[Tom D.]

Good point. I am a lawyer and I profess to be a Christian and this ruling is great. As others have pointed out: Some religions allow lying in pursuit of that particular religion’s goals. That is great material for cross examination. What do you want, folks taking a forced oath on a religious document they do not think carries any weight or folks taking an oath on a text they at least profess to believe in and on which they can be cross-examined?

[Wilhelm Tell]

I agree with your assessment, although there are difficulties. You said, “Some religions allow lying in pursuit of that particular religion&rsquos goals. That is great material for cross examination.” Would not the fact that one is allowed to swear on any religious book give all religious equal standing (equal protection)? If someone swore on the Book of Satan, would not cross examination of that fact be off limits? I am not a lawyer, just wondering about the practical implications of this ruling, even though I am in favor of it.