Humanist Judicial Religious Oath Campaign

dvpower

The Humanist Association of Ireland is running a poster campaign on Dart trains against the practice of judges and presidents of Ireland being obliged to take a religious oath.

Humanist DART Ad wrote:

U N B E L I E V A B L E

Did you know that you must take a religious oath in order to become a judge – or the president – in Ireland?

In effect, this rule disbars up to 250,000 Irish citizens who are non-believers. It’s discrimination. It’s unfair. And it has to end.

It seems to me that having a mandatory religious oath like this is out of step with a modern democracy and we should change it - perhaps leaving it as a matter of choice for those who want to take it.

I understand that this would require a constitutional referendum, and I don't think it's the most pressing issue facing the country, but I'm pretty sure that the mandatory nature of the religious oath should go.

But I wonder what Christians and other religious people think of it. Is there a good case to be made for keeping this mandatory religious oath?

PDN

I'm in full agreement with you and with the humanist campaign. The oath is discriminatory and there should be no place for it in a secular democracy.

Agreed it's hardly the biggest issue in the world - but such things try to tell certain sections of society that they are second class citizens, and that is wrong.

Fanny Cradock

I would be in agreement with them. But I would point out that it's not just atheists, agnostics or even deists affected. What about Jews, Muslims Scientologists etc.? Still, I just can't manage to feel anything but complete apathy for the campaign.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would be in agreement with them. But I would point out that it's not just atheists, agnostics or even deists affected. What about Jews, Muslims Scientologists etc.? Still, I just can't manage to feel anything but complete apathy for the campaign.

If it were Christians who were at a disadvantage would you feel teh same?

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

If it were Christians who were at a disadvantage would you feel teh same?

Probably. I'm not at all against the campaign or a change in the law. I just don't find it engages me in any way.

Phototoxin

I'm guess Quakers cannot swear that oath either and many of them are Christians

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Probably. I'm not at all against the campaign or a change in the law. I just don't find it engages me in any way.

Is it the approach (putting signs on trains) that doesn't grab you? Or do you just not find the issue itself particularly pressing?
(just trying to understand your reasoning)

antiskeptic

dvpower wrote: »

But I wonder what Christians and other religious people think of it. Is there a good case to be made for keeping this mandatory religious oath?

As with others: I see no reason for retaining it - although I'd see putting the country to the expense and trouble of a constitutional referendum a complete and utter indulgence - and not just in these financially strapped days. This is something that would be better left to the English, given their willingness to have minority interests lead the bull around by the nose so as to further worship at the altar of political correctness. Launching an ad campaign like that, in the current Irish climate is more likely cause the average punter to associate the Humanist society with the likes of the Flat Earth Society...than anything else.

Why didn't humanist society focus on the discrimination faced by unbelieving witnesses/accused - who also have to swear a religious oath? That way they'd at least garner a modicum of relevancy.

i71jskz5xu42pb

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why didn't humanist society focus on the discrimination faced by unbelieving witnesses/accused - who also have to swear a religious oath?

Because witnesses in court don't have to swear a religious oath? All they have to do is make an affirmation that they're not tellin' porkies.

antiskeptic wrote: »

although I'd see putting the country to the expense and trouble of a constitutional referendum a complete and utter indulgence

It would more than likely be tacked on to the end of some other major referendum in the same was there were some other amendments tacked onto the Treaty of Nice referendum. Very little expense or trouble.

antiskeptic

Francisco Cold Mud wrote: »

Because witnesses in court don't have to swear a religious oath? All they have to do is make an affirmation that they're not tellin' porkies.

I stand corrected! And there was me wondering how I was going to circumvent the problem when I was in the high court last (the Bible on which you swear says not to swear on anything - just let your yes be yes and your no be no). I didn't get called as a witness.

It would more than likely be tacked on to the end of some other major referendum in the same was there were some other amendments tacked onto the Treaty of Nice referendum. Very little expense or trouble.

Fair enough. I reckon it would be easier to do what my (reasonably high profile) unbelieving mate did when he was asked to give evidence and swear an oath. He crossed his fingers behind his back.

Seriously!

I'm still not sure about the "in effect" bit.

In effect, this rule disbars up to 250,000 Irish citizens who are non-believers. It’s discrimination. It’s unfair. And it has to end.

Is it required that a person declare themselves a believer in order that they make a religious oath. If not, so what if an unbeliever says "I undertake to carry out my duties without fear or favour..... so help me God" The "so help me God" bit is as objectively irrelevant to them as they believe it to be for one who does believe in God.

If they don't object to others saying what they believe are meaningless words then why exclude themselves by refusing to do same?

dvpower

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is it required that a person declare themselves a believer in order that they make a religious oath. If not, so what if an unbeliever says "I undertake to carry out my duties without fear or favour..... so help me God" The "so help me God" bit is as objectively irrelevant to them as they believe it to be for one who does believe in God.

If they don't object to others saying what they believe are meaningless words then why exclude themselves by refusing to do same?

Clearly, the oath requirement isn't currently actually preventing the non religious from taking up positions as judges (unless we are to believe that there currently are not and never has been any non religious judges in the country). But this isn't a good reason for not changing the requirement; leaving it in place on the basis that those who don't like it can simply ignore it sounds to me like an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

For anyone who feels that oaths are irrelevant, I refer you back to the causes of the Civil War.:eek:

dvpower

antiskeptic wrote: »

Launching an ad campaign like that, in the current Irish climate is more likely cause the average punter to associate the Humanist society with the likes of the Flat Earth Society...than anything else.

No one biting on that one? Nah. Me neither.

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

Is it the approach (putting signs on trains) that doesn't grab you? Or do you just not find the issue itself particularly pressing?
(just trying to understand your reasoning)

To adapt a phrase: non-overlapping magisteria! I think it's because I've never encountered a judge or a President of Ireland; we swing in different circles. If this was about your ordinary atheist Joe not being to work in an ordinary type job then I would be engaged. However, I completely agree that it is unfair, so campaign away!

Does that clear matters up?

Puck

Does anyone have the wording of the oath handy?

i71jskz5xu42pb

Both the oath and affirmation wordings are here

(Edit: this is the court witness one - see next post)

dvpower

Puck wrote: »

Does anyone have the wording of the oath handy?

The oaths in question open with:

Irish Constitution wrote:

In the presence of Almighty God I, , do solemnly swear…

and end with the words:

Irish Constitution wrote:

May God direct and sustain me.

Relevant sections are:
Article 12 (section 8) [President]
Article 31 (section 4) [Council of State]
Article 34 (section 5) [Judge]

Fanny Cradock

Francisco Cold Mud wrote: »

Both the oath and affirmation wordings are here

The campaign is not about swearing in as a witness. AFAIK, you can simply be be affirmed into court or choose to swear on a religious text like the Koran or the Bible. The HAI are talking about what potential Judges and Presidents have say to become a Judge or President.

i71jskz5xu42pb

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The campaign is not about swearing in as a witness.

This thread discussed swearing in as a witness, hence the link.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

AFAIK, you can simply be be affirmed into court or choose to swear on a religious text like the Koran or the Bible.

Also already clarified on this thread.

Fanny Cradock

Francisco Cold Mud wrote: »

This thread discussed swearing in as a witness, hence the link.

I missed that!