>>>>>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.
>>
>>It has never been done with anything but the Bible.
>
>
>Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901
>
>John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law.
>
>from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_StatesI stand corrected by the Briton.
In the past 100 years, it has never been done with anything but the Bible.