While some jurisdictions may still offer the use of a bible for swearing in (I just asked a PD lawyer friend of mine and she says she's never been in a courtroom that ever uses a bible or any other prop) there is no jurisdiction where it would be required to swear on a bible and the option to simply affirm to tell the truth is the standard so far as I know.

I believe (but am not positive) that the "or afffirm" option was not originally designed as an accommodation to non-believers, but rather as an accommodation to those whose religious beliefs prohibit the taking of oaths.

The Constitution repeatedly refers to "oath or affirmation" so I guess it goes back to English common law.

And the final word on the subject. Or at least the faithful word.

http://www.thefaithfulword.org/oaths.html

It seems silly to require a non believer to swear on a bible. That would be akin to me swearing on Barney.

I would love to be sworn into office with my hand on a Mad Magazine. That would be so funny.
:D

I've been without TV, radio and computer for the bulk of the last week. My knowledge that something new happened this morning came in the form of 3 separate people (unknown to one another) saying "Can the President look any dumber?"

I'm not seeing anything at CNN. What did Bush do to look stupid?

These similar comments were all in response to the Iraq report. Not having read it, I'm not quite sure how he looks so dumb from my own POV.

Ah. When you said "something new happened this morning" I thought you meant that something new had happened this morning.