ketuvim —hence...
, and that this joining over the issue was one of the things “that's gotten lost in this case.”
Appeals Court ruling
On Jan. 16, 2007 a three-judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to reverse the trial court decision that had dismissed the case. The appeals court found that the issue was not moot. The Court's ruling also mentioned it received "affidavits from eight Jewish members of ACLU-NC who were residents of Guilford County and eligible for jury duty, stating they would prefer to swear on the Hebrew Bible rather than the Christian Bible if selected as jurors or asked to testify in court."The Court reviewed the history of the case noting that "When Ms. Mateen appeared as a witness, she requested that her oath to tell the truth be sworn on the holy text of her religious faith, the Quran. When her request was denied and because she would not swear on the Christian Bible, her options were to affirm without the use of a religious text or be denied the opportunity to testify. …Ms. Mateen chose to affirm to tell the truth, and she now seeks a declaratory judgment determining whether, under N.C.G.S. § 11-2, she has the right to swear on her holy text, the Quran."
The Court held that the case should go forward, because without a court decision on the matter a conflict was unavoidable, saying "Under these circumstances, Ms. Mateen clearly demonstrated her intent to avail herself of her asserted right to swear on her religious text and her intent to litigate that right. The State has clearly demonstrated, by its refusal to permit witnesses to swear on any text other than the Christian Bible, its intent to continue the course of action; thus, its actions are not speculative [which would not merit allowing the case to go forward]. … ACLU-NC argues that it is not a matter of ‘if’ one of its [8,000] members who would prefer to swear on a different religious text will be called to serve as a juror or witness, but rather it is a matter of ‘when.’ We agree."
The court stressed that it was only calling for the case to go forward, and was not itself judging the cases merits, saying "The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether either plaintiff has presented a justiciable controversy in their complaint. We conclude the complaint is sufficient to entitle both plaintiffs to litigate their claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act, though we are careful to express no opinion on the merits of those claims."
Seth Cohen, General Counsel for the N.C. ACLU stated “We are very happy with the Court of Appeals’ decision today. 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.”
Mateen repeated her position in an interview after the Appeals Court allowed the case to go forward, saying she always "felt like, in this day and time, that they would at least have the three major religious texts in the courtroom. If it was a Quran in the courtroom and a Christian was in there, would they want to testify on a holy Quran?"
Attorney General's review
The ACLU reports on its website that "The state Attorney General has 30 days [from the Jan. 16, 2007 ruling] 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."Noelle Talley spokeswoman for the state Attorney General confirmed that the office is “reviewing the ruling but hasn't decided about an appeal.”
Superior Court
On May 24, 2007, Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway ruled that people of non-Christian faiths must be allowed to use religious texts other than the Christian Bible when being sworn in as jurors or witnesses in state court proceedings. Though the state had 30 days to decide to appeal the ruling, it took no action.Views on the case
Some have seen this matter "as the latest case of religious liberty to arise in North Carolina. In other cases, employers have been challenged to allow Sikhs to keep their beards and Muslim women to wear veils." University of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is a public research university located in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States...
's Professor of Religion, Thomas Tweed said "This North Carolina case is another example of the ways America's expanding religious diversity is coming into conflict with established practices in the public arena."
New York University
New York University
New York University is a private, nonsectarian research university based in New York City. NYU's main campus is situated in the Greenwich Village section of Manhattan...
law professor Noah Feldman
Noah Feldman
Noah Feldman is an American author and professor of law at Harvard Law School.-Education and career:Feldman grew up in Boston, Massachusetts, where he attended the Maimonides School....
said "This case is a cousin to the Ten Commandments case in Alabama, where a judge does something that's pretty obviously unconstitutional, with a goal of sending a message ... that he's for fundamental religious values."
The Christian Science Monitor noted that in contrast to Judge Albright most American judges in recent history “have apparently given other oaths wide latitude. In a federal terrorism case in 1997 in Washington D.C., for instance, the judge allowed Muslim witnesses to swear to Allah
Allah
Allah is a word for God used in the context of Islam. In Arabic, the word means simply "God". It is used primarily by Muslims and Bahá'ís, and often, albeit not exclusively, used by Arabic-speaking Eastern Catholic Christians, Maltese Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Mizrahi Jews and...
. And the practice isn't new: Mochitsura Hashimoto
Mochitsura Hashimoto
Commander was an officer in the Imperial Japanese Navy and the commander of several Japanese submarines during World War II including RO-44, I-158 and I-58.-Biography:Hashimoto was born in Kyoto as a younger son of a Shinto priest...
, the Japanese submarine commander who testified in the court martial of a US Navy captain in 1945, was allowed by a military tribunal to swear on his beliefs of Shinto
Shinto
or Shintoism, also kami-no-michi, is the indigenous spirituality of Japan and the Japanese people. It is a set of practices, to be carried out diligently, to establish a connection between present day Japan and its ancient past. Shinto practices were first recorded and codified in the written...
, the ancient religion of Japan
Japan
Japan is an island nation in East Asia. Located in the Pacific Ocean, it lies to the east of the Sea of Japan, China, North Korea, South Korea and Russia, stretching from the Sea of Okhotsk in the north to the East China Sea and Taiwan in the south...
.”
The Christian Science Monitor also quoted Manish Vij, a New York blogger for Sepia Mutiny
Sepia Mutiny
Sepia Mutiny is a blog and discussion forum, initially conceived by a group of mostly second generation Indian American students and young professionals in August 2004. The site has had an exponential growth rate and according to its FAQ, as of May 2007 had amassed over five million readers since...
who said, “The only thing more compelling [to] ... South Asian Muslims is to literally swear upon your mother's head, and mothers aren't as convenient to drag around in court as a copy of the Koran.”
Comparison to Controversy in the US Congress
Many media accountshave linked this story with Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress
Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress
In mid-November 2006 it was reported that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress , "will take his oath of office with his hand upon the Qur'an, the Islamic holy book." In reaction to the news, conservative media pundit Dennis Prager criticized the decision in his...
that involved Rep. Keith Ellison
Keith Ellison (politician)
Keith Maurice Ellison is the U.S. Representative for , serving since 2007. He is a member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. The district centers on Minneapolis. He was re-elected in 2010. Ellison is a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.He is the first Muslim to be elected to the...
(D-MN) the first American-Muslim elected to the US Congress. It should be noted however that Ellison's desire to use a Qur'an at the ceremonial reenactment of his oath while symbolically important, was never a judicial issue. The official swearing-in was en masse and involved no texts whatsoever. Both of the main figures taking issue with Ellison, Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager is an American syndicated radio talk show host, syndicated columnist, author, and public speaker. He is noted for his conservative political and social views emanating from conservative Judeo-Christian values. He holds that there is an "American Trinity" of essential principles,...
and Rep. Virgil Goode
Virgil Goode
Virgil Hamlin Goode, Jr. , is an American politician, last serving as a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives. He represented the 5th congressional district of Virginia from 1997 to 2009...
(R-VA), made sure to clarify that they were not asking for him to be banned from serving if he insisted on using a Qur'an instead of a Bible at his reenactment photo-op. In this regard the Matten case is far more significant.
One commentator laid out the likely outcome should the Matteen case not be judged on its merits, saying one day a non-Christian would appear before a North Carolina judge and would "create an impasse in court when he refuses to swear on the Bible and declines to affirm an oath, insisting he should be allowed to place his hand on the Quran or some other holy book and promise before his God to tell the truth." The judge could then "hold the uncooperative witness in contempt, in effect punishing a person who simply asks that his religious beliefs be granted the same respect as those of a Christian. ...[and] While holding the witness in contempt, the judge also could bar the testimony that would have been offered—thereby jeopardizing the case of one party or the other. ...Or the judge could let the witness testify without swearing or affirming to tell the truth. But that would invite a challenge to the validity of the testimony—another legal controversy."