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.
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.
I became a British citizen too, and had to say the same thing. I honestly can't remember now if I swore or affirmed–I was just mumbling words because I wanted a piece of paper, which would enable me to acquire other pieces of paper, which would have allowed me to do things I never got around to actually doing. Indeed, maybe somewhat unusually, despite going to the effort of becoming a British citizen, I've never actually stepped foot in the UK (or Europe for that matter) – I said those words from the British Consulate in Sydney, Australia. Great view of Sydney Harbour in the background.
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."
> Indeed, maybe somewhat unusually, despite going to the effort of becoming a British citizen, I've never actually stepped foot in the UK
That sounds funny. Doesn't this give you more disadvantages than advantages? I'm surprised it's even possible; in other countries you have to have lived there for around 7 years or so until you get citizenship.
> Doesn't this give you more disadvantages than advantages?
No real disadvantages. Being a British citizen means I can live and work in the UK if I want. As I said, I’ve never been there-but you never know what the future holds.
Pre-Brexit, it let me live and work anywhere in the EU-not that I ever did that either. But I thought about it. My brother actually did it for a bit.
Maybe one day Scotland will become independent, and I’ll trade my British citizenship for Scottish, and then Scotland will rejoin the EU and I’ll get my EU citizenship back. A man can dream.
One drawback, is as a dual Australian citizen, the Australian constitution says I’m not allowed to run for (federal) Parliament. I doubt I’m ever going into politics, but if I was, I’d legally have to renounce my UK citizenship before nominating as a (federal) candidate. By contrast, the UK doesn’t bar dual citizens from Parliament-in fact, it even lets Australians vote, and run for Parliament-and I mean sole Australian citizens, who aren’t UK dual citizens.
> I'm surprised it's even possible; in other countries you have to have lived there for around 7 years or so until you get citizenship.
Due to the UK’s colonial/imperial history, its citizenship laws are insanely complex-arguably more complicated than any other nation on earth’s-full of all kinds of obscure complex exceptions-I’m one of those. You see, my mother was born in Scotland. My younger siblings, they inherited UK citizenship from her at birth. However, I was born when the old (pre-1983) law was still in force, which said legitimate children could only inherit British citizenship from their father (whereas, illegitimate children could only inherit it from their mother.) Since I was legitimate, and it was my mother not my father who was the UK citizen - no UK citizenship for me. Until, in my 20s, they changed the law so people in my situation could apply for citizenship by registration. Registration is legally equivalent to naturalisation - the ceremony is the same, the legal consequences are almost identical - the difference is, no residency requirements. So that’s how I got to go to my UK citizenship ceremony without ever having stepped foot in the UK in my life
> By contrast, the UK doesn’t bar dual citizens from Parliament-in fact, it even lets Australians vote, and run for Parliament-and I mean sole Australian citizens, who aren’t UK dual citizens.
In fact we have had a prime minister (Boris Johnson) who had been a dual UK/US citizen although he renounced it when he became foreign secretary[1] and one (Rishi Sunak) who had a US green card but didn't go on to get citizenship[2].
"I, sovereign Lidia Thorpe, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and I bear true allegiance to the colonising Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second ..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAJQ_K_CzCE
She was then required to follow the provided text. It's clear she didn't mean it.
When I gained citizenship of a highly religious country I had to swear an oath with my hand on a cross, with silver Jesus attached. I asked if there was an atheist option and the the answer was basically "No, we have enough faith to know that God will punish you for lying."
Well, it also happens to be an incredibly corrupt country with inadequate policing and government, so "let God deal with it" pretty much sums up the approach to everything.
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.