>>>>>>>>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_States
>>>
>>>I stand corrected by the Briton.
>>>
>>>In the past 100 years, it has never been done with anything but the Bible.
>>
>>Should have read the article
>>
>>Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One
>
>I would have thought since you posted those two, that they were the only ones. But since the Roman Catholic missal is based on Chritianity, I put that in the same category as the Bible.
>
>Anything else?

The other two where the only non religious ones.

Its is odd in a country which very keenly divides church and state to have the oath taken with your hand on a bible. I guess its because up till now all presidents have been Christians.