So there's this whole controversy over swearing on Bibles in court. One side says that oaths on the Bible violate the Separation of Church and State, or some such liberal propaganda. The other side says it's just symbolic, and it doesn't violate nothin'.
Now, I'm all for symbolism. I love symbolism. In fact, I look at the entire English language as a collection of symbols. I choose any words I want to mean any thing I want - at least, when I'm at school.
But anywho, the point is, this whole debate is silly. If the Bible is symbolic of anything, it's symbolic of a drug trip. What people should be swearing on is a dictionary.
No, an encyclopedia!
Hell, how about a whole set of encyclopedias? This way, the swearing-in would take up half the trial:
"…Uh, yes, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me A Thru Annoy…Garden Thru Gun…Sardine Thru Swell…oh, fuck it, I killed him."
Oh yes, much more effective than swearing on a Bible. With a Bible, there's no incentive not to lie; it's not like God's gonna smite you if you twist a few details. But with good 'ol Britannica, you can just whack the witness periodically. You know, instill some respect of truth in him.
…You know. Abuse.