There is precedence...

I would just not parrot the ending. And of course, not place my hand on any book.

It seems there are fewer and fewer courts that used bibles.

Oaths aside, what is the purpose of raising one's right hand? Why not the left hand? Or the left foot? Why raise any body part - does it make any difference to the oath?

You could say that, but I would just say yes and get on with it. There are much more important things to be concerned with.

Here's an Arizona statute, explaining how to administer an oath: "An oath or affirmation shall be administered in a manner which will best awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person taking the oath or affirmation, and it shall be taken upon the penalty of perjury." A.R.S. 12-2221

I'm agnostic...so I have no problem with the, " so help me god", part...

I think the "so help you god" is an sketchily-relevant add-on. The oath is in the previous phrases.

I'm in court on a regular, representing my employer. The oath is to raise your right hand and respond to, "do you swear to tell the truth?"

If they ask you a silly question like that, you should be able to just lie

From Wikipedia:
In the US, people can use either "so help you God" or "under pains and penalties of perjury"; all oaths and affirmations are considered equivalent before the law.[14] These modifications to the oath were originally introduced in order to accommodate those who feel uncomfortable swearing religious oaths, such as Quakers, as well as to accommodate the irreligious.[15] In United States v. Ward, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain other modifications of the oath were acceptable so long as they demonstrated "a moral or ethical sense of right and wrong".[16]

Affirmation is as binding in court as swearing is in court. In both cases. it's the judge who can hold a witness in contempt or even find a witness has committed perjury. What concerns me are those atheists who swear on the Bible anyway because they haven't come out as atheists yet or are too intimidated by the system to be completely honest before affirming to tell the truth.

I find it interesting alone that the assumption that someone who believes in the Bible is naturally going to lie with out swearing.
But i would expect that anyone who talks to invisible people on a regular basis may need a reminder to be honest in the real world

I live in the South. Believe it or not, some courts still do require raising your left hand and right hand on the bible. Barbaric, I know.

I'm not a liar but if your asked to tell nothing but the truth so help you God your free to lie. Cause theres no God judging you. We all know right from wrong don't need a book or a fairy tell God telling us!!!

When I served on a jury, they asked the witnesses to swear to tell the truth, they said "I do" - Hopefully that's what it's like everywhere irl.

The swearing in should be swear or affirm.

Don’t attend.

I've been in this situation many times. I say to the judge, "thus is my affirmation that I'm telling the truth."

Say to yourself "is this the hill I really want to die on?" and tell the truth anyway because it's the right thing to do.

There is also no bible involved unless it is asked for.

The phrase -

"So help me g_d."

Is not spoken by the bailiff but by the witness if they so choose.

Well, that didn't work, so here it is pasted in the body of this message.

Randy

    The Achilles' Heel of EVERYTHING in the Universe

Yes, Dear Reader, there IS an Achilles' Heel to everything in the universe, and it has been sitting right out in the open all of this time, just waiting for us to see it. But few ever dared to even admit that it was there, let alone actually gaze upon it. It is the commission of a crime, whether intentional or not. Since no man or woman has any kind of a right to commit a crime of any amount, kind or nature against another, all that we need to do is expose the fact that such an action is being done, and it falls away from us. This is because no man or woman has an actual obligation to suffer under the crimes of another. If there is such an obligation, then it would be self negating, and not be a crime at all! It would just be the natural order of things for us to commit what are heinous acts upon others, and everyone would have no choice but to endure and suffer under those acts. But committing crimes upon others is NOT the natural order of life and the living of it, crimes are actions which harm others in some way, and some are far worse than others, but a crime of any magnitude is still a crime, and no matter how small some may think a certain crime is, no one has any duty to let it remain and hurt them to any degree. Crime is universally thought of as a bad thing, not a virtue to aspire to.
This concept of exposing crimes in order to deflect them away from us is not really new. But it was done in such meager amounts, that it was akin to not ever knowing about it at all. This idea has been acknowledged to exist in the legal system, but because the society at large has been dumbed down so much and not taught how to think logically and rationally, it just stayed in the background. Not really hidden in any shadows, per se, it was only that no one paid enough attention to see it, sort of like an animal that is camouflaged and blending in with the rest of the environment. Very few had a sharp enough eye to spot it!!
How do we expose crimes that are being committed against us by various actors both in and out of the legal system? We merely ask these actors if they are willing to go on an official record that they are NOT committing any amount or kind of crime against us! And then if they are shown to have been lying about it, that would then compound the seriousness of their other crimes! And once they have been exposed as a criminal, ALL of their pretended power and authority over us wanes, like the morning sun burning off a light fog. If there is some amount or type of crime that we are obligated to suffer under, where can we find the man or woman who decided such a thing, and where is its measure to make sure that we get only the prescribed amount in each case, no more and no less? Where are the records to be found which describe in detail what we need to know about that? Or is it that we are not supposed to know those things, because it would spoil the criminal activities of others?
When the road pirates of various uniforms and colors move in to commit crimes against us, who wields the power to stop them in their tracks? WE DO!! We have all of the power and authority we could ever need or want to have to stop them, and it comes from us being educated about their criminal nature and intents. Just because their paychecks depend upon them committing crimes against us, is no excuse to let them continue to do so! ALL of them need to be fired at once for malfeasance in office and sent to jails to pay for their crimes against humanity on a grand scale! The same goes for the other usurpers of the power of the People, such as lawyers, fake judges, court clerks, etc. There is no one other than ourselves who will slam the jail doors closed on these robbers and murderers, and we are not well organized enough yet to do such a thing, but what we can do, is this; educate others with this knowledge, and then just refuse to do any business with their criminal organizations until they all go bankrupt!! No one ever cried when a plague died out because it killed off too many of its hosts to spread any further, so too no one should lament the demise of the 100% corrupted legal system and its actors, as it has done the exact same thing! It has killed off too many of the hosts it needs to rob, cheat and steal from in order to survive. Its success was its own undoing!
When a sleazy member of the BAR tells a fake judge that if he makes a fair and honorable decision, as in the case of U.S. v. Robert C. Braun, "half of the prison doors in America will fly open", you know that we have passed the time for the legal system to be dismantled and thrown away a long time ago, and the actors and enablers of that system need to be made the new inmates for their crimes committed against humanity. If this is not a logical conclusion, then what is? That these criminals should just be allowed to roam free, ready to commit even more crimes against us? WE are the final arbiter of what is just and what is unjust, not some petty and vile man or woman in a black robe who is no better than thee or me, or anyone else when it comes to deciding the fate of those who were wronged in a totally corrupted scam we call the legal system. Who can say with a straight face that they have enough insight into the heart and mind of another to know what is just and what is not?
When these fake judges are paid by the State in which they operate their criminal enterprises and their wages come from the ones that they "find" guilty, how can they possibly be unbiased? Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice, and a fake judge taking a bribe in a case over which he or she is presiding does not give the appearance of justice! Isn't one third of a judgment going into a retirement account a bribe? If it is not, then what is it? Calling a theft of something an "unapproved taking" doesn't lessen the severity of the act. Calling a bribe a job reward does not make it any less of a bribe.
A VERY important aspect of the legal system, and one which can help us immensely in spreading this good news, is that a notice to a principal is notice to their agents, and a notice to the agents is a notice to their principals. If any man or woman acts in bad faith in the execution of the duties of their job, then they are guilty of a crime! And the way to remove any fake "good faith" argument that they may want to make, is to put them on Notice that their criminal activities are now known about and will not be tolerated! They already know, or at the least should know, that what they are doing is wrong, now we just need to put the icing on the cake and seal their fate!
None who sell various bogus papers and theories to others on how to beat the legal system with even more paperwork, can prove one word of the above wrong in any way. All that they do is tilt lances at windmills, make specious arguments, and enrich themselves off of the ignorance of those they sell their faulty wares to.

Yes, you can say that, or you can say that you're an honest man or woman and do not tell lies and that some god or other plays no part in the content of your character, if you really do want to participate in the charade going on.
You see, these little tin gods in black robes commit the crime of fraud every day that they show up for their "work", so they're really in no position to argue the point that they believe that you need to say "so help me god". They supposedly swore an oath of office, which they rarely, if ever, keep, so they have no moral high ground to preach to you from on that point.
Many years ago I figured out that the legal system is nothing but a huge scam and a fraud (and scams and frauds are crimes, BTW) so you have no obligation at all to be made a party to the crimes of others. Do you see this? Many years ago, I wrote a paper on it called The Scam of the Legal System, which you may still be able to find in various places around the internet. And I have written several similar papers both before and after that one. My latest is called The Achilles' Heel of EVERYTHING in the Universe. With the information in that one, there is no defense at all for the operators, actors or agents of the legal system/Matrix when they try to ensnare you in their cruel and heartless game of lies, deceits and trickery.
I will see if I can attach that paper using the Add Source feature, as I have never tried it out before.

    Randy

Just say you swear to tell the truth. In this county they don't make you swear on a bible, or mention god.

Good question.

I go to court with my clients every week. I see the swearing in every time. I always thought it was swearing to God. But... Now I understand that it is swearing or affirming. Swearing to God... or affirming to truth if not religious.