Our courts cannot exclude sacred texts without simultaneously endorsing one religion

By Ken Massey
Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church
Greensboro, N.C.

Guest View
July-August 2005

Church-state battles have been heating up, and now a local skirmish has erupted in our fair city of Greensboro, N.C. Some Muslims want to donate copies of the Quran to our courts so they can place their hands on their very own holy Scripture when they are sworn in as witnesses. As I've been turning this over in my own mind, I confess that I don't know much ... but I suspect a lot.

I suspect, for instance, that our current statute about using "holy Scripture" can be interpreted broadly to include all sacred texts. The Bible was certainly the Scripture in mind when the law was written, but it can also be said that muzzle-loaders were the "arms" in mind when the Second Amendment was adopted. Those empowered to broaden the interpretation of this courtroom statute should do so without the agitation of litigation.

I suspect that giving preference to the Bible or excluding other sacred texts in this courtroom ceremony would be ruled unconstitutional if considered by the Supreme Court (no matter who is confirmed to fill the vacancy). Government can't endorse one religion over others, and the Bible is clearly the sacred text of one specific religion and not religion in general. Our courts cannot exclude other holy texts without simultaneously endorsing one religion.

I suspect that having courts accept donated Scripture is not an acceptable solution. Courts should not become repositories for all the sacred texts of our citizens. On the other hand, I don't see why witnesses cannot bring their own sacred text for swearing if this would promote their own truth-telling. Witnesses already have the option of affirming without a Bible. Doesn't the First Amendment grant religious freedom and responsibility to citizens rather than the state? Allowing witnesses to bring their own sacred texts frees the court from making decisions that are expressly religious.

I also suspect that "swearing on bricks" is a red herring. I doubt that someone standing in the presence of a judge would choose to swear on the latest edition of Sports Illustrated or on a copy of Mein Kampf. If I were on a jury, such a choice would tell me something important about the witness. A court official could ask a witness who brings her own Scripture: Does your sacred text instruct you to speak the truth? If the answer is "yes," the witness could place her hand on that text and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I suspect that the point of swearing-in rituals is not to affirm the truth of the sacred text used in the ceremony but to compel the truth-telling of the witness. If truth-telling is the goal, let the swearing ceremony be true. It would not be true for me to swear upon the Quran or for a Muslim to swear upon the Gospels. A hypocritical oath cannot promote honesty or symbolize truth. Any swearing-in process that falls short of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth has no place in our justice system.

I suspect that those who oppose the use of other sacred texts in the courtroom are forgetting something about their own freedom. The same Constitution that limits the role of government in religion protects our individual and congregational freedom to accept or reject any sacred text of our choosing. This is the freedom denied to, but desired by, millions. We should stop whining about the limits of civil religion and celebrate our unique religious liberty!

Lastly, I suspect that if this issue is decided through litigation, the final ruling will exclude the use of any religious texts in our courts. Such a step may be perceived as a tragic and unnecessary exclusion of free and appropriate religious expression in public life.