For someone who believes in the Bible, swearing over it might make sense (I'm unsure what my own views are on this practice theologically but that's not really relevant to the topic). Generally though, people don't literally believe that the printed book itself is what matters, it's the message within the book that holds meaning for them. The printed book is a representation of your faith. Putting your hand on what is essentially paper, ink and cardboard is clearly not the valuable part of the promise being made.
The same is true of the Quran for someone who believes in that, in that you're offering your oath over something that matters very deeply to your life (i.e. your faith).
I don't know the religious beliefs of Dr. Lystrup, but I would assume Pale Blue Dot wasn't chosen arbitrarily, so by that same logic it's an oath offered over something that matters very deeply to her. In any case, it certainly means more from the perspective of the person taking the oath that they've chosen something that they personally hold dear rather than carrying out a custom they're not invested in just because it's a custom.
No?
It’s not hard to imagine those people finding more meaning in a Constitution, science text, or other important document.
> But if the people being sworn in don’t view their documents as having some authority over their promise then what is the point?
The point is that swearing on a "Pale blue dot" is exactly expression of submitting to authority of that book.
A fairly central part of the philosophy of quite a few religions is that there is a God who is quite capable of giving meaning to things independently of humans. Not everyone views these as "that's nice" documents. I mean, there's a bit in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15) that says that if the stuff in the Bible is actually true, then it's the most important thing in the world, but if it isn't, then there really isn't any point paying any attention to it at all.
I think it's like that with all religions. I'd like to speak a little with that god about some meanings.
> Not everyone views these as "that's nice" documents.
You say that those people give a meaning to those documents?
Does the person swearing on Sagans book think Sagan is going to hold them accountable to a broken promise?
Sworn statements as a whole are just entirely symbolic and don’t really guarantee loyalty or honesty, but if someone who doesn’t believe rejects a religious text that they disbelieve and instead choose something that has meaning and value to them, it’s better in the symbolic sense. A scientist swearing in on a scientific text that’s meaningful to them and that also addresses human morality makes as much sense and symbolically reflects their devotion to their mission as a Bible to a devout Christian.
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.
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 to do so, by nature. Is the nature of the values symbolized in Dr. Seuss or Sagans book similar? Do those promising on them expect divine justice from the principles of science or fun word play with kids?