Actually, thats not the constitutional issue. The constitutional issue is whether or not the state is establishing A religion by requiring only the Bible to be used in sweraing in witnesses. I think the answer to that question is a resounding yes and thus it's unconstitutional.
Agreed. And I agree on your conclusion with respect to the establishment clause.
But I wasn't addressing the Constitutional issues, only the practical issue of why anyone even cares about swearing to tell the truth in the first place. My point is that you don't even need to consider the Constitutional issues to realize that having any and all witnesses swear on a Bible is simply ridiculous. The issue can and should be decided on that point alone.
I'll capitulate to that and render my basic "No" answer in reply 21 void.
Should I as a potential, or sitting, juror be able to question someone, directly, as to why they would refuse to swear an oath on the "Bible" a opposed to wanting to swear an oath on the "Qu’ran"?
Then one would have to believe that a state religion has existed in this nation for over 200 years - we just didn't know about it until some progressive types pointed it out.
No, using a bible for an oath does not establish a religion any more than putting up a manger scene on a court during the federal holiday of Christmas does. Non believers are also allowed to take an oath without a bible. Since our nation was founded by Christians, we use a bible to swear in witnesses. It is not our responsibility to change our traditions to adapt to every malcontent who is offended by them. This is nothing more than PC nonsense.