New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible(independent.co.uk)
independent.co.uk
New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible
https://www.independent.co.uk/space/nasa-director-carl-sagan-oath-b2317698.html
326 comments
Is there any actual strict requirement that you have to swear over a document of some kind?
I'd have thought swearing over the bible is a stand-in for swearing "before God", and that God would ultimately be your reckoner should you break your oath.
If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless it's something meaningful like the constitution of your country, as another poster has used as an example, or some other relevant document that is there as physical representation of something abstract?
If I, not being religious, were being sworn in as the head of NASA, I'd find it much more poignant to swear over the US constitution, or on nothing at all.
I'd have thought swearing over the bible is a stand-in for swearing "before God", and that God would ultimately be your reckoner should you break your oath.
If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless it's something meaningful like the constitution of your country, as another poster has used as an example, or some other relevant document that is there as physical representation of something abstract?
If I, not being religious, were being sworn in as the head of NASA, I'd find it much more poignant to swear over the US constitution, or on nothing at all.
This discussion is fascinating, anthropologically speaking. Some observations:
* Many commenters seem to be holding to this weird idea that if you don't believe God will smite you, you will not be able to behave responsibly, give your word in a trustworthy manner, etc. If there's not a supernatural enforcer then there are no consequences to lying/breaking your oath. Interestingly, it looks to me that even atheists are endorsing this false idea here!
* An understanding of symbolism and its nuances is also lacking. Perhaps this isn't a surprise, as Enlightenment thinking and literalist Protestant thought have largely erased cultural understanding of symbolism. Thus we have confusion in two ways: many folks swear on the Bible out of convention or lack of critical thought, rather than belief, but will rationalize if pressed, and then folks who are very thoughtful may choose the Bible (looking "normal") or something else (looking "different"). The document chosen, if there is a conscious choice made, symbolizes something about their approach to the ceremony and the position. It is not necessarily a magical choice. (A magical approach takes symbolism a step further and imbues the symbolic object with supernatural power. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a universal approach vis a vis the Bible. Remember that the Christian church and Christian faith and practice existed before the Bible was written, easy to forget in a "sola scriptura" cultural milieu!)
* Amusingly, some really Bible-believing folks will not swear, on a Bible or on anything else, due to Matthew 5:34-37. This intellectual consistency is lost of course when we reduce swearing on the Bible to either convention or magic.
Human rituals cannot be usefully be interpreted as legal acts or as declarations of intellectual belief in a set of propositions. They are symbols. The intellectual incoherency of commonly swearing on a book that says not to swear alone ought to tip you off. I sympathize, folks! I grew up quite literal-minded and so have had quite a struggle coming to terms with the Protestantism I grew up with. Learning the intellectual history of thought and religion and understanding the ways different cultures engage with the divine/supernatural/morality has been very helpful -- and some of that learning must be experiential. Taking part in physical rituals taps into a very different part of the human experience than reading philosophy.
* Many commenters seem to be holding to this weird idea that if you don't believe God will smite you, you will not be able to behave responsibly, give your word in a trustworthy manner, etc. If there's not a supernatural enforcer then there are no consequences to lying/breaking your oath. Interestingly, it looks to me that even atheists are endorsing this false idea here!
* An understanding of symbolism and its nuances is also lacking. Perhaps this isn't a surprise, as Enlightenment thinking and literalist Protestant thought have largely erased cultural understanding of symbolism. Thus we have confusion in two ways: many folks swear on the Bible out of convention or lack of critical thought, rather than belief, but will rationalize if pressed, and then folks who are very thoughtful may choose the Bible (looking "normal") or something else (looking "different"). The document chosen, if there is a conscious choice made, symbolizes something about their approach to the ceremony and the position. It is not necessarily a magical choice. (A magical approach takes symbolism a step further and imbues the symbolic object with supernatural power. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a universal approach vis a vis the Bible. Remember that the Christian church and Christian faith and practice existed before the Bible was written, easy to forget in a "sola scriptura" cultural milieu!)
* Amusingly, some really Bible-believing folks will not swear, on a Bible or on anything else, due to Matthew 5:34-37. This intellectual consistency is lost of course when we reduce swearing on the Bible to either convention or magic.
Human rituals cannot be usefully be interpreted as legal acts or as declarations of intellectual belief in a set of propositions. They are symbols. The intellectual incoherency of commonly swearing on a book that says not to swear alone ought to tip you off. I sympathize, folks! I grew up quite literal-minded and so have had quite a struggle coming to terms with the Protestantism I grew up with. Learning the intellectual history of thought and religion and understanding the ways different cultures engage with the divine/supernatural/morality has been very helpful -- and some of that learning must be experiential. Taking part in physical rituals taps into a very different part of the human experience than reading philosophy.
Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
(Matthew 5:33-37)
(Matthew 5:33-37)
Swearing an oath on a book in which the main protagonist counsels against swearing any oaths always seems a bit awkward.
I think the whole purpose of the ritual is shared solemnity. Laying aside Matthew 5:34-37, using the Bible fits in the context of Western civilization. Likewise, using nothing and merely affirming fits as well. But by its very nature bringing in any book or other item because it has "meaning" to you doesn't fit. It violates shared solemnity by the individualist nature of the act and opens the ritual to trivialization. What's next, someone's Teddy Bear?
IMHO having taken an oath on Carl Sagan’s name and book is more important and serious than swearing on any god/spirit/force/deity (from whatever religion).
I don’t think this is a big deal. Swearing in is pointless anyway…I can swear on a religious book and go do the opposite of what it says. The ultimate source of consequence is the constitution, laws, and regulations.
Maybe I’ll swear on the biography of Steve Jobs if I’m appointed.
Maybe I’ll swear on the biography of Steve Jobs if I’m appointed.
This title (and the original article title) makes it sound like she will lead NASA, but actually she's leading Goddard Spaceflight Center, one of the 19 NASA Centers. (NASA leader is called the Administrator, center leader is a Director.)
Awesome news though; I love it.
Awesome news though; I love it.
Good. Carl Sagan was a great man and a great inspiration source. Something that is forgotten somewhat today.
At this point, taking a livecamera werever you go, to be fully transparent, would be way more significant then an oath.
What’s interesting is that many theologians believe swearing to God in public this way actually breaks the third commandment. Interesting quirks of Protestant culture in America.
That whole "swearing in" is so dumb, in my opinion.
What is the point, other than ceremonial, I guess.
One can raise their right hand and swear on the bible or swear on "Pale Blue Dot" and still not do what they swore to do. And someone might not swear at all and keep faithful and do what he or she is supposed to do.
How does swearing in make a bit of difference? It's nuts. Just hire me and let me get on with the job.
What is the point, other than ceremonial, I guess.
One can raise their right hand and swear on the bible or swear on "Pale Blue Dot" and still not do what they swore to do. And someone might not swear at all and keep faithful and do what he or she is supposed to do.
How does swearing in make a bit of difference? It's nuts. Just hire me and let me get on with the job.
The whole point of swearing on a Bible is for people who actually respect and fear God as the ultimate judge at the end of their lives. Otherwise they should just swear, but not on a Bible.
More importantly, the New Testament portion of the Bible teaches not to swear at all, so the whole practice is misguided.
More importantly, the New Testament portion of the Bible teaches not to swear at all, so the whole practice is misguided.
What’s the point of this? Presumably the idea of swearing on the Bible is that the person being sworn in believes they are making a promise to God. Hopefully this person does not have that kind of fear of Carl Sagan.
Seems to be a positive signal, somebody willing to do his duty with both eyes open, instead of blinding himself and escaping into self-chosen irresponsibility.
[deleted]
I'd swear on A Canticle for Leibowitz.
Should be swearing to the us taxpayer.
Good. The bible is not the only source of mores and norms to swear on. And a turn towards science would be nice, especially in the increasingly alarmingly anti-science USA.
It's 2023 and people still believe that swearing on whatever book means anything... humans are so damn depressing.
did audio start playing for anybody else? I thought browsers outlawed that years ago?
Many religious books are shit. I think high school kids can write better stories tbh
The last thing humans will realize doesn't revolve around them is god.
It's high time. There's no place for superstition in science
my entire body cringed up when i read this headline
[[[Fedora Tipping Intensifies]]]
She should have done a tiktok dance holding a DVD copy of the Armageddon movie. That would really inspire young people
After all Harry died so we could live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Z9MV3nwjQ
After all Harry died so we could live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Z9MV3nwjQ
Swearing an oath makes no sense for non-religious people, it's just an empty gesture. You have to believe your God will hold you responsible for keeping the oath in order for it to be useful.
This caught my attention, wondering who got sworn in on a Dr. Suess book??
"A newly elected single mother of two wanted her kids to walk away from her swearing-in with an empowering message. So instead of placing her hand on a Bible to take her oath of office as councilwoman for St. Louis County, Kelli Dunaway chose “Oh, The Places You’ll Go!” by Dr. Seuss."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/21/why-count...