>>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.

And oddly enough, you can't get elected unless you can afford a legal team to get you out if you get caught.

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

Just like any other society's tradition. It's enforced as much as it's believed (or trusted :).

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

Ah, but that was what got me started on this. Why is a person who swears on a holy book of his religion more trusted in this tradition, that one who doesn't have such an allegiance to any particular confession?

>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".

I'm bad at running, based on the bit of a heart condition I had. Can I ride a bicycle?

And I'm not so good at biology... can we make it HGTTG? It's about as thick, if you put all five volumes together.