While I understand the Bible being used historically, this is a country of freedom of religion, including (sadly) freedom from religion as it applies to an individual (the country was built on belief in Gd and wouldn’t have been built without it). But for an individual swearing to uphold the oaths of his new office, I’m good with them swearing on the constitution. That is what they must uphold. Even though this one still might not.
In courts, really, the fact that witnesses and accused are to swear on a Bible is almost silly at this point. I guess they could all just swear their words are truthful, or face the perjury penalty. Having a bunch of atheists or non-American criminals swearing on any document or book in court really makes little sense.
America’s founding political policy depended on a heavy moral consensus that was headed up by Christians and followed on closely by Jews. Surely if a Jewish person was sworn in, he might choose to use an Old Testament, not (yet) recognizing the New. And there would not be a lot of fuss about it by Christians who understand.
But a system like this is vulnerable to faith that becomes slack.
Are you saying individuals shouldn’t have the option of being free from religion in their personal life?