Virgil Goode, meet Justice Gould

The Head Heeb (Jonathan Edelstein) applies his legal skills and his knowledge of British history to the question of swearing oaths on the Koran: Virgil Goode, meet Justice Gould.

It was subsequently taken for granted that, under whatever name, the Koran could be used to swear oaths, as evidenced by other cases in 1787 and 1832 in which such oaths were taken as a matter of course. Also, because the decision in Morgan's case was issued prior to the American Revolution, it became part of the common law of the United States, and by the early 1820s, courts in New York and Illinois described it as "settled law" that "Mahometans may be sworn on the Koran; Jews on the Pentateuch, and Gentoos and others according to the ceremonies of their religion, whatever may be the form."

... Before the First Amendment existed, John Morgan and other Muslims took their oaths on the Koran, gave the testimony that their consciences dictated, and were thus recognized as participants in the public life of their countries. Now that the Constitution ensures not only the right to participate but the right to do so on the basis of equality, the case in Ellison's favor is even more open and shut. There's someone deviating from American constitutional principles here, but Ellison isn't the one.

You really must read the whole thing to appreciate this tale of 18th century Muslim sailors in English courts.

Comments

[pjgoober]

You and Justice Gold are arguing against a straw-man. Though Virgil Goode has expressed personal distaste with Ellison using a Koran, he has explicitly said he would not want him legally barred from doing so:

Rush Limbaugh Show
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122206/content/stop_the_tape_2.guest.html

"RUSH: Final question from David Asman. "Would you prohibit, Mr. Ellison -- would you prohibit him from bringing a Koran into that ceremony?"

GOODE: If the voters of that district want persons that are going to swear by the Koran, that's the choice of the voters of that district, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in my district would prefer the use of the Bible if a book is used, and that is exactly what I'm going to do.

ASMAN: Well, that I may well be true, but again just to put a fine point on it: You are not, then, for prohibiting Mr. Ellison from bringing in a Koran?

GOODE: No, but I am for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives."

[Leila]

Fine then, it looks like Rep. Goode agrees with the legal precedents and common law cited by our esteemed lawyer friend and blogger, the Head Heeb. Glad we're all in agreement. The Koran is a perfectly valid holy book for a Muslim to use in swearing an oath in an American court or public office.

And furthermore, freedom of religion means freedom to use, quote and display whatever religious books matter to the citizen.

I love it when we all agree on fundamental American principles.

[Frank]

Leila,
The Limbaugh quoter also commented (without the straw man reference) on Jonathan's blog. Jonathan responded succinctly and effectively (as you did).
Happy New Year,
Frank

[George Ajjan]

Dove,

I found your blog (enjoyable!) through a comment you left chez Ammar Abdulhamid.

My question is: are you involved with the AAI, and if not, why not?

Please email me (see link on my name) if you are interested.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
George