>>Actually, they don't have to swear on anything. The Bible used is just window dressing. They're promising on their own sacred honor.
>
>Window dressing? Then the Torah must be a doormat.
As I understand it, Tamar was looking at the situation form the point of view of the politicians who do the oath, or who take the oath. The idea being that the oath itself is the important part; the fact that it is done with a Bible would be secondary.
1. That is for the politicians involved; Christians may disagree.
2. I am not sure whether this is actually so or not; I am just trying to paraphrase the point made by some participants of this thread, hoping that I understood this point of view correctly.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
