Six Council of State members call for removal of religious oaths

#1 · 14-10-2013 9:39pm #1

Six members of the Council of State have called for the removal of the religious elements from the oaths that the Irish President, judges and Council of State members have to swear in order to take up office.

They say that the issue came to their attention at the first meeting of the Council of State under President Higgins.

At that meeting, Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore had to swear the religious oath, despite being publicly on record as saying that he does not believe in God. He said that he had taken legal advice, and that he had a constitutional obligation to swear the oath.

Atheist Ireland had raised this issue with the Tanaiste before this meeting. Atheist Ireland has also raised it several times at the annual OSCE human rights meeting in Poland, including last year when Eamon Gilmore was chair of the OSCE.

The six members of the Council of State who have made the submission to the Constitutional Convention, acting in their individaul capacities, are Catherine McGuinness, Michael Farrell, Sally Mulready, Ruairi McKiernan, Deirdre Heenan and Gerard Quinn.

What the Council of State members say

The Council of State members say in their submission that the oaths could exclude or cause embarrassment to atheists, agnostics and humanists. They could also be unacceptable to Quakers and other Christians who do not approve of religious oaths, and to members of some other non-Christian faiths.

They recall that the 1996 Constitutional review Group recommended that the President and Council of State members should have the option to swear a religious or nonreligious declaration, and that judges should swear only a single declaration without releigious references as it was not desirable that judges should have to declare their religious beliefs or values.

They recall that the United Nations Human Rights Committee – the treaty monitoring body that monitors implementation of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - has also expressed concern about the specifically religious oath for judges.

They say that Republican forms of government based on openness, tolerance, pluralism – with an expectation that public space is truly open – tend not to add a religious dimension to the relevant oath or declaration. It is enough to commit to Res Publicae.

They conclude by recommending:

Option A: Our preferred option that is that whatever form any public profession of commitment to the Constitution, the laws of the land and a concomitant commitment to execute one's duties fairly and in accordance with the laws takes, it should not contain a religious element. This is not at all directed against religion or value systems - but simply keeps with the mainstream of Republic constitutions in creating the maximum space possible for all citizens regardless of their faith or background to enter public life. No one should be required to wear a badge before assuming public office. No one should be deterred because they don't share the 'official' badge. And no one should be forced to dissemble in order to assume public office.

Option B: We would also be prepared to accept a situation whereby an affirmation (without a religious element) could be given in lieu of an oath with a religious dimension. This has the merit of opening up public space to all. But it does come at the cost of people bringing (or feeling the need to wear) their own badge of faith (or non-faith) into the public arena. Our main preference, however, is to remove the religious element in the relevant oaths & declarations.

The submission is now online on the Constitutional Convention website.

recedite · 15-10-2013 10:37pm

Very good. I see that the people behind this are six out of the seven presidential nominees to the Council of State. The majority of members of the council (all the others) are current or ex politicians, presidents and judges. Its good to see Michael D. has chosen people who are actually interested in improving this country as his nominees.

expectationlost · 16-10-2013 6:14pm

its a mistake to give option b, because then they can choose it and sa that's what these people wanted, even if its not.

SpaceTime · 17-10-2013 11:57am

There are too many of these little official and unofficial inserts like prayers at council and oireachtas meetings too.

I would rather see politicians swear to do their job honestly, transparently and always in the public interest.

expectationlost · 14-04-2015 4:38am

bit late but dug out the archive of the 'Citizens to Separate Church and State' Mike McKillan's discussion on the Presidential age bill on LMFM http://utv.vo.llnwd.net/o16/LMFM/2015/03/03/Loosetalk030315.mp3 at 49mins vs Jim D'Arcy of FG

Letter to government (cabinet) from CSCS dated 24 February 2015
http://www.cscs.ie/?p=5
Citizens to Separate Church and State (CSCS) wrote to government on 24 February pleading for the 35th Amendment Bill to be shelved until such time as the right to make an ‘Affirmation’ was inserted into our Constitution to deal with the religious oath that the President-elect has to swear at installation

they considered that this bill was extending the need to swear in the presence of Almighty God, to seeking God's direction and sustainance to a whole new generation of potential Presidents

they say they want the bill to pass, they are not in particular going to campaign against the referendum

silverharp · 14-04-2015 7:22am

what happens in a court now? do you still have hold or put your hand on the bible or can you ask for a non fiction book?

magicbastarder · 14-04-2015 7:50am

you can ask to make a declaration without needing to swear on the bible.

SpaceTime · 14-04-2015 10:40am

It's embarrassing that we are incapable of actually doing anything about these things without pressure from the UN!

We're supposedly a republic yet we seem to have no concept of what that normally entails. It's just a word we throw around because it makes us sound badass and anti royal while at the same time we allowed right wing, religious conservatives to completely undermine democracy!

This is just another unsubtle way of excluding non Christians from public life.

It's just another form of institutionalised sectarianism in reality.

If we're going to continue this, please at least stop lying and replace all references to Republic with Holy.

robindch · 14-04-2015 11:18am

Co-incidentally, Emmet Vaughan, a member of AI and a registered minister with the FSM, seems to have been excused jury duty because he's a minister of religion.

The exact details of what happened aren't exactly clear, it seems that the courts have implied or declared that FSM is a legitimate religion in this country.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/atheist-exposes-inequality-in-jury-selection-process-31139945.html

Independent wrote:

Members of the public can avoid jury service by signing up for a nominal fee to be a 'minister' in an online church. Emmett Vaughan (pictured), a self-styled minister with the 'Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster', has been excused jury duty in the Irish courts because of his beliefs. The 44-year-old decided to join the US-based registered church, who are also known as Pastafarians, online. Under current guidelines, a priest or minister of any denomination can be exempted from jury duty.

When he put his new-found pastoral role on the jury reply form, Mr Vaughan, an active member of Atheist Ireland, waited for the Court Service to seek verification of his position, The scheduled jury date passed and no verification was ever sought. He told the Irish Independent his actions expose the "inequality" which allows members of the clergy a privileged position when it comes to jury duty.

wretcheddomain · 14-04-2015 11:26am

silverharp wrote: »

what happens in a court now? do you still have hold or put your hand on the bible or can you ask for a non fiction book?

What's the difference? :pac:

silverharp · 14-04-2015 2:15pm

I was called for jury service , I havnt looked the forms yet , worth trying out just to see if they will hang themselves by their own petard. I don't know if I'd have the balls to actually say it to a court officisl in person , would that make me weak of faith?

SpaceTime · 14-04-2015 2:51pm

Oh great so does this mean as an atheist I'm excused from jury duty in Ireland permanently?

expectationlost · 14-04-2015 5:47pm

robindch wrote: »

Co-incidentally, Emmet Vaughan, a member of AI and a registered minister with the FSM, seems to have been excused jury duty because he's a minister of religion.

The exact details of what happened aren't exactly clear, it seems that the courts have implied or declared that FSM is a legitimate religion in this country.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/atheist-exposes-inequality-in-jury-selection-process-31139945.html

or they looked at it, and the clerk said we don't have time for this crap and just ignored him.

recedite · 14-04-2015 9:30pm

expectationlost wrote: »

Mike McKillan's discussion on the Presidential age bill on LMFM http://utv.vo.llnwd.net/o16/LMFM/2015/03/03/Loosetalk030315.mp3 at 49mins vs Jim D'Arcy of FG..

they say they want the bill to pass, they are not in particular going to campaign against the referendum

But that interview was back on the 3rd of March. Now they are saying this..

Citizens to Separate Church and State is now calling for a No vote in the 35th Amendment referendum since government has not responded to its plea to stall the referendum pending the fixing of the religious oath requirement for installation of a president.

I'll probably just write "Separate church and state" on the ballot paper and not tick either box. I wouldnt bother going in at all except that I'll be there for the other vote.

expectationlost · 14-04-2015 11:37pm

recedite wrote: »

But that interview was back on the 3rd of March. Now they are saying this..
I'll probably just write "Separate church and state" on the ballot paper and not tick either box. I wouldnt bother going in at all except that I'll be there for the other vote.

hmm yes

We are making a short video documentary about the religious oath issue involved in the 35th amendment referendum next Tuesday 14 April.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1637574896477129&id=1614337508800868

are you not in favour of reducing age of candiduture for presidential election to 21?

recedite · 15-04-2015 11:24am

expectationlost wrote: »

are you not in favour of reducing age of candiduture for presidential election to 21?

Its highly unlikely there will ever be a 21 year old candidate, but I'm fine with reducing the age limit if somebody wants to.
The point is, who is actually calling for this change?
At the constitutional convention, they had a huge number of people making submissions calling for the separation of church and state. Yet they decided to ignore this, and instead call a vote on an issue of little or no concern to the public. On that basis, there is a legitimate reason for the public to protest by boycotting the vote.

magicbastarder · 15-04-2015 11:28am

expectationlost wrote: »

are you not in favour of reducing age of candiduture for presidential election to 21?

i wouldn't trust a 21 year old who wanted to be president. except if they were doing it just to get the ride. i'd be able to respect that.

expectationlost · 15-04-2015 7:02pm

recedite wrote: »

Its highly unlikely there will ever be a 21 year old candidate, but I'm fine with reducing the age limit if somebody wants to.
The point is, who is actually calling for this change?
At the constitutional convention, they had a huge number of people making submissions calling for the separation of church and state. Yet they decided to ignore this, and instead call a vote on an issue of little or no concern to the public. On that basis, there is a legitimate reason for the public to protest by boycotting the vote.

just to be clear the they is Enda Kenny as Taoiseach, he chose which referendum would be held alongside the marriage referendum.

im not impressed with anyone suggesting not voting, or advocating a no vote for the pres ref because some other constitutional issue wasn't put forward.

I have in the past not voted, so can't quite get on high horse, I was reluctant to vote Children's referendum last year because I didn't think it went far enough and i didn't want to be seen to endorsing the government, although at the end I was scared it wouldn't passed so I voted for it.

the world will be better place with this referendum is passed, its not a vote about what else could have been asked on the day.

recedite · 15-04-2015 10:21pm

expectationlost wrote: »

its not a vote about what else could have been asked on the day.

But when "what is not being asked" is far more important than what is being asked, then I say stuff your silly question where the sun don't shine.

expectationlost · 15-04-2015 11:07pm

recedite wrote: »

But when "what is not being asked" is far more important than what is being asked, then I say stuff your silly question where the sun don't shine.

a propsoed amendment to the constitutional isn't silly.

BlaasForRafa · 17-04-2015 2:50am

silverharp wrote: »

what happens in a court now? do you still have hold or put your hand on the bible or can you ask for a non fiction book?

I was called for jury duty for the circuit court a couple of years ago but thankfully I didn't get selected in the draw. I did get to see the swearing in process though and those that didn't want to swear on the bible had to stand to the side while the clerk swore in all "the normals". Then those who wouldn't swear had to go up to the judge and explain why they wouldn't swear and then he swore them in himself with a non-religious affirmation.

It really is time that this country got rid of religion out of the courts, the schools and any public bodies.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-04-2015 9:17am

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I was called for jury duty for the circuit court a couple of years ago but thankfully I didn't get selected in the draw. I did get to see the swearing in process though and those that didn't want to swear on the bible had to stand to the side while the clerk swore in all "the normals". Then those who wouldn't swear had to go up to the judge and explain why they wouldn't swear and then he swore them in himself with a non-religious affirmation.

They're doing it wrong.

Affirmation is a legal right, no explanation can or should be demanded.

In the Central Criminal Court when I was on a jury, the clerk just did it same as the oath, no fuss.

But you do have to interrupt them as they just assume everyone wants to swear :rolleyes: and why is the state asking people to declare in public what their religious belief is or isn't? We are very, very far from being a secular pluralist state.

About 10% of jurors (including me) affirmed, was disappointing it wasn't higher tbh, but it was quite noticeable that once one person on a jury panel did it, others following them were more likely to!

bnt · 18-04-2015 6:55pm

Or, you could become a Pastafarian Minister, then you can be excused jury duty altogether. :cool:

magicbastarder · 18-04-2015 9:58pm

i don't see what the issue is with priests being excused from jury duty.
in one sense, they are performing a job where they cannot be easily replaced.

in the sense i would be more concerned about, i wouldn't like to be on trial where one of the jury has declared himself subject to a law greater than those under which i am on trial.

lazygal · 18-04-2015 10:38pm

The jury thing is hit and miss. I work in a profession which is one of those explicitly mentioned as a reason not to have to do jury duty. However this was not allowed as a valid reason to skip it and I had to turn up for it, even though I wasn't ever selected for a jury. I didn't mind doing it but I don't understand how the exclusion process works.

Brian Shanahan · 19-04-2015 4:45pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't see what the issue is with priests being excused from jury duty.
in one sense, they are performing a job where they cannot be easily replaced.

You got to be kidding me, priests change mass times or get stand ins on the drop of a hat. Our local pp will never say late mass any day Tipp are hurling for Liam as he'll be in Dublin boozing it up before heading to the game (on the other hand he hates the fact that the GAA club has all the smallies out training at 11 on a Sunday, thus clashing with late mass).

Fred Swanson · 19-04-2015 11:47pm

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder · 20-04-2015 9:32am

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

from what i've heard, even if your name *is* called in court, and you're not there, there's no action taken.

Fred Swanson · 20-04-2015 9:48am

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder · 20-04-2015 10:09am

theoretically speaking, yes. have you ever met anyone who has been fined or otherwise even contacted for not showing?

Fred Swanson · 20-04-2015 10:13am

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder · 20-04-2015 10:28am

was that recent?
i know someone who simply forgot to go about ten years ago (and only remembered a couple of weeks later), and never heard back, and a colleague who had thought his boss had sent in a request to be excused, but it turns out the request was never sent - again, no penalty. probably a couple of years after the first example.

Fred Swanson · 20-04-2015 10:40am

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder · 20-04-2015 11:45am

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

do you work in the court? just wondering how you saw the fines.

recedite · 20-04-2015 1:39pm

Given that this is more or less an anonymous internet forum, I think we can just assume that Fred worked in the courts, and is telling the truth.

So, would the registrar (or whoever) be allowed to remove the FSM Minister from the selection, without formally sending a letter to excuse him? I can see how this would be tempting; it would allow the court to bypass the issue.

BlaasForRafa · 20-04-2015 6:58pm

recedite wrote: »

Given that this is more or less an anonymous internet forum, I think we can just assume that Fred worked in the courts, and is telling the truth.

Or there was a notice in the local newspaper wherever it was, minor stuff like gets a line or two now and again in the court reports.

*edit* on reading freds earlier posts, it looks like you're probably right and he works in some capacity in the courts.

expectationlost · 28-04-2015 3:15pm

IT letters

Sir, – Congratulations are surely in order to the Referendum Commission for highlighting, without comment, on their website, the religious oath required of those aspiring to be president of our country. The referendum asks us as voters to extend the current religious discrimination to a new cohort of younger citizens, but the realisation of this has yet to permeate the debate in society at large. The contradiction between the Government’s stated commitment to “equality” in the marriage referendum and its upholding of discrimination in the age referendum is hard to comprehend. One would like to put it down to an oversight, but the issue has been pointed out to it by a UN human rights body and various domestic review bodies over the years.

One can only conclude that the Government sees non-religious citizens as unsuitable for high office, unless they are prepared to lie in order to secure office.

Why would it think that, I wonder? – Yours, etc,

DICK SPICER,

Bray,

Co Wicklow.

http://refcom2015.ie/presidential-age/

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/age-of-presidential-candidates-1.2190897?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Article 12 (8)
The President shall enter upon his office by taking and subscribing publicly, in the presence of members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, of Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, and other public personages, the following declaration:

“In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me.”

would it bother to say that to become the president.

kuro_man · 28-04-2015 5:49pm

Does the word "God" have a legal meaning...does my wife qualify?

Brian Shanahan · 28-04-2015 8:13pm

expectationlost wrote: »

IT letters http://refcom2015.ie/presidential-age/

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/age-of-presidential-candidates-1.2190897?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

would it bother to say that to become the president.

Yes, because by inciting that oath while being an atheist you are lying under oath, and can be subject to some severe penalties, like having your presidency (or other office needing a religious oath) invalid, or committing perjury (lying under an oath administered in a judicial setting is perjury whether in a court of law or not) which under Irish law can carry an infinite penalty, if the presiding judge feels like it.

Peregrinus · 30-04-2015 6:48am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yes, because by inciting that oath while being an atheist you are lying under oath, and can be subject to some severe penalties, like having your presidency (or other office needing a religious oath) invalid, or committing perjury (lying under an oath administered in a judicial setting is perjury whether in a court of law or not) which under Irish law can carry an infinite penalty, if the presiding judge feels like it.

(None of this is actually true.)

Hotblack Desiato · 30-04-2015 8:34am

Impossible to prove that someone is lying about their belief in the existence of an unevidenced, non-falsifiable entity...

... so what the **** is the point of having an oath to it in our constitution and laws in the first place?

lazygal · 30-04-2015 8:41am

Peregrinus wrote: »

(None of this is actually true.)

So what's the point of invoking a deity at all then?

Peregrinus · 30-04-2015 8:57am

lazygal wrote: »

So what's the point of invoking a deity at all then?

I'm not a fan of having a legal requirement to invoke a deity, so don't ask me to explain why it's there.

But the fact that it's there does not have the consequences that Brian claims. A campaign to remove it which is based on scaremongering and fiction is counterproductive. There are good, valid arguments for removing it; why make up spurious, bad ones?

recedite · 30-04-2015 10:02am

If you start off an oath on a false premise (or one that you believe to be false) would that not invalidate whatever follows?
Suppose you swore this instead;
"As my name is Mickey Mouse, I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that..."
For an atheist that is not very different to;
"In the presence of Almighty God, I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that..."

The "infinite penalty" thing sounds implausible, but if you're going to invoke the supernatural to begin with, then the penalty for reneging on the promise should be equally supernatural. Like "burning in hell for all eternity" or some such threat.That should be suitable. As long as it didn't cause any inconvenience in this life.

Peregrinus · 30-04-2015 10:30am

recedite wrote: »

If you start off an oath on a false premise (or one that you believe to be false) would that not invalidate whatever follows?

Legally? No, it doesn't.

We need to distinguish here between the Presidential oath and similar oaths of office, and the (rather more common) oath sworn in connection with the giving of evidence.

The Presidential oath is unenforceable, regardless of whether the individual taking it is a theist or not. Whatever duties you have as President (or the holder of any other office) arise because you occupy the office. The oath is symbolic, and taking the oath may serve to establish exactly when you became President, but it doesn't impose any duties (or confer any privileges) that wouldn't arise if there were no requirement for an oath. And, even as far as that limited effect goes, it's well settled that the oath has that effect because the law says that an oath in that form has that effect. The personal views of the person taking the oath are irrelevant.

As for the oath taken by a witness or a person swearing an affidavit, etc, if you then give false evidence that's perjury, attracting heavy penalties. But, again, this is because the law provides so. The penalties for perjury don't depend at all on whether you took an oath or an affirmation, or on your personal views about the form of oath or affirmation that you took. There is no penalty for taking an oath or affirmation in a form which, to your own mind, carries no weight. Conversely having taken an oath or affirmation in a form which, to your own mind, carries no weight is no defence to a subsequent charge of perjury.

SpaceTime · 30-04-2015 11:02am

It's plainly obvious that the oath needs to be secular. I can't see any argument, other than a desire to live in a theocracy or exclude people you don't like from office, for keeping religious oaths.

If the powers that be can't see that they're either thick as two short planks or have an agenda other than wanting Ireland to be an open democracy!

expectationlost · 30-04-2015 6:38pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Legally? No, it doesn't.

We need to distinguish here between the Presidential oath and similar oaths of office, and the (rather more common) oath sworn in connection with the giving of evidence.

The Presidential oath is unenforceable, regardless of whether the individual taking it is a theist or not. Whatever duties you have as President (or the holder of any other office) arise because you occupy the office. The oath is symbolic, and taking the oath may serve to establish exactly when you became President, but it doesn't impose any duties (or confer any privileges) that wouldn't arise if there were no requirement for an oath. And, even as far as that limited effect goes, it's well settled that the oath has that effect because the law says that an oath in that form has that effect. The personal views of the person taking the oath are irrelevant.

well settled by whom? where?

Fred Swanson · 30-04-2015 7:07pm

This post has been deleted.

recedite · 30-04-2015 7:47pm

The current president, Michael D. had some reservations about it, but in the end he just caved in and swore it. Just to avoid "a constitutional crisis".

In reality, and after a long campaign, nobody is going to risk that nice salary and a nice gaff in the Phoenix Park when they are soooo close to achieving their goal.

expectationlost · 30-04-2015 8:00pm

recedite wrote: »

The current president, Michael D. had some reservations about it, but in the end he just caved in and swore it. Just to avoid "a constitutional crisis".

there was mistaken rumour that Higgins was a closet atheist but he's not When asked on the Prime time debate does he believe in God? He said he is spiritual person, he doesn't identify with a particular god, but says "yes I'm a believer" http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/1012/media-3079373.html at 15mins

Higgins said he prefer if the relgious part of the oath was removed but as admitted believer in God, he had no trouble saying the oath.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-04-2015 10:00pm

"Not religious but spiritual" :rolleyes:

If he doesn't identify with any particular god, how can he swear an oath to a god?

Six Council of State members call for removal of religious oaths

Comments