>>>>Is your point that swearing on the Bible would have been "more Muslim" than swearing on the Koran?
>>>
>>>Why don't they ever swear on the Constitution?
>>
>>Why do they swear at all?
>>
>>>How does allegiance to a religion make them somehow more trustworthy?
>>
>>How does swearing on anything make them somehow more trustworthy?
>
>There's the tradition. As we say, "a man is bound by his word, an ox by its horns". IOW, the very act of swearing is a public promise, for all to see. As long as that tradition bears some weight in the mind of the public, it makes sense as a means of pressure on the sworn. It's a kind of "we're watching you" message from the constituency, and a "I got the message" from the politician.

>It's a social thing.

Ah.


>My question was - why a book, and why a religious book at that?

It's a social thing.



>The ceremony is not a rite, not a true relation, nor expression of a relation, between an elected representative and the people. The act of oath, however, can have a deeper meaning


The oath is like saying "I promise not to take illegal bribes, steal from the people, commmit treason, or undermine national security and interests."

Oddly enough, there are laws against all these things anyways, whether you take an oath or not.

So the oath itself is nothing more than a bit of this society's tradition.



>- and then why does it have to be tied to any religion at all?

Tradition.


You should run for congress, if only to see what happens when you request to be sworn in with your hand on "The Origin of Species".