81–90 of 340 posts
So a new religion has begun and Carl Sagan is the new prophet, anyone who goes against it well be burned alive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 religiou…
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 Hunte…
But it isn't just a British (or Commonwealth) thing, Americans have the exact same distinction, part of their British inheritance. Here's a quote from Article II, Section 1, of the US Constitution:
> Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 v…
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…
The premise is flawed.
I don’t believe that there is any being who ‘will witness and judge me’.
That is, other than my peers. Who are not supernatural. My using a Sagan book is therefore nothing more than symbolism: here’s who I am. Here’s what I represent. If you see this and think, ‘hell yeah!’, then you are in the cohort whose approval I seek; you are one of those to whom I give my promise to do right.
But I know it’s only symbolism. Nothing actually happens. Whereas those who solemnly swear on the bible believe that they will literally be judged by god and sent to heaven or hell as a result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 v…
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…
It's like swearing something 'on your mother's grave'. That's not something done because zombie mothers will rise up to enforce anything. It's supposed to signify that you hold great reverence for your mother and that your conviction is as strong as that respect. Swearing on the grave of your mother and lying would be dishonoring her and betraying the reverence you supposedly held. Swearing on Carl Sagan's book is expressing that the new director has great respect for Sagan (or at least that particular work) and that she'll treat her oath with the same level of respect. I think it's pretty appropriate given the role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What you're referring to is society's attempt to re-build itself based on rationality and individualism as a replacement to political and religious institutions. A canonical response to your point would be that we're seeking to build a society where the rational action would be for the head of NASA further the aims of NASA. This follows from an ideology set out by Ayn Rand. There are a collection of documentaries by…
How does that follow? Ayn Rand did not create any ideology worth mentioning in this context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 v…
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…
If God exists then God holds you accountable for your actions whether you swear or not, whether you use a Bible, Carl Sagan, Dr Seuss or a copy of TCP/IP Illustrated by W Richard Stevens.
If God doesn't exist then it clearly doesn't matter what document you swear on at all, because the document is just a signal of values in that case.
Either way you are legally bound by the oath you have made and if you broke it the authorities would be able to enforce that against you to the extent enabled by law regardless of what document you use or indeed no document at all.
The document is (like the ceremony itself) just an artifact that is part of the ritual which is a public observance of a binding promise. In that context, choosing one that has personal meaning makes total sense, whether it is a religious text or something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
God is not going to smite you for oath-breaking either though. What matters is that you keep your promise to (in this case) society, not whether you swear it on any book in particular. If the law requires the promise to be sworn over a book because the lawmakers at the time were religionists, you might as well choose a book you think represents your values.
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.
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…
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.
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 y…
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?
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.