New NASA Official Took Her Oath of Office on Carl Sagan's 'Pale Blue Dot' - Slas...
source link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/23/04/11/1757210/new-nasa-official-took-her-oath-of-office-on-carl-sagans-pale-blue-dot
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
New NASA Official Took Her Oath of Office on Carl Sagan's 'Pale Blue Dot'
Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Sign up for the Slashdot newsletter! or check out the new Slashdot job board to browse remote jobs or jobs in your area
-
›
that government officials be sworn in using a particular text
So why is one (always) used? Good for her on showing a little fashion sense.
-
Tradition mostly. It was what was used before the constitution. Taking an oath on the constitution itself seems very odd to me though, it's not like it's ever been a sacred text, certainly it's not divinely inspired (ow, someone is throwing rocks just now).
-
It's a symbolic act, and the oath includes upholding the constitution. I think using the constitution only makes more sense than the bible in this context. This is especially true when you consider that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Swearing on a bible for a government position symbolically links the government to religion.
-
And 225 years later, people still think separation of church and state was a bad idea and have been trying to undermine this the whole time ("in God we trust" added to money in the Civil War era, then Teddy Roosevelt though mixing God and money was vulgar and removed it from some coins, then congress forced it back on). Although there's not a firm "separation" listed in the constitution, it just says don't establish an official religion. Thus early founders didn't find it wrong to have to swear on a Bible
-
Although there's not a firm "separation" listed in the constitution, it just says don't establish an official religion.
So, reading comprehension isn't your thing?
-
The Constitution doesn't just prevent Congress from establishing a religion, it requires there be no religious tests for government officials ("no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.") - note, this is before the amendments. And the part (1st Amendment) that mentions Congress shouldn't set up a religion goes further:
Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise
Moreover, we know that
-
-
-
There's no evidence the bible is divinely inspired either. If anything, quite the opposite - you wouldn't expect a divinely inspired document to conflict with testable reality nearly so often. God would presumably have known how the universe actually works, rather than being limited to the spotty and inaccurate knowledge available to bronze-age clergymen.
Meanwhile "sacred" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gods or divinity - one of its definitions is simply "Worthy of respect; venerable.".
Ultim
-
Oh, you mean our scientific "reality" where:
- We have to posit the existence of 96% of the mass-energy of the universe because of the missing mass needed to explain star velocities in galaxies (dark matter) and to force-equate distances with a constant of integration (dark energy) -- when we have no direct observation of either of these.
- We pretend everything is ok (for GR and the SM to coexist) when they have yet to be reconciled for 50+ years.
- Where an expanding earth model fits geolog
-
-
-
Seriously, this woman has style for days. It's a perfect text upon which to take her oath of office and I hope it reflects her motivations.
RIP Carl, we miss you.
-
-
-
and to make matters worse, A WOMAN!
-
-
that the thing to put my hand on would be an encyclopedia - something that contains (mainly) truth rather than mythology.
-
As an atheist, swearing on any religious book would be silly for me, because it would hold no meaning. In fact, I can't think of any text that I consider to be sacred. So.. what then?
The only time I've had to do anything like take an oath as an adult was in court, and in Canada one has the option to affirm to tell the truth rather than to swear to tell the truth, and so I affirmed.
-
I've always found the entire practice of "swearing in" a little odd. Put your hand on this book, recite the incantation, hooray you're President now. Just more useless pageantry.
-
"In fact, I can't think of any text that I consider to be sacred. So.. what then?"
Sure but if you are being sworn as Director of an agency empowered and subject to the Constitution of the United States it is something of an issue if you won't swear under or to the Constitution.
-
Which raises the point, why isn't the standard to swear on the constitution? If you don't believe in it, get a different job.
-
-
Oddly, you seem to agree with Jesus:
But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God's throne;
nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes,' and your 'No' mean 'No.' Anything more is from the evil one.Matthew 5:34-37
-
-
-
He called people to repentance to all sorts of sins, telling the whore "go, and sin no more".
Not "a whore." The translation is "a woman caught in adultery." Which is, pretty specifically, misogynistic slut-shaming [biblehub.com] since they didn't do anything to the man.
But hey, keep trying to argue that your primitive skydaddy death cult is somehow a good thing...
-
-
-
-
Well how about your integrity then?
Not long ago, your word was your bond. The practice of "swearing in" reflected this formally, so as if you were you break your oath -- your bond -- then others could rightfully accuse you of falling out of integrity with yourself (and your higher beliefs). In harsher times, losing your credibility was one worst consequences for someone who wanted his family to survive and be prosperous. A man with no honor or integrity and could not be trusted and was useful for li
-
Well yes, exactly... which is why I affirm. I affirm that my word is my bond. But for some reason, some people think you need more than that.
-
-
Some people will only keep their promises if they think they'll be tortured for eternity for breaking them. Other people manage to act morally without supernatural threats, despite the insistence by the first group that such things are not possible.
I suppose if you have to rely on the first kind, you might as well do what you can to make the best of it.
-
As an atheist, swearing on any religious book would be silly for me, because it would hold no meaning. In fact, I can't think of any text that I consider to be sacred. So.. what then?
The only time I've had to do anything like take an oath as an adult was in court, and in Canada one has the option to affirm to tell the truth rather than to swear to tell the truth, and so I affirmed.
Well, there are probably some texts that are more important to you than others. In this context, she probably didn't want the bi
-
-
A vital part of not believing in a a god is not believing in silly superstition and rituals.
Rituals like swearing on a book.
But these days it's all about the signalling and rational thought escapes even proclaimed atheists.
Ach, she'll lose her job soon anyway to someone NASA thinks even better fits the role, like a black shemale in a wheelchair.-
Where did you get the idea superstition and rituals were always connected? Are you really that stupid, or are you simply one of those ultra-conservative closeted gay people who like to poison every public discussion they can.
-
Nah, nazitree just wanted to try to shoehorn some bigoted scarecrow hodgepodge like "a black shemale in a wheelchair." It's typical behavior from that inbred sisterfucking klan crossburner.
-
You're off the meds again, then.
-
-
Where did you get the idea superstition and rituals were unconnected? Are you really that stupid, or are you simply one of those ultra-left nazis who like to hate on everyone who dares have different views, and damn any facts that get in the way.
-
-
-
One that I share. I would probably would have sworn on a Clarke book rather than Sagan.
Space exploration should be approached with an unquenchable inner fire and wanderlust. Real passion is dangerous and dramatic, not serene.-
What I loved about the Golden Age SF writers was their tendency to use engineers and technicians as their protagonists. Survival in space was a problem to be solved, and it was solved by people with know-how and resolve. The heroes of most of the stories by guys like Clarke and Asimov didn't run around with blasters in hand ready to blow up their way to success.
My two favorite SF movies are 2001 and The Martian. 2001 deals with enormous philosophical questions, but in a way that is pretty much the antithesi
-
-
It was silly when we were children. Far sillier now as adults.
-
Me, I'd have used the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK