Humanists say Constitution has unfair religious bias [Article]

lostexpectation

The Humanists Organisation of Ireland has called for the deletion of all religious references from the Irish Constitution.

It claimed that passages which refer to religion in the document discriminate against people who do not believe in God.

The organisation said this is just one example of how the State discriminates against people who do not have any religion.

Spokesperson Brendan Sheeran has claimed the Constitution effectively bars humanists from taking up certain roles, like counsel of state, judge or president.

Comparing the situation unfavourably to courtrooms, where witnesses have the choice to affirm rather than swear on the Bible, Mr Sheeran has said the Constitution should provide a similar option for atheists.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/12/16/story289683.html

5uspect

Is there a petition or something we can sign?

robindch

Petition? Ach, we should take to the streets!

"Religion -- down with this sort of thing!!!"

5uspect

That would definately be worth seeing!

"Frown at those who say God is real"

is_that_so

Does this mean Christmas should go as well?

5uspect

Why?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055007482

is_that_so

5uspect wrote:

Why?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055007482

Well it is defined as a Christian holiday, however tenuous that connection is these days.
IMHO one cannot really decry the Christian reference in the Constitution and embrace a Christian holiday. It strikes me as inconsistent at least.

5uspect

Yes but there is a difference between a bright colourful cheery holiday in the middle of winter and running the country based on a document that discriminates between people who believe in god or not.

Many parts of christmas aren't really Christian at all, its just because Christianity has become the dominant religion any other festivals from other beliefs have been essentially swallowed up by it.

lostexpectation

5uspect wrote:

Is there a petition or something we can sign?

actual I see a its part of this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52508242#post52508242

Sangre

We have a Christian Constitution, we wouldn't need to amend it, we'd need to change it.

It would scary you the weight the judiciary put on the fact we've a religious constitution/country.

pH

is_that_so wrote:

Well it is defined as a Christian holiday, however tenuous that connection is these days.
IMHO one cannot really decry the Christian reference in the Constitution and embrace a Christian holiday. It strikes me as inconsistent at least.

This attitude towards Christmas from certain theists always strikes me as petty, childish and dare I say it ... unchristian?

If I don't worship your God, I should spend December 25th alone in a bare cold room eating baked beans from a tin? Anything else, and I'm being either hypocritical or I'm inconsistent, I really do want to be a Christian I just can't admit it?

As mentioned on the other thread, possibly modern consumerism is the true meaning of Christmas.

Christmas until quite modern times was a fairly minor holiday (compared to today), a religious holiday like others. The long holiday, cakes, trees, santa, presents, lights, decorations, cards etc are really products of our modern secular(ish) capitalist democracies.

Dades

lostexpectation wrote:

The Humanists Organisation of Ireland has called for the deletion of all religious references from the Irish Constitution.

I would have thought it a strange time of the year to go about this campaign.

It's possibly the one time of the year a large chunk of the population go to mass.

Time Magazine

The Atheist wrote:

I would have thought it a strange time of the year to go about this campaign.

It's possibly the one time of the year a large chunk of the population go to mass.

It's also tripe. The Constitution was accepted by the people. It is not discriminatory to those who do not believe in God in any way shape or form, it just conforms to the democratic reality that the majority of people in this country have a tangible notion and agreement of what God is and thus believe that things such as blasphemy should not be allowed.

The President's job is to protect and uphold the Constitution, whether she agrees with it or not. This does not discriminate against non-religious people anymore than members of Fine Gael. The same concept applies to the judiciary.

aidan24326

Ibid wrote:

It's also tripe. The Constitution was accepted by the people. It is not discriminatory to those who do not believe in God in any way shape or form, it just conforms to the democratic reality that the majority of people in this country have a tangible notion and agreement of what God is and thus believe that things such as blasphemy should not be allowed.

The President's job is to protect and uphold the Constitution, whether she agrees with it or not. This does not discriminate against non-religious people anymore than members of Fine Gael. The same concept applies to the judiciary

Religious references have no place in the constitution of our country.

We are clearly not a secular society in Ireland, with the catholic church still wielding more influence than they've any right to.

A person can have his religious beliefs without needing them enshrined in the consitution.

5uspect

When these parts of the constitution were accepted Ireland was a very different country. Since there is a strong link between faith and education it is not surprising that faith has diminished over the years. Since they started asking on the census the number of people claiming no religion has rapidly increased.



While I don't expect this trend to continue in this years census, I do expect the number to rise. Religion should have no part in a democratic society and the extent that it has and still tries to influence the democratic process is unacceptable. By challenging this the HOI sends a message to the government that the church and its god no longer influences a significant proportion of the population. The constitution as a living document should reflect this.

Zombrex

is_that_so wrote:

IMHO one cannot really decry the Christian reference in the Constitution and embrace a Christian holiday. It strikes me as inconsistent at least.

That would suggest you don't understand why people "decry" religious references in the constitution....

Also, as pH points out, I think you will find it is the "Christians" who over dose on excess at Christmas that are being a little inconsistent (excess has never been a strong point in Christian teaching). To the atheists there is no religious meaning behind the holiday, its just a time to have a good time.

Ibid wrote:

It's also tripe. The Constitution was accepted by the people.

A constitution is always accepted by the people. But the view of the people change over time, hence the ability to change the constitution by referendum. Otherwise we would end up being stuck with a constitution written by people who are all dead now.

If you don't like it don't vote for it. I would imagine that the vast majority of Irish people would have little problem with religious references being removed from the constitution on the grounds of secular equality (as in 1973 when the special place of the Catholic church was removed, even though everyone was Catholic).

But hey, if you feel you need a special state sponsorship of your particular religious outlook you are entitled to that opinion and entitled to vote that way if a referendum ever appears on this subject.

is_that_so

Wicknight wrote:

That would suggest you don't understand why people "decry" religious references in the constitution....

Also, as pH points out, I think you will find it is the "Christians" who over dose on excess at Christmas that are being a little inconsistent (excess has never been a strong point in Christian teaching). To the atheists there is no religious meaning behind the holiday, its just a time to have a good time.


A constitution is always accepted by the people. But the view of the people change over time, hence the ability to change the constitution by referendum. Otherwise we would end up being stuck with a constitution written by people who are all dead now.


But hey, if you feel you need a special state sponsorship of your particular religious outlook you are entitled to that opinion and entitled to vote that way if a referendum ever appears on this subject.

The US Constitution was written by dead people as was our own.

It strikes me that most of the issues raised are covered by the Equality Act anyway. TBH is it much better equipped with all of its details and statutory bodies to deal with issues of its kind.
My big problem is the assumption that we can add bits that suit us into the Constitution, which alas has become a proposal of fashion of late.
I agree with IBID here. Irrespective of your belief systems you are protected under the Constitution.

pH

Ibid wrote:

It's also tripe. The Constitution was accepted by the people. It is not discriminatory to those who do not believe in God in any way shape or form, it just conforms to the democratic reality that the majority of people in this country have a tangible notion and agreement of what God is and thus believe that things such as blasphemy should not be allowed.

To be frank, that is tripe. It's the old "Oh the people voted for it - it's a democracy therefore it's implicitly right" argument, which frankly couldn't be more wrong.

A society must have at its base a set of rights for everyone that even the majority cannot take away from a minority.

Consider a state where the majority of people are say racist, and they vote in a set of racist laws where non-whites cannot become judges etc etc. Does the fact that the majority voted for this make it 'right' in any way?

As for Blasphemy that is one of the more ludicrous laws, surely you'd imagine an all powerful sky-god could punish people who slagged him off well enough without needing us humans to give him a hand?

Zombrex

is_that_so wrote:

The US Constitution was written by dead people as was our own.

The the US Constitution has been changed multiple times since it was originally written, as has ours.

I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that once a constitution is written down it is fixed and should not be changed. That ironically, goes against the main principle of democracy, because it means you are enslaved to the laws and views of a generation who are long dead.

is_that_so wrote:

It strikes me that most of the issues raised are covered by the Equality Act anyway.

Exactly, which is why no mention of religion should be in the constitution at all. They should be completely removed. The matter should be handled by legislation and no religion should be given state sponsorship.

is_that_so wrote:

TBH is it much better equipped with all of its details and statutory bodies to deal with issues of its kind.

The Equality Act, nor any law in Ireland, can not over rule the constitution.

Which is why those sexual assault prisoners had to be released from prison a few months ago. If you want to deal with something solely in legislation you need to remove it from the constitution. Otherwise the constitution will always over rule any legal rulings.

It is ridiculous to have the idea that all religions are equal under the law yet have one religious outlook mentioned over and over in the constitution.

is_that_so wrote:

My big problem is the assumption that we can add bits that suit us into the Constitution

As far as I'm aware the request is that religious references to be removed from the Constitution, not added.

is_that_so wrote:

Irrespective of your belief systems you are protected under the Constitution.

That is the issue in question.

I have not read up enough on the issue to know for sure of what specific rights are being blocked by the constitution (the article mentions becoming a judge for example), but your idea that the Equality Act will protect someone against and discrimination in the constitution doesn't hold. The Equality Act can no more over rule the constitution than any law in Ireland can do so.

To be honest to me this issue is an issue of house keeping, getting the Constitution in order moving into the next century. Religious references should be removed from the Constitution. Its not a huge big deal, but why not remove them?

As I stated it is ridiculous to have the idea of religious equality in law and yet have a constitution that is written for a specific religious outlook.

robindch

> My big problem is the assumption that we can add bits that suit us into the Constitution,

I don't want to sound facetious, but that's what's supposed to happen in a (representative) democracy! If you don't like any particular provision, you can campaign to change it.

As a general principle, the Constitution defines the basic rights of institutions and citizens, while the legislature defines laws which are supposed to support and implement the rights. The problem that people around here have is that the Constitution makes special mention of the tenets of one specific religion, and that's believed to be unacceptable in what is a civil, not religious, document.

Not sure if anybody followed the debate about the European constitution a while ago, but did anybody else find it weird that so many religious people got caught up in an argument about whether or not their religion was included, rather than actually discussing what the fundamental rights of EU citizens were going to be? Bizarre!

stevejazzx

5uspect wrote:

When these parts of the constitution were accepted Ireland was a very different country. Since there is a strong link between faith and education it is not surprising that faith has diminished over the years. Since they started asking on the census the number of people claiming no religion has rapidly increased.

this graph has renewed my hope in mankind...thanks for it....think I'm goinna cry:)

Sangre

Removing any mentions of one specific religion would provide for secular and religious equality. Although I'd argue it provides for it anyway.

Lol @ poster you cited US Constitution then started moaning about amendments. The most cited and probably most important part of that Constitution is the 1st AMENDMENT...heh.

Anyway, Ireland acutally has one of the oldest constitutions in the West.

Zombrex

Sangre wrote:

Lol @ poster you cited US Constitution then started moaning about amendments. The most cited and probably most important part of that Constitution is the 1st AMENDMENT...heh.

Good point.

The US "Bill of Rights" is actually the first 10 Amendments to the original constitution, added nearly 10 years after the constitution was first signed, to add particular rights for American citizens. Which is why people always say "1st amendment" when talking about freedom of speach, "2nd Amendment" when talking about gun control, or "Plead the 5th" when talking about not incriminating themselves.

Since these first 10 amendments the US have had 17 further amendments to the constitution, the last one being ratified in 1992.

5uspect

stevejazzx wrote:

this graph has renewed my hope in mankind...thanks for it....think I'm goinna cry:)

That also doesn't include those who gave no answer to the question.
I'm sure if you were bothered you could have some statistical fun with the data.

lostexpectation

anyone read the pdf submission http://www.irish-humanists.org/announcements/HAI_SubmissionToGovernment_061206.pdf

its very short and and general, but the most interesting thing I saw was that gov didn't allow non-religious celebrants ie humanist celebrants, to to be civil union registrants

and all primary teaching schools in the country are still run by religious orders, ( i thought there might be a small new teacher college somewhere?) they also specifically comment on the lack of choice in education.

I wonder do we have any judges( or presidents) who'd admit to being atheist or similar?

I doubt a referendum would be ever called on the issue but one might get an interesting highcourt case someday, we really need a few of them about religion or schools to force the issue.

Dades

An interesting read, lostexpectation.

Some important issues such as judges, marriages, schooling, circumcision... but some petty ones too. I mean how many people are bothered by the bells of the church in Dublin Castle ringing at 12:00? Or the fact that hospitals have a Chaplain patrolling them?

HealingBlight

"Comparing the situation unfavourably to courtrooms, where witnesses have the choice to affirm rather than swear on the Bible, Mr Sheeran has said the Constitution should provide a similar option for atheists."

I actually think that nobody should swear on the bible, just for the fact that choosing one way or another might be a bias-forming action on the jury that could unnecessarily influence the witness’s credibility.