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 th

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.