Jim Lindgren over at the Volokh Conspiracy writes about attempts to get other holy books such as the Koran legitimized for courtroom oaths.

I don’t know why this should be a problem, since this issue was settled law in England before the American Revolution. In 1744 in Omichund v Barker, the Chancery Court held that a Hindu could testify and be sworn (while touching a Brahmin) but not an atheist, since for the oath of a Hindu “still the substance is the same, which is that God in all of them is called upon as a witness to the truth of what we say.”

Well how about that "but not an athiest" bit? Could that be why it's not settled? Because, you know, there are people in this country who don't believe in any god.

Exactly what the hell is wrong with something like:

Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury?

"So help you god" makes it sound like, if you're sitting there telling a fib, a lightning bolt is gonna come down and zap your ass. Or that you'll burn in fiery hell for it later. Why invoke the wrath of god in a public proceeding anyway?

It doesn't sound nearly as poetic, but it is the wrath of the state, and not god, that you'll practically have to deal with if you lie on the stand, right? So why not invoke that instead?