It's not just atheists who who might have this isue. There are any number of Christians who believe that the Bible forbids them to swear on it or by it. Others also object to the use of the word "swear". So the Bible is now optional in court, and may not even be offered. Additionally, the witness may use an alternate oath involving the word "affirm". The effect is the same: to put the witness under the penalty of law for a lie.

Yes. The point of the oath is to place the witness on notice that he is under a legal obligation to tell the truth.

It's up to the judges to make this decision until the law is changed to include those of non-Christian belief. It’s called discrimination against those of other faiths and belief systems. Really it boggles the mind that any judge would demand the swearing of oath on a Bible when he knows the witness is Atheist or non-Christian. If it weren’t so tragic for so many it would be classed as comical but then the laws and court systems are a bit comical too. Edit: God help you in the Bible belt states when you inform the judge you are Atheist wishing to affirm. When it's known by all the court you want to affirm rather than take the oath on a Bible perhaps the case will suffer. I wonder which of the 200 versions of the Bible are offered by the courts to Christians?

In our county, the standard question is whether the witness will "swear OR affirm" that he/she will tell the truth and, despite the fact that we are squarely in the middle of the "bible belt", there is no bible in sight.

Perhaps they should ask if they would like to swear on the Bible or the Quran?! I think the bible or any other religious reference should be removed completely as it is completely meaningless for a large chunk of the population, so they could swear on the bible until the cows came home without it making the slightest bit of difference in whether they were telling the truth or not!!! Sandy "Weddings/funerals/Christmas presents Christian" as are the majority in europe from my experience. www.sandydoull.com

The answer to this question will depend on the jurisdiction and the judge. There has been a story in the news recently (within the past few weeks of this post) about a Muslim group that wanted to donate some Qurans to a court for use in swearing in Muslim witnesses. The judge, however, refused siting the fact the state law requires witnesses to be sworn in using the "holy scriptures." The judge interprets "holy scriptures" as meaning the Bible and says that it is not his place to change this. If people want to use something else then it is up to them to pressure the legislature to change the law. Personally, I think that such laws should be changed. In my mind, the whole purpose behind placing one's hand on the Bible and swearing to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God" goes beyond merely making a legally binding oath. It adds the dimension of this being a covenant with God. Thus, not only is the liar subject to legal punishment for perjury, but he is also subject to eternal punishment for lying to God. If the witness does not consider the Bible to be holy then swearing on it is not as binding as swearing on something that he does consider holy. Obviously, with an atheist, it would not matter what you used, if anything. They do not believe in divinity or an afterlife. So, oaths before deity would have no real meaning to them. We would have rely entirely on the threat of legal action to insure their honesty.

In the U.S., no as far as I know and have experienced. Anyone who so chooses has the right to "affirm" and not swear on a bible. Here are some resources with background and citations: http://archives.stupidquestion.net/sq12199bible.html http://www.hendersondispatch.com/articles/2005/07/13/news/opinion/opin01.txt http://atheism.about.com/b/a/054543.htm and here is an answerbag page with a similar question on it (search for "affitm") http://www.answerbag.com/c_view.php/2336 there are loads of threads, articles and discussions online about this but I haven't seen a printed legal statement. I can only relate that I affirmed. And I didn't lie or anything!

I wonder how many criminal cases, up to and including cases involving the death penalty, has this caused a defendant to lose because one or more jurors have been convinced that someones testimony has been considered to be less than truthfull or outright lies because he or she refused to swear on a bible. Isn't there supposed to be constitutional protection that provides for the defendant to receive a fair and speedy trial? I think it's the sixth amendment and doesn't the first amendment say "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religeon". "However, the US Supreme Court has a little junk drawer called “ceremonial deism” in which it keeps religious laws it likes and protects them from constitutional banishment... Over the past 15 years, court opinions have developed general principles of ceremonial deism. To qualify, a practice must be: 1) nonsectarian; 2) voluntary; 3) presented in a manner unlikely to indoctrinate its audience; 4) deeply rooted in social custom. While the court has never specifically ruled on Bible swearing, it has noted the practice fits these requirements." The previous quote is credited to John Ruch. It is shamefull that the supreme court would protect this practice which is not a founding constituional principle when it so seriously violates actual constitutional laws to protect citizens. These religeous Christian freaks, Supreme Court included, shamefully violate the constitution, in this country where the very constitution that protects their right to practice their brand of religeon and from which their authority is derived. They don't deserve respect or those rights. I call for all non-christians and atheist to make these christians pay for their denying you your rights. If you get any opportunity to sit on a jury in any court that even so much as allows a bible in the courtroom, when anyone does lay his hand on the bible or any religeous document, outright consider their testimony a lie. If there are reporters and you are a juror publically state you voted to convict or aquit based on the fact that the biblically sworn testimony compelled you to know the testimony to be false and therefore you voted to convict or aquit on that issue. If there are no reporters call the local newspaper and tell them. When courts are forced to retry cases because of this or let defendants out of jail because this bible in the court has denied the defendant a fair trial, then they will change the law. This appears the only way to force the law to be changed. Finally everyone will be on a level playing field when it comes to testimony given.

Nope.

Depends which court. In the UK there are now different religious holy books available. Dunno about athiests though.

In Australia, I think you have to. This is only word of mouth, though. I've never actually been inside a courtroom (although I hope to get charged for dissent someday).

no

No, he has the right not to swear on the bible or swear an oath to God. He is sworn in with religous sentiments omitted.

The bible actually says "let your yes be yes and your no be no" there is no need for anybody to swear on the bible, it counts for nothing it is mystical hocus pocus and even many Christians do not wish to do so. Truth is all important and to those of us with faith it is what is true that matters to bot us and God.

What if the person swearing in is a woman? Would they make her become a him first?

No, secular countries do not make anyone swear on any religious text.

In British courts, atheists are allowed to affirm rather than swear on the bible or other holy book.

In the UK they Affirm, it is not required to use the Bible.

Why would you make an athiest swear on something that means nothing to him? He will believe some day, but for now he doesnt have to.

Yes, it's standard practice. But what you really think/believe while doing it, is another matter.

This is why the system doesn't work. People should be swearing on something else. That only works on religious people. Atheists should swear on something else. Like a comic book or something.

We'll find out on my trial date.

Here in Canada, you are offered a choice of swearing on a Bible, swearing on a Koran, or simply affirming.

This was suppose to be a comet, damn glitches n=airy thang...;+

You can swear or affirm (doesn't have to be on the bible) and it doesn't really matter considering most people lie anyway. The trick is catching them in their lies.

I think they can affirm on the bible instead.

They don't use bibles for anyone most places now. "Raise your right hand." "Do you swear, or affirm, ... etc." You can have your left hand in your pocket while you are doing that if you want.

King James Version, James 5:12 -- "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." You are allowed to simply raise your right hand and affirm. Given that swearing is specifically prohibited to Christians, swearing on the Bible is meticulous. It simply shows that the person taking the oath either doesn't believe or doesn't know what's in the Bible.

yes

No. A witness can affirm under penalty of perjury that he or she will tell the truth.

S/he does not, nor does a child have to pledge allegiance to (i.e. worship) a flag in school. Forced religious participation has been outlawed.

YES I THINK SO