updated 1/16/2007 11:27:37 AM ET 2007-01-16T16:27:37

A lawsuit filed by the ACLU and a Muslim woman over the use of the Quran and other non-Christian texts for courtroom oaths in North Carolina should be allowed to go forward, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel voted unanimously to reverse a trial court decision that had dismissed the challenge to state law and policy. Currently, only the Bible can be used by witnesses when swearing or affirming truthful testimony.

The lawsuit was filed in July 2005 and the trial judge determined it was moot because there was no actual controversy at the time warranting litigation. But the appeals court said that wasn’t so, pointing to the individual plaintiff, Syidah Matteen, who said her request to place her hand on the Quran as a witness was denied in 2003.

And several Jewish members of the North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union have filed affidavits indicating they would prefer to swear upon the Old Testament, one of the religious texts of their faith, Chief Judge John Martin wrote.

“We conclude the complaint is sufficient to entitle both plaintiffs to litigate their claims ... though we are careful to express no opinion on the merits of those claims,” Martin wrote. Judges Ron Elmore and Barbara Jackson concurred.

Not legal?
The issue surfaced after Muslims from the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center in Greensboro tried to donate copies of the Quran to Guilford County’s two courthouses. Two Guilford judges declined to accept the texts, saying an oath on the Quran is not a legal oath under state law.

State law allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath either by laying a hand over a “Holy Scripture,” by saying “so help me God” without the use of a religious book or by using no religious symbols.

The ACLU and the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations called for a statewide policy permitting use of the Quran and other religious texts in courtrooms. But the director of the state court system said no, saying the General Assembly or the courts needed to settle the issue.

The ACLU and Matteen sued, seeking a judge to rule the state law is unconstitutional because it favors Christianity over religions.

© 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,

Most active discussions

  1. votes comments
  2. votes comments
  3. votes comments
  4. votes comments