united-states constitutional-law us-constitution
How does the swearing on the Bible fit in to the secular nature of the USA government?
<p>I was told that this may be an interesting premise for a new question. I had the following interaction in the comments of <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/63927/adapt-the-oath-of-truth-to-a-reasonable-version/63934?noredirect=1#comment133960_63934">this</a> question.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It always striked me as odd that a secular state like the US would use
a religious document as such a key part of a government proceeding.
(assuming they still do that)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was in reference to the issue of swearing on the Bible in the US. A comment to which David Siegel replied</p>
<blockquote>
<p>They do still do that. That would be a good separate question. The
basic reason is that this procedure was inherited like much US court
procedure from England, and for much of its existence the UD had
thought of itself not as a secular state, but as a multi-faith
religious state with built-in toleration, and only in the 20th C has
much of that toleration been actually enforced. Until 1867 states were
free to have established religions, and some did. (Mass and Maryland
are examples.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The mere fact that some states actually had established religions, even if it ended 160-odd-years ago is to me incredible. The premise of the US seems to be a country free of a monarchy and established religion seemed to be a big part of what makes the US, the US, or at least a big part of how it is sold to foreigners wanting to live there.</p>
<p>So the idea that the US for a certain part of it's history did not think of itself as a secular state, but a multi-faith, tolerant state seems a very intriguing one. Also it seems so completely antithetical to how it is perceived today (Not the tolerant part, but the multi-faith part).</p>
<p>So back to the issue at hand. If we accept that the US has moved away from the idea of a multi-faith state and indeed into a secular one, how are these vestiges of the old system still enforced or defended?</p>

<h2>You don’t have to swear</h2>
<p>Witnesses are given the option to swear (technically take an oath) or to affirm, which has no religious connotations. You also don’t actually swear on a Bible if you do swear. For <a href="https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/california/codes/california_code_civil_procedure_2094" rel="nofollow noreferrer">example</a> <a href="/questions/tagged/california" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;california&#39;" rel="tag">california</a>.</p>
<h2>The US is a <em>very</em> religious state</h2>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/france" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;france&#39;" rel="tag">france</a> is a <a href="https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/coming-to-france/france-facts/secularism-and-religious-freedom-in-france-63815/article/secularism-and-religious-freedom-in-france" rel="nofollow noreferrer">secular</a> state - it prohibits religious clothing (hijabs, crucifixes etc.) in schools.</p>
<p>The <a href="/questions/tagged/united-kingdom" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;" rel="tag">united-kingdom</a> (specifically England) has an official state religion (<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anglican</a>) but religion is far less prevalent in politics or society than it is in the US. For example, outside of a place of worship, who your mother is sleeping with is a far more acceptable topic of conversation than what her religious beliefs are. Which is not to say it actually <em>is</em> an acceptable topic of conversation, just that it’s more acceptable than religion.</p>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/australia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" rel="tag">australia</a> elected its first openly atheist <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hawke" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Prime Minister</a> in 1983.</p>
<p>The US was not founded on the idea that there shouldn’t be established religion, just that there shouldn’t be a state religion - that is, a church backed by the power of the government. Many of the early settlers were fleeing religious prosecution from state religions.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, it was never the intention to exclude religion from politics. Indeed, religion in the US influences politics to a much greater degree than it does in most European or Anglophone countries.</p>
