When witnesses are sworn in, the religious texts of non-Christian faiths should be allowed in North Carolina courts along with the Bible, the ACLU argued in lawsuit filed against the state Tuesday.

Denying the use of other religious texts would violate the Constitution by favoring Christianity over religions, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina said in its lawsuit.

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.

"We hope that the court will issue a ruling that the phrase 'holy scripture' includes the Quran, Old Testament and Bhagavad-Gita in addition to the Christian Bible," said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina.

'I RESPECT and will protect a woman's right to choose....Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

That was Mitt Romney in April 2002, then a candidate for governor, responding to a questionnaire from the Massachusetts affiliate of the abortion rights group NARAL.

Today, Romney says ''abortion is the wrong choice" and ''wishes that the laws of our nation could reflect that view."

Romney has tried to present his legalistic explanation for vetoing the bill expanding access to emergency contraception -- that he had pledged not to alter the state's abortion laws -- as part of a consistent philosophy. But the inconsistencies are blinding.

I realize that we're treading on delicate ground here. These issues, if not presently before the Court, inevitably will be in one form or another in the near future, and we don't want judges or judges in waiting to prejudge specific cases. But I would err on the side of trying to discover a nominee's judicial philosophy, being careful not to have him opine on specific cases.

After all, revealing a nominee's philosophy regarding these issues does not necessarily answer, conclusively, how he would rule in the context of a specific case before him, considering the many variables that might be involved.

I think we must try to find out in advance whether Supreme Court nominees believe they will sit as part of a superlegislature or as a passive, albeit usually final, arbiter.

With Roberts in his honeymoon phase on Capitol Hill, this behind-the-scenes Bushie activity suggests three obligations for those senators who support choice. One is to press for all records of Judge Roberts's work in the solicitor general's office during Bush I, including his assistance in writing and then signing a brief to the Supreme Court calling for the overturning of Roe itself. To the general public the White House portrays the judge as a lawyer advocating for his client; to its conservative friends, the White House is saying that he believed in his work. Let's find the truth.

The second is to question him for his views on the bedrock of Roe's foundation -- a right to privacy. Any sign of dissent would be grounds for a filibuster.

But the most important obligation is to secure abortion rights through political work. In the end, the courts never provide enough protection for constitutional rights if voters are not asked to support them.