Let me look- it was an article shortly after the election.

Apologies- the article was a day or two after the election and I can no longer find it. I know I saw it- but it was either incorrect or something changed.

I have one more place to look.

Sorry- no go. I have only my memory of the article.

Though after running a Google search I see alot of anger over this koran thing.

I believe the idea has come up before. Though I find it equally ridiculous. If it is necessary that they make additional commitments then write them down and have the person sign them and then make violation of that contract a specific criminal offense. Oaths of office are already vague to the point of uselessness and hold no real value.

Some people find value in social ritual. As far as I can tell, the private ceremonies are more a personal photo-op than anything else. If I were being sworn in, I'd like my share of the pomp and circumstance. But, of course, I'm quite ridiculous.

I'm fine with the social ritual aspect, but before it is worthwhile to get upset about what is under their hand while saying something I would think it relevant that what they are saying have some importance.

Now, the sentiments expressed are certainly worthy, but they actions they imply are entirely subjective. By all means stand up and shout it to the world but since it is essentially non-negatable (everybody's definition of enemy, threat, attack, defense, etc. is different) but it has the same value to other people regardless of what is under your hand while saying it. It isn't like god has shown itself to be inclined towards immediately smiting anybody who makes a false oath on the bible while Allah is lax in this department.

If one feels that putting a hand on a bible will making an oath strenthens the oath, then by all means do so. To me the oath is no stronger because of it and I'm saddened that it takes a fear of magical retribution to do what one was elected to do.

I'm all for pomp and circumstance. Just not the silliness of getting hepped up about deviations.

Do courts still use a Bible for swearing in?

The rules vary state-by-state. I believe the most common setup is the choice of "the bible or no sacred text at all," but I don't have anything to support that.

So, sufice to say that any oath by the politicians means nothing. IMHO it's true. You can liken it to Vows at weddings when months later there's a divorce or cheating, etc. Having a bible, Mad Magazine or having it in a church or officiated by some child molestor doesn't mean anything until it's backed up with action, truth and some kind of character.

IMHO

I know that the last time I did jury duty, we raised our right hands and swore - no bible. I'm not sure about the witnesses, though. I guess I could stand up and walk into the office next to mine (I'm in a jail) and ask, but I'm just too lazy right now...