Courtroom Blasphemy

If North Carolina is going to let people use a religious text when taking an oath in court, the Bible should not be the only book allowed, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union argued in court Tuesday. A lawsuit filed by the ACLU of North Carolina challenges a state policy that allows only the Bible to be used in such court procedures. “If the state is going to get into the religious oath business, the state has to be fair,” said Seth Cohen, the ACLU's lead counsel on the case. But an attorney from the state Attorney General's Office urged Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway to dismiss the case. The lawsuit was filed in July 2005 on behalf of Syidah Mateen, a Muslim woman who said she was denied the use of the Quran in court. The lawsuit argues that state law is unconstitutional because it favors Christianity over other religions.

• JJ Commentary: God isn’t “fair” nor is He “inclusive” or “tolerant.” To honor a false god, whether it be Allah, Buddha or Gaia, is blasphemous. This was and is supposed to be a Christian country. If you don’t like it, move

Right Rights

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

• JJ Commentary: Wow, a court got it right!

Judicial Madness

A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that municipal employers have the right to censor the words "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" because that is hate speech and could scare workers. "We are going to take this case right up the steps of the United States Supreme Court," said Richard D. Ackerman, who along with Scott Lively argued the case for the Pro-Family Law Center. "We are simply unwilling to accept that Christians can be completely silenced on the issues of the day – especially on issues such as same-sex marriage, parental rights, and free speech rights," he said.

"Public employees are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their 'legitimate administrative interests' outweigh the employee's interest in freedom of speech," said the court's opinion by judges B. Fletcher, Clifton and Ikuta, who noted that their writings are "not appropriate for publication."

• JJ Commentary: That’s odd. I don’t remember “legitimate administrative interests” being a guaranteed right in the Constitution as is freedom of speech.