6 ms·

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

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.

greenhearth 4y 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.)
heresie-dabord 4y 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. ^_^
Technotroll 4y 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.
- Jedd 4y 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.
  - jackothy 4y ago
    I think the main point is that the Bible can have some good messages. Whether or not the Christians were the inventors of those messages does not change that fact.
    - Jedd 4y ago
      Well, sure, but my mostly abandoned personal blog has some good messages, similarly due to me pinching the wisdom from other people. Attributing it all to me would be a tad disingenuous, though. Like many others before me (here's a prime example) I believe that if a book has earnest instructions on how to manage your slaves, then you really do have to question the legitimacy of the work as a whole.
  - drummojg 4y ago
    I have an old sampler religious text and inside the cover is The Golden Rule in every major religion--I want to say there are ten or a dozen of them, from Zoroaster to the Bhagavad Gita.
  - Technotroll 4y ago
    The context is how the teachings of Jesus could make it bearable also for atheists to "get behind" swearing on the the Bible. As such, perhaps it's better to swear on the New Testament. But as you say, The Golden Rule isn't a unique philosophical stance to Jesus. So, sure, perhaps some people should rather swear upon the Pabca-sila, or something equivalent. As for "self-evident social policy" I respectfully disagree. With so much corruption, evil and suffering going on in the world, I think both we and our leaders need some specific reminders from time to time, so we can learn about higher moral ideals, whether that is from Jesus, The Buddha or from Immanuel Kant.

greenhearth 4y 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.)

heresie-dabord 4y 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. ^_^

Technotroll 4y 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.

Jedd 4y 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.
- jackothy 4y ago
  I think the main point is that the Bible can have some good messages. Whether or not the Christians were the inventors of those messages does not change that fact.
  - Jedd 4y ago
    Well, sure, but my mostly abandoned personal blog has some good messages, similarly due to me pinching the wisdom from other people. Attributing it all to me would be a tad disingenuous, though. Like many others before me (here's a prime example) I believe that if a book has earnest instructions on how to manage your slaves, then you really do have to question the legitimacy of the work as a whole.
- drummojg 4y ago
  I have an old sampler religious text and inside the cover is The Golden Rule in every major religion--I want to say there are ten or a dozen of them, from Zoroaster to the Bhagavad Gita.
- Technotroll 4y ago
  The context is how the teachings of Jesus could make it bearable also for atheists to "get behind" swearing on the the Bible. As such, perhaps it's better to swear on the New Testament. But as you say, The Golden Rule isn't a unique philosophical stance to Jesus. So, sure, perhaps some people should rather swear upon the Pabca-sila, or something equivalent. As for "self-evident social policy" I respectfully disagree. With so much corruption, evil and suffering going on in the world, I think both we and our leaders need some specific reminders from time to time, so we can learn about higher moral ideals, whether that is from Jesus, The Buddha or from Immanuel Kant.