Meanwhile, behind the barriers where the votes were being counted the word of the Lord was unpacked.

There were literally hundreds of bibles within easy reach of the army of election workers. There were big bibles, small bibles, pocket bibles and Gideon bibles.

There were hardback and paperback bibles. As a collection, it looked as if somebody rounded up all kinds of every bible for a job of work at the coalface of democracy.

What were so many copies of the greatest bestseller on earth doing amidst the stacks of ballot papers? The answer is policing the truth.

Every single polling station in the state is supplied with a bible on election day.

The Good News is placed in situ to ward off any edition of bad news walking into the station on the big day.

If a prospective voter has no identification, or is suspected of impersonation, he or she can be asked to affirm their identity. A false declaration thereof is a crime which could land the offender in the slammer with enough time to read the Word from cover to cover.

So far, so sensible. Except affirming identity is only offered if requested. Initially, the suspect is asked to swear on the holy book as to his or her identity. The theoretical scenario has a chancer attempting impersonation, but faced with the prospect of swearing false witness on the bible, and in turn condemning himself to the eternal fires of hell, he balks and scampers out of the place.

The bible thus comes to the rescue of democracy.

Why is the bible still used as a legal weapon? The power it once yielded over the God-fearing population is no more. Day in, day out, witnesses in court cases up and down the country take the book in their hand, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and proceed to lie as they see fit.

The man who is prepared to "vote early and vote often" is unlikely to have his criminal impulse reined in by a tome that includes the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. He would probably tell himself that the parable reinforces his own propensity to multiply his franchise.

Whether in courtrooms . . . and tribunals in particular . . . or polling stations, the practice of swearing on the bible arguably cheapens and insults what is effectively a moral compass for a large chunk of practising Christians.

Around half the adult population in this country still attends mass. Evangelical Christianity, which is growing in popularity, places even greater emphasis on the bible. Yet on a daily basis, this central tenet of their lives is used in the legal process as little more than a ritualistic prop.

Anybody who attends courts or tribunals on a regular basis will tell you that lies are issued with impunity, although proving them as such to a criminal standard remains extremely difficult.

Observance of the law is generally not regarded as a moral imperative. There are still people who will endure difficulty for themselves by telling the truth even when a lie would be easier, but generally they tend to be in a minority. Either way, whether people decide to tell the truth or lie in a legal context has little to do with swearing on the bible these days.

Why not make affirmation the norm? Then, if somebody wants to reinforce their testimony by swearing, present it as an option. There is no valid reason to continue presenting the bible to a witness or a voter to swear as if that practice has a greater significance.

Back off. Keeping law and order is a grubby business.

Leave the spiritual dimension out of it. In a world where a judge is still often referred to as a lord, maybe it's high time to give God a break. And next time out, remember to do your duty.

Vote early and vote often.