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

by BerislavLopac • 3 years ago

423 324 3 years ago

independent.co.uk

bitcharmer• 3 years ago

It's high time. There's no place for superstition in science

Tepix• 3 years ago

As Sagan put it: "Science as a Candle in the Dark"

mrwnmonm2• 3 years ago

"There's no place for superstition in science"

The universe is eternal xD

ChatGTP• 3 years ago

And some want to create God through AI and believe we will achieve eternal life soon afterwards xD

We really have no idea…

WeylandYutani2• 3 years ago

How did that quote go?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

When I was a child the creation myth from the Bible reminded me of aliens.

hajile8• 3 years ago

Let's kick the can down the road of "who created the aliens?" and simply consider the alternatives for "who created us?"

On the one hand, you have ALL major religions agree that powerful beings who came to earth (or created Earth) and populated it with humans.

On the other hand, you have the "scientific" alternative. This is where you have several different asteroids all exactly the right size to have proto-atmospheres. Each atmosphere is different because the fundamental building blocks of life can't all form in the same atmosphere. They all develop their specific part of the equation. Now, they all happen to crash together in the exact same place at the exact same time. Their material is thrown together onto yet another asteroid with a different atmosphere sufficient to sustain life. Those materials happen to collide just right so they form a primitive lifeform. Finally, this meteor happens to crash on Earth (instead of any other planet) without generating enough heat or impact force to destroy the fledgling lifeforms and it happens to land on a part of Earth where the lifeforms won't be killed off by the surroundings.

What are the odds all those asteroids form? That every one has different atmospheres? That the all hit the exact location at the same time? That the constituent parts aren't destroyed in this crash? That the parts randomly come together to form life? that this happens close to a solar system? That the solar system has the right star and planets to support that life? That the life isn't destroyed?

Now put that up against a powerful alien (which could have formed under different universal rules without such astronomical odds) implanting life on a planet?

Grustaf13• 3 years ago

Placing your hand on a book and uttering words is the essence of being “superstitious”, at least if you aren’t religious.

tigerlily• 3 years ago

In fairness, the act of it could equally be held superstitious even if one is religious.

kube-system3• 3 years ago

Rituals can have a social purpose beyond superstition: e.g. signaling.

neom• 3 years ago

"While many officeholders across the country have placed their hands on books by Dr Suess, the US Constitution, copies of the Quran or other documents, this seems to be the first time someone was sworn in on a book by Sagan."

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...

KyeRussell• 3 years ago

A solid choice!

weinzierl• 3 years ago

If I can swear on any document I'd prefer an issue of MAD magazine. That would do more justice to the absurdity of the matter.

vidanay• 3 years ago

RIP Al Jaffee

https://apnews.com/article/al-jafee-mad-magazine-cartoonist-...

908B64B197• 3 years ago

To me this is one of the greatest things about this country: it's foundation was granted to the people by the people, not some foreign, non-elected embodiment of a divine authority.

That someone could just as much be sworn in with a Quran, a Dr. Suess book or the US Constitution itself is just something exceptionally American and profoundly inspiring. E Pluribus Unum.

throw7• 3 years ago

I think the declaration of independence was the spirit and the constitution was the implementation. Some nuance must be paid here to the divine.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I think the free exercise clause is the greatest and most important freedom we have.

1659447091• 3 years ago

Here is an article about a recent US Congressman using a Superman Comic to be sworn in (along with the US Constitution)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64167015

Incoming US congressman Robert Garcia will be sworn in using the US Constitution - and a Superman comic.
Although using the Superman comic may be a bit unorthodox when taking the oath of office, technically it's not illegal, per Article VI of the US Constitution. The Article states, in part, that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

mixmastamyk• 3 years ago

It’s spelled “Seuss”, and originally intended to be pronounced “soiss” as it would in German.

NKosmatos• 3 years ago

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).

compmanager1234• 3 years ago

It all boils down to the person. Some are honest and keep their promises by default. Some make missteps every now and then, but remain truthful if they really try. And some are just broken beyond repair.

I'm Christian and for me, taking an oath on the Bible is the biggest binding I can imagine. I hope Lystrup made her choice as that book is close to her heart and provides her great support to stay true to her oath. I would be disappoined if this were just a marketing move as that would further erode the value of oaths, honesty and ultimately honor.

nonethewiser11• 3 years ago

Well the oath has always been symbolic and the binding agreement has always just been legal. The symbology of swearing on the Bible seems obvious. You’re making a commitment to God.

That means nothing to some people. In which case I’d argue an oath means strictly less than if you have some higher power you feel accountable to. I don’t think anyone thinks - least of all Carl Sagan - that Carl Sagan can hold themselves accountable for broken promises.

In this case it’s being used as a demonstration of values which people don’t necessarily see as having any eternal or cosmic weight. Do they believe the nature of not following these values begets some sort of divine justice? The very fact that they are choosing them seems to imply no - others may choose different values and not fulfill those ones. Do they think such oaths should be rejected?

bender00• 3 years ago

I agree with you that it all boils down to the person, but only for the swearing on the Bible version. Swearing on Pale Blue Dot is meaningless, that is, she won't lose sleep thinking how she let down Carl Sagan lol.

nonethewiser11• 3 years ago

Sagan didn’t think we should deify science. I think it’s just mockery.

gettodachoppa• 3 years ago

Agreed. I felt truly euphoric the moment I read this headline. I immediately called to my wife and my wife's son to show them this wonderful news.

qikInNdOutReply4• 3 years ago

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.

callahad2• 3 years ago

Well, it would be uniquely challenging for the director to do his duty or to blind himself, being that she's a woman. And, as mentioned in the article's subtitle and second sentence, the first woman to direct the Goddard Space Flight Center since its founding in 1959.

qikInNdOutReply4• 3 years ago

? What has gender to with anything in this regard? I grew up in a cult, the fiercest and deepest believers were all woman, often pushing some married hapeless guy around as a "dog on a leash" to bite and bark for them..

nonethewiser11• 3 years ago

Is the point of swearing to a document to signal your values? Isn’t it to make a promise to a higher power? If it’s not to make a promise to a higher power, and I’m not necessarily arguing this should be required, then there isn’t really a point.

arethuza• 3 years ago

I rather like the idea of what the Vikings sometimes did:

"The oath-swearing practice varied significantly, sometimes involving ritualised drinking or placing hands on a holy pig (referred to as a sónargöltr) that could later be sacrificed"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heitstrenging

s1mplicissimus• 3 years ago

i would argue that the (almost exclusive) point of swearing something publicly is to signal your values. otherwise why not just swear it to yourself?

peterfirefly• 3 years ago

Dale Myers did ok with one eye.

gigatexal• 3 years ago

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.

Grustaf13• 3 years ago

Science is not a source of mores, it’s about observing facts.

dspillett2• 3 years ago

To the true believer a religious text is considered as factual as any scientific work, so that isn't really as much of a differentiating factor when you think about it from their PoV.

esskay• 3 years ago

Swearing on a Sagan book is arguably better. It's based on fact, not an unverifiable and highly unlikely fairytail.

timbit423• 3 years ago

* fairytale

Fairies don't have tails.

tescocles2• 3 years ago

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.

highwaylights• 3 years ago

To follow your argument here, perhaps the person in question believes the Pale Blue Dot to be more meaningful than a legal document. I certainly do - it’s a wonderful book that absolutely captures Carl Sagan’s sense of wonder for the universe, which to me seems like exactly what you should want from a NASA director.

Most importantly, it also sends a strong message to the staff within NASA about how the new director views them and their work given how political appointments have become.

nonethewiser11• 3 years ago

But what does meaning have to do with it? Your marriage certificate and car title have meaning. But if the people being sworn in don’t view their documents as having some authority over their promise then what is the point? It’s equivalent to no document in that regard.

It really doesnt make much sense unless you’re using a Bible, Quran, etc.

Edit: Here is the crux:

God holds you accountable, or at least is believed to do so, by nature. Is the nature of the values symbolized in Dr. Seuss or Sagans book similar? Do those promising on them expect divine justice from the principles of science or fun word play with kids?

tescocles2• 3 years ago

I mean, yes, it is a very impactful book; I enjoyed it very much.

What I'm meaning, though, is that if you were to go against your duty as the head of NASA, Carl Sagan isn't going to rise from the grave and smite you for your transgression. Whereas I believe that is exactly the point of swearing over a bible.

I'm not meaning to say it's meaningless to swear over an important book (or that it doesn't make some kind of point), rather that an important element of what it means to swear over a religious text is lost. The whole point of rationalism is that the universe isn't sentient and won't and cannot judge your actions.

An oath is a promise to someone that you will act for the greater good, and you do so with your hand over a representation of who will witness and judge you for that.

I don't really know if I'm trying to say anything in particular. It's just some thoughts I had when reading.

skissane3• 3 years ago

Traditionally there is a distinction between an oath and an affirmation

Swearing an oath was a religious ritual – a solemn promise made invoking the name of the deity, with the implication that any violation of the promise would be risking divine judgement, quite apart from whatever earthly consequences might follow (e.g. criminal prosecution for perjury)

Then along came the Quakers, who objected to oaths on religious grounds. Their objection was not the invocation of God as such – rather, they believed that God wanted them to tell the truth at all times, so making a special promise to God to tell the truth on a particular occasion was wrong, because it implied it was okay to not tell the truth on other occasions.

This caused a lot of problems in 17th century England – Quakers would refuse to swear oaths before courts as a matter of principle, and that refusal was a crime. In response, in 1695, the English Parliament enacted the Quakers Act, which allowed Quakers to make an affirmation instead – a solemn declaration that they were telling the truth on this occasion, but without making any special promise to the deity in doing so. And while the right to make an affirmation rather than swear an oath was initially limited only to Quakers, over time it became extended to apply to anyone who had an objection to swearing an oath, for whatever reason – and that legal provision for making an affirmation instead of swearing an oath was inherited by most of the English-speaking world.

But nowadays, many people appear ignorant of the oath-versus-affirmation distinction, and start talking about "non-religious oaths", which historically speaking doesn't make a lot of sense – swearing an oath was always seen as a religious act, and people who object to that religious act (whether for religious reasons or non-religious reasons) should really be making an affirmation instead – something most English-speaking legal systems let people do.

I don't know if she actually did swear an oath though. Possibly, she made an affirmation rather than an oath, but the journalist is calling it an "oath" because they don't know the difference (or assume their readers don't)

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.

Confusing headline, she isn't head of NASA, just one of NASA's centres. Some federal agencies have a head called "Director" (e.g. the FBI); but for NASA, the head is called the "Administrator", and "Director" is a more junior position.

seanhunter5• 3 years ago

This oath vs affirmation distinction is made clear in the UK for sure. For example when I became a British citizen I was given the option of swearing allegiance to the queen or making a "solemn affirmation" of the same. The only difference being a slight difference of wording. Weirdly I still remember the wording even though it was more than 30 years ago and I only heard it once just before I said it.

   > I, Sean Hunter, do hereby swear by Almighty God/solemnly affirm that I wil bear faithful and true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the second, her heirs and successors according to the law.

quitit• 3 years ago

This article by the New Yorker gets to the meat of your question within the first few paragraphs: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-brief-history-...

Since swearing in on a document has no official requirement, the idea is to telegraph your values.

seanhunter5• 3 years ago

Yes.

Fun fact about swearing on things: There is a widely-held but probably untrue belief that the origin of the words "testify", "testimony" etc was that in ancient Rome you swore an oath with one hand on your testicles, I guess the implication being "If I don't tell the truth you can cut these off". Women weren't allowed to give legal testimony so the fact they wouldn't be able to do this isn't a drawback to this theory. This is probably a myth because there's no written evidence of this particular form of oath being taken in Rome and the word for "witness" is "testis". "Testicle" actually derives from the diminutive of this word (rather than the other way around).[1]

The origin of this myth seems to be a biblical passage in which such an oath was taken.

[1] https://worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-swe1.htm

giantg2• 3 years ago

Another point to this is that if you're not religious you no longer have to swear. You can affirm instead.

inglor_cz• 3 years ago

Oaths tend to be sworn to people with a deity as a guarantor and with the understanding that the invoked deity will punish you accordingly if you break your oath.

Without the "deity as a guarantor" element, the oath becomes a bit weird. The substitution of, say, the US government for the deity would probably work in the narrow sense (the government will, after all, probably retribute painfully if you break your oath - at least for oaths that matter to them), but then again the religious dimension becomes awkward, because public servants are mere mortals like you.

Bret Devereaux has a useful blog article on this topic:

https://acoup.blog/2019/06/28/collections-oaths-how-do-they-...

As with many other rituals inherited from a distant past, there is a discrepancy between what we do and what we believe. In the times when oaths were first introduced, open atheism would be extremely rare. Nowadays, it isn't, so the original construction starts to come apart at the seams.

azernik• 3 years ago

Though there is, as I commented there, in which the "on penalty of perjury" construction very closely mirrors the original religious structure, with punishment by the state taking the place of punishment by God or the gods. Interestingly, lots of states require the "on penalty of perjury" only in cases where a religious oath is not being made.

mindslight• 3 years ago

It only "comes apart at the seams" for people that believe there is some ambient authority, which then becomes less powerful or disinterested due to not being involved with the oath.

The secular view is that the person swearing is pointing to a symbol and promising to uphold the values it represents, regardless of whether that symbol represents a traditional organized religion or not.

noirscape• 3 years ago

The ultimate usefulness of swearing before a God (if you believe in one) isn't that relevant. The psychological reason we tend to request it is because of something far simpler: it reminds us of our convictions. There was a study about a decade ago about this by some social scientists.

They made 10 people swear on the ten commandments before making a test intended to check for their honesty, they made another group of people take the same test while taking an oath on a general document stating they'd be truthful, and finally they did the same test with a control group who wasn't asked to swear on anything.

All participants were checked to be atheists (so not caring much for the words of any God) beforehand as well.

The outcome was that generally speaking, just being asked to swear on something tended to remind people of their own convictions, which in turn tended to result in them answering the subsequent test questions more honestly.

That's all swearing over a document really does - it reminds someone of their morals (usually with the intent of guilt tripping them into not lying afterwards). I don't know about any other social reasons why we do it, but that's the psychological effect it has. (This is presumably why you can do it on any document that you have a sufficient conviction of being important to you as well.)

rbanffy5• 3 years ago

When I graduated as an Engineer, I swore an oath. I still remember one value that gets tested from time to time is to remember my work is for the betterment of the human condition, not only the perfection of machines. This has guided me through some difficult choices.

MarkPNeyer4• 3 years ago

I can believe that being reminded of your convictions helps you abide by them, but this is only true if you really have convictions! If you think your being in power is more important than being honest, for example, then the oath your swear might just be one more example of saying the right thing to get into power.

Wowfunhappy• 3 years ago

As an atheist, I think it would be interesting to see the experiment repeated with a group of (self-described) religious people.

mensetmanusman2• 3 years ago

Sounds like a study that wouldn’t replicate.

masfuerte• 3 years ago

I think there's another reason. It's a public line in the sand. If you're a doctor or a chartered engineer and management is pushing you to do something unethical you can point to the oath and say we don't do that. Other people will take it more seriously than an ethical stance that appears to be a mere personal preference. It's not just about the oath taker.

hajile8• 3 years ago

That's a huge conclusion about personalities from a selection of just 30 people.

What happens when you start crossing religious, educational, economic, and cultural boundaries? There's absolutely no way to cover those things with fewer than a few thousand people.

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

Is it really being reminded, or is it the public declaration of the oath and your acceptance of it that makes it effective?

It's much like reciting wedding vows. You are making a very public promise, with a real threat of social ostracization if you break it.

xupybd• 3 years ago

As someone who does believe in God, it seems odd to get someone to swear on a book that tells you not to swear an oath at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_5#Verse_12

seabass-labrax• 3 years ago

Matthew 5:37 records that Jesus said something similar during his 'Sermon on the Mount' (which predates the Epistle of James): "All you need to say is simply “Yes,” or “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

I also read a 20th century book which made the interpretation that "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" of the Ten Commandments is an instruction not to swear oaths on the Bible, since everyone is fallible and so can't guarantee them anyway. I can't remember off-hand which book it was though.

angelbar2• 3 years ago

mmm... has I remember you can... only not in vain...

shadowgovt• 3 years ago

I suppose this obligates Ann Druyan to hunt her down should she violate her trust.

pclmulqdq2• 3 years ago

It doesn't have to be a document, but I think it does need to be a thing. For example, most courthouses have an eagle feather you can swear oaths on if you want (several native American tribes do this).

I think you can also "affirm" instead of "swearing an oath," and that avoids any need for an object.

JohnFen3• 3 years ago

Why does there need to be a thing?

throwboatyface• 3 years ago

You don't even have to swear at all, the Constitution allows officials to swear or affirm. This is because some religious groups at the time of the drafting of the constitution were morally opposed to swearing oaths: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_(law)

ren_engineer• 3 years ago

If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless?

the point is a childish rebellion against traditions the nation was founded on as a social signal to their in-group for validation. Might as well tip a fedora while giving the oath

Robotbeat• 3 years ago

But I find it very Protestant and American, in a way, to challenge conventional rituals done for ritual sake regardless of belief.

As a protestant myself, give me an atheist pledging the oath over something they believe in (not in a religious sense here, but a personal philosophy sense) over an atheist making a mockery of religion by pledging the oath over something they don't believe in (and may detest).

klodolph10• 3 years ago

Please try to keep the discussion civil. That comment is not civil.

People naturally have different interpretations of the ceremony where you swear an oath. Some people believe that the ceremony is symbolic—there is no actual entity whose wrath they are invoking if they break the oath. It is natural to want to make the ceremony conform somewhat to your actual, personal beliefs, rather than participating inauthentically. That’s all that’s needed here to understand the decision.

roywiggins• 3 years ago

Thomas Jefferson literally sliced up a bible to produce a version of the Jesus narrative without all the miracles! The founders were busily questioning their own traditions at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible?wprov=sfla1

Theodore Roosevelt was sworn in without a Bible:

https://guides.loc.gov/presidential-inaugurations/1897-1925#...

jackothy2• 3 years ago

Religion can be rebelled against for reasons that are not childish.

Also, I'm sure there are even many Christians that would specifically not want you to swear on a Bible if you are not a believer, because that would be dishonest.

tekla• 3 years ago

traditions the nation was founded on

Remind me which of those they were, considering much of the founding fathers directly based much of the nation on the French system of government and after Enlightenment ideals, which famously rejected the role of God in Government

consp• 3 years ago

If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless?

Which is why it's not done in lots of places. Here it's only a sentence which is either translated "So help me God almighty" or "That I declare and promise" (pinky swear basically)

The legal meaning is that you can be held accountable to the preceding promise. Apparently God is only there to help you since you are unable to do it yourself but has no game in the promise.

Tams80• 3 years ago

Or, you know, it's just all symbolism.

The point is that what you swear is important to you and something you wouldn't want to let down.

I'm not sure why you are so upset about this.

krys1010• 3 years ago

Should be swearing to the us taxpayer.

commitpizza• 3 years ago

Good. Carl Sagan was a great man and a great inspiration source. Something that is forgotten somewhat today.

Eumenes• 3 years ago

my entire body cringed up when i read this headline

boredhedgehog• 3 years ago

Swearing an oath on a book in which the main protagonist counsels against swearing any oaths always seems a bit awkward.

gaius_baltar• 3 years ago

Swearing an oath on a book in which the main protagonist counsels against swearing any oaths always seems a bit awkward.

Or a pretty good message if you are legally required to swear on a book.

bxcyt• 3 years ago

Sagan believed that announcing our existence to aliens is a great idea, which is kind of a religion that is not grounded in reality.

I wonder what this director will come up with.

Grustaf13• 3 years ago

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.

witx• 3 years ago

The point is simply not adhering to religious bs if you don't believe in it.

carlosjobim• 3 years ago

Then don't swear an oath if you think it's bs. Mocking the ceremony just shows she's an unserious person and not fit for the responsibility.

dspillett2• 3 years ago

Perhaps, given the subject matter of the book, he is making a promise to the people and our future. A much better sentiment than promising to a deity he may not believe in, and essentially what is assumed (I assume) to be happening when a non-Christian (or non-practising Christian) swears on the bible simply because that is required procedure.

sourcecodeplz• 3 years ago

I don't get it. The point on swearing on the bible is that God (karma, the universe, a higher power) will judge/punish you if you act evil.

This is just silly / virtue signaling.

yetihehe5• 3 years ago

For many people today swearing on the bible is just as silly as swearing on any scripture of a dead or newly invented religion is to you. Would swearing on a spaghetti monster be acceptable to you?

varjag• 3 years ago

The whole swear in procedure is silly and is literal virtue signaling. Should the official be swearing in on the Bible anyway if they don't believe it?

dncornholio• 3 years ago

The point on swearing on the bible is that God (karma, the universe, a higher power) will judge/punish you if you act evil.

Many would say, this is silly too. If people need this 'ode' to not do evil, I think something is wrong with them.

DoingIsLearning• 3 years ago

What is silly is that laicism is still not a thing in US government in 2023.

Your founding fathers actually wanted a government without religion. Nobody is telling you to not hold your beliefs, just don't impose them on others.

The point on swearing on the bible is that God (karma, the universe, a higher power) will judge/punish you if you act evil

Humans can swear and have morals and ethics without fear of punishment.

leeroyjenkins11• 3 years ago

No, they wanted a federal government without a state religion. Like the church of England. The founders saw it necessary that people have a religious based moral system. The same system and values that they based the government on.

The premise all men are created equal relies on religion to be true. Inalienable rights is a judao Christian idea. Try arriving there with reason. Otherwise the will to power is exploitation of man by man.

The French revolution was based on reason and had a Reign of Terror with a bloody guillotine.

kube-system3• 3 years ago

Your founding fathers actually wanted a government without religion.

They wanted a government where the government did not interfere with the religious beliefs of people.

bunnie• 3 years ago

But if you don't happen to believe in God then swearing on a book of (from the oath takers perspective) fairy tails is equivalently silly / virtue signaling.

I think it's better if someone calls out that they don't believe in the thing they are swearing on and substitutes it with something they do believe in? otherwise one is making a promise on top of a lie that they also believe in the contents of that book, so the whole stack is forfeit.

Or am I missing something?

prawn2• 3 years ago

Isn't their choice a personal gesture? It could be that something in the book spoke to them and their using the book in this way means they will endeavour to hold to that message from the book.

pohl• 3 years ago

Swearing on a bible is the ur signal of virtue

ammojamo• 3 years ago

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)

echelon2• 3 years ago

My brain literally locks up when I read King James-style English.

I wonder if AI can discover patterns in language or other signal domains that totally disrupt the modern brain and cause humans to crash.

Biblical passages nearly do that to me, so I think that they must exist.

shaftoe4443• 3 years ago

That's not King James that's a more modern translation.

KJV:

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

ogurechny• 3 years ago

You've mentioned “concepts, analogies, and metaphors of that era are now of no relevance to the common happenings of the present day” before you edited your comment. I think it is the grave error that results in the rest of your conclusions about “malfunctioning brains” (which is one of the hopelessly obsolete “concepts, analogies, and metaphors” still so common in the present day).

It totally possible to post the same quote as some kind of proto-Anarchist slogan. “Never let any earthly power control what you should do”, and so on. Whoosh, and Bible becomes hip. Of course, it would be incorrect, but who cares?

The paradox is that most actual is most often most transitory, and most ignored and overlooked is most often the most solid. “Philosophy is untimely”, etc.

timbit423• 3 years ago

The English in today's King James Bibles isn't even King James' English. It was originally written in King James' English in 1611 but was updated in 1769: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Standard_te...

From Wikipedia: "The 1611 and 1769 texts of the first three verses from I Corinthians 13 are given below.

    [1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

    [1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

The ESV (English Standard Version) is considered the modern equivalent.

    [2016] 1. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

pedrogpimenta2• 3 years ago

So, is the Bible saying you shouldn't swear oath on a Bible?

seanhunter5• 3 years ago

That passage says you shouldn't take an oath at all, and then gives specific examples. It doesn't say "on a Bible" because the Bible was not compiled until later.

jbaber• 3 years ago

This is why I'm perpetually confused by the official swearing of oaths by practicing Christians. There aren't a lot of new rules in the New Testament, but this is one of them.

Am I misinterpreting the passage?

boeingUH602• 3 years ago

No Christian can obey all the statutes of the Bible, or else they'll have to withdraw from modern life. The book is contradictory anyways...another part says obey the laws and regulations of the land. So, if the law says you must swear in, what then?

Was raised Christian (no longer one) and even attended a Christian college where we took an oath to be diligent, hard-working students...somebody better not check my transcript because I did the exact opposite.

scotty792• 3 years ago

Christianity is infinitely moldable to what people in power want it to be. Every rule can be ignored, every rule can be created.

That's how it's spread all over the globe at rapid pace.

hereme8883• 3 years ago

Christian here. You are not misinterpreting. You are correct. In all religions unfortunately people develop traditions and beliefs that are even contrary to the text, and leaders are not good at correcting it.

Swearing by the Bible is a contradiction. But swearing by the Old Testament alone is not a contradiction.

rainworld• 3 years ago

Guess what, this conundrum did come up in 2000 years of Catholic teaching:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-are-oaths-allowed

lelandfe• 3 years ago

This is like, “well, there are other passages that conflict with that, so maybe just do it when it’s appropriate”

courseofaction2• 3 years ago

https://www.openbible.info/topics/thou_shalt_not_kill

It is utterly forbidden to kill in the bible.

200 years after Christ, the Roman army was "Christian".

Hmm.

hereme8883• 3 years ago

That's not true. What is forbidden is murder.

hajile8• 3 years ago

Hebrew has two words for killing. One implies a guilty mind and the other does not. Ask a Hebrew scholar and they'll tell you that the word used for "murder" doesn't include things like military service or capital punishment. And of course, any other interpretation would be at odds with what actually happens in the rest of the Bible.

realjhol• 3 years ago

[[[Fedora Tipping Intensifies]]]

guilhas• 3 years ago

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

pedrogpimenta2• 3 years ago

Hey, everyone! I found the grumpy old guy!

afroboy• 3 years ago

So a new religion has begun and Carl Sagan is the new prophet, anyone who goes against it well be burned alive.

tiborsaas• 3 years ago

Sounds cool, assuming we mean space religion. Most likely that means if you go against Sagan it means you are anti-science and getting your science wrong will get you burnt up in the atmosphere.

public_defender• 3 years ago

I'll be first in line for an old fashioned reentry fire and Venusian brimstone pulpit pounder of a sermon.

boeingUH602• 3 years ago

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.

heresie-dabord• 3 years ago

Maybe I’ll swear on the biography of Steve Jobs if I’m appointed.

This is a good test of the meaning of making a solemn promise of service.

My reaction to a pledge invoking the career and achievements of Steve Jobs might be to keep my investment in the operation while seeking employment elsewhere. But if you were to make your pledge of service while invoking Ayn Rand, I might not keep my investment in the operation either. ^_^

Technotroll5• 3 years ago

The ultimate source of consequence is your own conscience, though sadly some people don't have one. But some people who otherwise lack a conscience might still be fearful of God, and so that's why the Bible was seen as a great document to make people swear upon, once upon a time.

Though, while the fear of punishment might trump your inclination to do evil, it does not really make you a fundamentally better person. So, while this old ritual might soothe someone's need to feel trust in the person sworn in, it's really not such a great guarantee.

The ritual does several things:

- It's an attempt at manipulating the person being sworn in to uphold his oath, whether he's actually good or not, or whether he's planning on upholding his oaths or not

- It's a way to soothe the population's trust in the person, again a form of manipulation

- It's a way for higher officials too soothe their own trust in the person, and perhaps it thus serves as a form of self-delusion

- It's a nice ceremony to make people come together to witness some institution of power, though, and as such it is indeed a nice and good tradition, which I think is worthwhile to uphold in one way or another

While I have conflicting thoughts about how people are sworn in today, I can understand that the Bible does not hold as much power over most modern human beings as it used to, and especially those who simply aren't Christian at all. So, what should they swear upon? I, for one, would rather make it a book on moral philosophy that you can stand by, which you have read, and that you agree with.

With that said, I think if you really meditate on the moral philosophy of Jesus, then I'm sure that even if you're an atheist, you'll still come to the conclusion that it's not so bad after all. He was of course a complicated human being, but I think his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself), and his ideas about how all people are created equal (see the rituals surrounding Maundy Thursday where he washed the feet of his disciples and told them that they should do the same to their underlings as a symbol for how everyone are created equal), as universally good principles that you don't strictly need to be religious to get behind.

Jedd6• 3 years ago

... his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself),

Would you clarify the fundamental phrasing please?

The Golden Rule existed long before the Jesus mythology was created - I gather Buddha and Confucius (ostensibly original attribution lands to him) were describing this fairly self-evident social policy several centuries BCE.

greenhearth• 3 years ago

Swearing is not pointless, but serves a ritualistic role. It has been used as a psychological mechanism that shaped societies and history. And it still does so, as evident in this article. Swearing an oath is a contractual ritual and is the basis for all lawgiving in the English language. It was used as a binding contract between kings and their subjects (you can look up the Salisbury Oath for just the tip of the iceberg on this topic.)

lukego3• 3 years ago

I have always held Carl Sagan in high esteem without actually having read his books.

I was taken aback to watch some Cosmos with my kids last week though, the Neil deGrasse Tyson edition. It came across as overt quasi-religious indoctrination to me. Makes me wonder if science has become a religion in the US.

Tear down the Catholic church, build up the universe as a new drop-in replacement God with infallible science as his doctrine, anoint and celebrate faith-driven martyrs to the cause from history. Yikes. Sounds straight out of The Book of Mormon to me.

(Admittedly it was less extreme than the Bill Nye special on Netflix that I tried to watch with them the year before.)

areoform2• 3 years ago

I have always held Carl Sagan in high esteem without actually having read his books.

Here's a tiny excerpt from Pale Blue Dot. This excerpt elevates the book to high art,

    Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
    
    The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.
    
    Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
   
    The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
    
    It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.
    
    — Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994

There is nothing more humbling than to stand on the surface of the moon and blot out the Earth with your thumb. Just another world in the vast cosmos. You cannot study what Dr Sagan did without finding the true humility of the cosmic perspective.

We're starstuff on a tiny speck dreaming self-important dreams and — occasionally — pondering the stars.

lukego3• 3 years ago

Lovely. That's the kind of sentiment I was hoping to inspire in the kids.

That's not what I found in _Cosmos_ though. The tale of Giordano Bruno seemed more like a celebration of blind faith and trust in posthumous vindication and martyrdom. And an Indiana Jones style switcheroo from Catholicism to Sciencism in one swift motion. Jarring.

felipeerias2• 3 years ago

That’s a brilliant passage but I can help thinking that he is essentially describing a religious experience.

The transition from awe at the scale of the universe, to the futility of human selfishness, to the need to treat people kindly, may seem obvious to us but is actually a culturally-dependent response.

This is not a criticism, just an acknowledgment that Sagan belonged to a particular culture and this influenced him far more that he himself would probably have admitted.

Cultures are funny like that: give it a couple millennia and a theological point could eventually become just plain old common sense.

timbit423• 3 years ago

Spoken by Carl Sagan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO5FwsblpT8

qikInNdOutReply4• 3 years ago

At this point, taking a livecamera werever you go, to be fully transparent, would be way more significant then an oath.

mensetmanusman2• 3 years ago

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.

Jedd6• 3 years ago

What’s interesting is that many theologians believe swearing to God in public this way actually breaks the third commandment.

I'm curious how that may break "Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you." ?

baryphonic• 3 years ago

The third commandment of the Ten Commandments.

The trouble is, there are two possibilities for this commandment: do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, or remember the sabbath day by keeping it holy. Pretty clear which is meant here, but the numbering of the Ten Commandments is controversial.

foobarbecue• 3 years ago

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.

q2w1• 3 years ago

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.

kube-system3• 3 years ago

There are other motivating reasons why someone might follow a set of rules other than accountability to a religious god.

unixgoddess2• 3 years ago

It's 2023 and people still believe that swearing on whatever book means anything... humans are so damn depressing.

wffurr• 3 years ago

Rituals can still have meaning even in 2023.

unixgoddess2• 3 years ago

perhaps we should rather focus on meaningful actions, rather than empty showbusiness...

kaitai• 3 years ago

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.

leroy-is-here5• 3 years ago

Humans are just the total sum of their actions. Actions beget being and so rituals beget a practiced being. Humans practice rituals every day without even thinking about it. Ever sat in your chair and immediately wanted a cold one?

arvidkahl• 3 years ago

What you describe sounds more like a habit to me. But even if it were a ritual —something (re-)enacted to imbue meaning to a moment— it's of a different quality than swearing in the head job of an organization that aims to bring humanity to the stars.

There is a difference between what we consider to be the sacred and the profane. Rituals fall into either of these categories as well.

stronglikedan• 3 years ago

Ever sat in your chair and immediately wanted a cold one?

lol, categorically, no

jjk1663• 3 years ago

You're describing habits. Plenty of things are habits but not rituals.

EthanHeilman3• 3 years ago

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!

Most Christian theology holds that God is the present age is not going smite people for breaking such oaths. I think you are right to frame this ritually not theologically.

I would argue that purpose of swearing on an object is that it demonstrates that the oath is being made seriously, as an oath. Lying and breaking minor promises is socially acceptable in almost all human societies, and in some circumstances it is more socially acceptable to lie than be truthful. An oath is a different sort of object. An oath is something which is not socially acceptable to break, and thus swearing on an object which is deeply important to the oath taker ritually emphasizes this fact both to the oath taker themselves and to society at large.

A modernist view of rituals is that they create Schelling fences[0]. You agree to X, everyone knows you agreed to X, you know that you agreed to X, and you know that everyone knows that you agreed to X. Thus, if you do !X, you know that you have broken an important oath and everyone knows that you have broken an important oath. There is a clear line and there are mutually reenforcing internal and external pressures not to cross that line. Furthermore, if someone tells you to d !X, you have an ironclad reason to tell them no and it is much harder for them to take the rejection personally since it is personal. You can point to a public pre-commited attestation to never do !X.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)

tialaramex3• 3 years ago

Most Christian theology holds that God is the present age is not going smite people for breaking such oaths.

Or to put it another way. Since it is very obvious that people routinely break oaths, Modern Christians have come up with the rationalization that God chooses not to smite them, rather than accept the more likely explanation that God can't smite them for the same reason Superman couldn't prevent the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack.

tialaramex3• 3 years ago

The Princess Alice experiments imply superstition would have a practical role in a society where (lacking CCTV and other modern technology to supervise) it's important that people do what they're supposed to without actual oversight:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21377689/

Children in that study are markedly less likely to "cheat" in a task if they believe they are being supervised. This can happen because an actual adult supervises them, or because they believe (as they were told) that an invisible person "Princess Alice" is supervising them.

Sceptical children confirmed Princess Alice wasn't real behaviourally, that is, they'd verify that she just doesn't exist by passing their hand through the space supposedly occupied by Alice, having done so they would cheat at the same rate as unsupervised children. If you remove those children from the results, Alice and an actual supervising adult are equally effective in deterring cheating.

PartiallyTyped• 3 years ago

The fact that we can't get people to do what they are supposed to do without threat of retaliation is really sad.

Anecdata, I found that religious or otherwise superstitious people have a more flexible morality that allows them to justify objectively bad behaviour, such as cheating.

Frankly, if all it takes is to ask for forgiveness from an eternal being is enough to guarantee eternal reward, justifying bad behaviour in the present is trivial.

WeylandYutani2• 3 years ago

I come from a country where the majority of people count themselves as non religious. As atheism became a mainstream opinion in the 1980s a "solemn pledge" was introduced into the Constitution as an alternative to swearing on the Bible.

Keeping Christianity around as some hollow ritual handed down by our ancestors seems to me much more insulting to true believers.

globular-toast• 3 years ago

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

If anyone actually believed that a god would smite them, or in hell or any of that stuff, they would behave very differently. It's stupidly easy to find "Christians" who completely disregard any teachings of Jesus. It's stupidly easy to find Muslims who drink alcohol, including (or perhaps mainly) those from Muslim countries. It's stupidly easy to find Jews who flagrantly break the rules the second someone discovers the smallest loophole.

I see only two possibilities: either they live every day in conflict knowing what they are doing is wrong but they don't have the will to make the necessary changes, or they simply don't believe. I am sure there are many in the former category (I was a carnivore for many years but knew I needed to stop so I know it's possible), but I believe most are in the latter.

thomastjeffery2• 3 years ago

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!
many folks swear on the Bible out of convention or lack of critical thought, rather than belief, but will rationalize if pressed

You have contradicted yourself here. When someone asks why you swore on the Bible, you tell them the surrounding context, which is a story. You don't need to believe a story to appreciate it, or to continue its tradition. That's what symbolism is all about.

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.

The Bible is infamous for being logically inconsistent. It contradicts itself at every turn.

The result is not that humans are unable to use it to back their opinions! Quite the opposite: nearly any arbitrary opinion can be found to have biblical support.

Of course, religious belief is based on the circular conclusion that arbitrary morals come from The Bible itself, and not from the people reading it. That belief doesn't break the system. Instead, humans simply live with the conflicted ambiguity: it's called "cognitive dissonance".

This is the power of natural language at work: ambiguity. It allows us to hear, express, and manipulate ideas that are not logically sound. Symbols can be explicit and literal, or implicit and symbolic.

Just like GPT is claimed to have "features" and "limitations", the ambiguity of language is a double edged sword. The good news <insert bible joke here> is that we know about it. We are able to objectively recognize the difference between explicit definition and inference. We are able to recognize logical fallacies and their implications. We are able to use science and reason to literally reach new horizons.

And that is why I can see someone "swear on" this book, and feel that I would do the same. It's a beautiful symbol, and a thought-provoking response to a tradition that I, like you, am generally quick to criticize.

wolfhumble• 3 years ago

> 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. The Bible is infamous for being logically inconsistent. It contradicts itself at every turn.

If Jesus says 'do not swear an oath at all' (Matthew 5:34), and some president or official has been swearing on the Bible since 1789 – as in the case of The United States – what does that have to do with Jesus being inconsistent? The contradictions come when people read His word and decide not to follow it! (And I have done this many times myself in many other ways, sadly, and therefore grateful to Jesus for saving 'a wretch like me').

throwawaycircus• 3 years ago

Many religious books are shit. I think high school kids can write better stories tbh

drummojg4• 3 years ago

Plenty guitarists are far better than Hendrix, but they didn't get there in a vacuum.

samothrace• 3 years ago

The last thing humans will realize doesn't revolve around them is god.

hereme8883• 3 years ago

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.

throwawaaarrgh• 3 years ago

did audio start playing for anybody else? I thought browsers outlawed that years ago?

mariodiana2• 3 years ago

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?

woodruffw• 3 years ago

I'm one among many (a majority?) of people who don't find anything about the NASA director sweating an oath particularly "solemn." You might find that your "shared solemnity" isn't so shared if you asked around.

Besides: solemnity isn't particularly bound to an object; the ritual seems more important. It wouldn't detract from your experience to not realize that I had preserved the bible's cover but replaced the pages with a hot-rodding magazine.

mariodiana2• 3 years ago

An object has the potential to undermine the solemnity of a ritual. As to your hot-rodding example, there is no supernatural power I'm referring to, merely perception.

jitl• 3 years ago

I don’t want anything to do with the Bible, thanks.

FrontierPsych• 3 years ago

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.

b1c1jones• 3 years ago

I'd swear on A Canticle for Leibowitz.

New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

Related Stories