>>>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.

The solemnity of the oath is held in front of what is most sacred to all. Can't be used on what most is sacred to the person only. IOW, to have some real meaning.. To swear on what is most sacred to the president can be acceptable, but is far away on the real meaning.

The constitution book almost represent that icon. But, by laws only.. a country looses a value of a human life and the value of stuffs beyond laws.. as moral values, etc..