Good Point Spicer

Tim Robbins

Good point from Dick Spicer in yesterday's I.T.?

Sir, – It is refreshing to see all the presidential candidates embracing the democratic process and the hopes of representing our nation. Which of them will now question the absurdity that our largest minority, the non-religious, are barred from the process because a religious oath is required to take up the post of president of our Republic? – Yours, etc,

DICK SPICER,

Sugarloaf Crescent,

Bray, Co Wicklow.

And you'd wonder - should atheists boycott this election or spoil their votes or just do something to raise this fact?

Roger Hassenforder

the worst thing you can do is spoil your vote, you'll go into the pile with the illiterate, the 'x'ing brigade and the morons. maybe a tallyman might give a monkeys, but thats as far as it will go.
vote for everyone bar the person you like least, in my case everyone will be getting a 1-6 bar Dana.

Dave!

Are Atheist Ireland doing anything to highlight this? Might be a good shout, surely the media will get bored of writing about the same bollix for 3 weeks

Dades

I think the HAI had DART/Bus advertising about this some time back.

AhSureTisGrand

Is he actually called "Dick Spicer"?

Michael Nugent

Dave! wrote: »

Are Atheist Ireland doing anything to highlight this? Might be a good shout, surely the media will get bored of writing about the same bollix for 3 weeks

We have written to all presidential candidates asking their views on this and we will publish the responses when we get them.

Dades

Michael Nugent wrote: »

We have written to all presidential candidates asking their views on this and we will publish the responses when we get them.

Will looking forward to hearing Dana's response. :pac:

Rev Hellfire

Its a bit of a stretch to say atheists are barred from the presidency because of some largely symbolic words, just saying them doesn't make you a believer. Though that said a secular oath should also be available.

Dades

I'm wondering if a non-believer got to the point of running, and potentially elected what would happen.

Does anyone think they would actually be refused the office on foot of the oath?

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its a bit of a stretch to say atheists are barred from the presidency because of some largely symbolic words, just saying them doesn't make you a believer. Though that said a secular oath should also be available.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and you had to make a public statement saying that God didn't exist to become president - then many religious people would feel effectively barred from the office (we'd already had it explained to us that it's better to let your father have his back broken with sledgehammers than to deny god's existence).

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 fulfill 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"

Dades wrote:

Does anyone think they would actually be refused the office on foot of the oath?

Given the oath is specified in the constitution it would take a referendum to allow someone take office without making it.

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

If the shoe was on the other foot, and you had to make a public statement saying that God didn't exist to become president - then many religious people would feel effectively barred from the office (we'd already had it explained to us that it's better to let your father have his back broken with sledgehammers than to deny god's existence).

Personally I'd quite happily say god exists or doesn't exist if it ensured I got the job.
Anyway since most theists actually believe the words have meaning beyond something symbolic as opposed to the irreligious I'm not sure how you can compare to two.

Dades

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND wrote:

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."

Well I guess the above is fairly clear...

Although it does also say (and repeats many times):

1° The President shall hold office for seven years from the
date upon which he enters upon his office

Doesn't seem to have been a bar on a her in the office.

Galvasean

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its a bit of a stretch to say atheists are barred from the presidency because of some largely symbolic words, just saying them doesn't make you a believer. Though that said a secular oath should also be available.

Ah but is it a good start to your presidency when your very first act is a lie?

Rev Hellfire

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah but is it a good start to your presidency when your very first act is a lie?

Its not a lie since the words are only symbolic, it would only be a lie if you intended to break the statement after the "In the presence of Almighty God".

Total none issue.

Galvasean

I highly doubt when the oath was drafted it was meant to be symbolic..

Rev Hellfire

Galvasean wrote: »

I highly doubt when the oath was drafted it was meant to be symbolic..

What it meant when it was drafted is irrelevance, its what it means now that matters.

Galvasean

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What it meant when it was drafted is irrelevance, its what it means now that matters.

I respectfully disagree. At no point did it spontaneously change it's meaning. It means the very same thing that it did when it was drafted. If they wanted to change it's meaning they'd have changed it.

dmw07

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What it meant when it was drafted is irrelevance, its what it means now that matters.

Exactly! Hence the necessary need to remove any mumbo jumbo from politics.

Rev Hellfire

Galvasean wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. At no point did it spontaneously change it's meaning. It means the very same thing that it did when it was drafted. If they wanted to change it's meaning they'd have changed it.

Beyond a statement that implies you solemnly swear, what meaning do you think the authors wished to impart? It was and remains purely symbolic.

Zombrex

I would have zero problem saying the oath. It doesn't require that you accept the existence of a god or that you lie. It requires that you swear to uphold the laws of the State. It says you swear that in the presence of God. If others want to believe God is present when I swear that that is up to them.

Rev Hellfire

dmw07 wrote: »

Exactly! Hence the necessary need to remove any mumbo jumbo from politics.

I'm not disagreeing with that, simply that it is in any shape or form an impediment to atheists.

dmw07

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with that, simply that it is in any shape or form an impediment to atheists.

It is hard to see the forest from the trees.

Rev Hellfire

dmw07 wrote: »

It is hard to see the forest from the trees.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

dmw07

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

hehehe, FEAR.

I wonder why you think that way.

I would have the same opinion as you Rev, if i was religious. I actually think i would. I would not see it as a problem for others. Why should i, sure it's harmless right?

Michael Nugent

A couple of brief points on this....

It is an impediment to conscientious atheists and agnostics who take seriously the making of such declarations.

If you don't have to believe the religious parts, why do you have to believe any of it? You could say you also didn't mean you would fulfill your duties as President.

Also, it doesn't just say "In the presence of Almighty God..." It also includes an explicit request that this god "direct" you.

Can you imagine the outcry if religious people were required to swear an oath that began "in the absence of Almighty God..." and ended with "May God fail to direct and sustain me."?

Finally, the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled on this issue in another country. It is an infringement of the human right to freedom of conscience.

Rev Hellfire

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It is an impediment to conscientious atheists and agnostics who take seriously the making of such declarations.

I can understand people making a stand for their principles, but I that's all it is.
Grandstanding, personally I'd take one for the wallet

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you don't have to believe the religious parts, why do you have to believe any of it? You could say you also didn't mean you would fulfill your duties as President.

Do you actually think the religious parts make any difference if the individual doesn't intend to implement their presidential duties sincerely?
I'm amazed you would even try to make that argument.

Michael Nugent

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Do you actually think the religious parts make any difference if the individual doesn't intend to implement their presidential duties sincerely?

No, but they do make a difference if the individual does intend to implement their presidential duties sincerely, but cannot reach that stage because the oath is contrary to their conscience - the same conscience that makes them intend to implement their presidential duties sincerely.

Rev Hellfire

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No, but they do make a difference if the individual does intend to implement their presidential duties sincerely, but cannot reach that stage because the oath is contrary to their conscience - the same conscience that makes them intend to implement their presidential duties sincerely.

I'll have to be honest I can't see how it would effect their ability to do so sincerely.
I mean perhaps I'm missing something here, but all this inclusion of god in the text is really just a flowery way of saying in the language of the time that yes I'm taking this seriously.

btw I'm not against updating the text or providing an alternative, least some think I am.

sensibleken

i dont think it would stop me taking the oath. after all i have sworn on a bible in court.

but i disagree that it has no meaning and is symbolic. remember the furore that went on over the oath to the king in 1922.

AhSureTisGrand

Galvasean wrote: »

I highly doubt when the oath was drafted it was meant to be symbolic..

Although Dev was rather flexible with his oaths

lazygal

sensibleken wrote: »

i dont think it would stop me taking the oath. after all i have sworn on a bible in court.

but i disagree that it has no meaning and is symbolic. remember the furore that went on over the oath to the king in 1922.

You can affirm in court, giving evidence or being on a jury-I did when I was up for jury service. Seeing as passing judgment on our peers is quite a serious thing, along with being President, I don't know why one can't also "affirm" when taking the oath.

People can say it's symbolic or whatever, but if you're promising to be guided by a being, even if you don't believe in one, it's telling lies while taking an oath. How would a Buddist or Hindu take the oath?

Zombrex

Michael Nugent wrote: »

A couple of brief points on this....

It is an impediment to conscientious atheists and agnostics who take seriously the making of such declarations.

If you don't have to believe the religious parts, why do you have to believe any of it? You could say you also didn't mean you would fulfill your duties as President.

If I'm reading the oath correctly from CitizenInformation you are not asked to believe the religious parts.

What you swear to do is quite clear.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Also, it doesn't just say "In the presence of Almighty God..." It also includes an explicit request that this god "direct" you.

Neither of which require that you believe he exists, it merely requires that the framers of the constitution did. Its like if you were asked to say something like "In this holy place I swear to uphold the law". Such an oath doesn't require you to believe the place is holy. It is not asking you to agree that the place is holy.

Likewise the oath is not asking you to accept you are in the present of almighty God, nor is it asking you to accept that he will guide you. There are statements of fact, not what you are swearing to.

I'm not saying the oath is good, I would of course prefer it was different. I'm saying that I do not believe an atheist should have trouble using it.

Michael Nugent

lazygal wrote: »

You can affirm in court, giving evidence or being on a jury-I did when I was up for jury service. Seeing as passing judgment on our peers is quite a serious thing, along with being President, I don't know why one can't also "affirm" when taking the oath.

In court you have the option of a secular declaration (although you have to know that you have this option and ask for it rather than it being offered). This is because the oaths in court are governed by law. The oaths for President and Judges are however written into the Constitution, so it would take a referendum to change them.

Michael Nugent

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm not saying the oath is good, I would of course prefer it was different. I'm saying that I do not believe an atheist should have trouble using it.

Well, it depends on the atheist. Some would and some wouldn't. But for those who would have trouble with it, it is an infringement of their human rights. This has already been addressed by the European Court of Human Rights:

Buscarini and Others v. San Marino
Grand Chamber judgment 18.02.1999

Elected to the San Marino parliament in 1993, the applicants complained of the fact that they had been required to swear an oath on the Christian Gospels in order to take their seats in parliament, which in their view demonstrated that the exercise of a fundamental political right was subject to publicly professing a particular faith. The Court found a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). It held in particular that the obligation to take the oath was not “necessary in a democratic society” for the purpose of Article 9 § 2, as making the exercise of a mandate intended to represent different views of society within Parliament subject to a prior declaration of commitment to a particular set of beliefs was contradictory.

Alexandridis v. Greece (19516/06)
Chamber judgment 21.02.2008

Mr Alexandridis was admitted to practise as a lawyer at Athens Court of First Instance and took the oath of office in November 2005, which was a precondition to practising as a lawyer. He complained that when taking the oath he had been obliged, in order to be allowed to make a solemn declaration, to reveal that he was not an Orthodox Christian, as there was only a standard form to swear a religious oath. The Court found a violation of Article 9, holding that that obligation had interfered with Mr Alexandridis’ freedom not to have to manifest his religious beliefs.

lazygal

Michael Nugent wrote: »

In court you have the option of a secular declaration (although you have to know that you have this option and ask for it rather than it being offered). This is because the oaths in court are governed by law. The oaths for President and Judges are however written into the Constitution, so it would take a referendum to change them.

I know that-so I think it's something that would be well worth having a referendum on. I think the precedence of having the option to affirm rather than swear on the bible is well worth considering.

I have to add, when I did jury service it was made very clear you had the option to affirm, both in the literature I received and from the judge on the day. I was in the Central Criminal Court. My sister recently did jury service in a District Court and was also quite well informed by the court service of the option to affirm. Maybe they've upped their game a bit in this area? It certainly wasn't a "hidden option".

cavedave

Roger Hassenforder

vote for everyone bar the person you like least, in my case everyone will be getting a 1-6 bar Dana.

Vote for everyone. It is a more parsimonious rule and thus more likely to be obeyed. There is no way the person you like least can use your vote as everyone else would have to have their votes reallocated for that to happen. If everyone else has their votes reallocated someone has already one.

Put it this way If I put Dana in last for every other candidate to have my vote passed through them and get to her she would have to be the only candidate left and so will have won anyway.

Zombrex

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Well, it depends on the atheist. Some would and some wouldn't. But for those who would have trouble with it, it is an infringement of their human rights. This has already been addressed by the European Court of Human Rights:

Buscarini and Others v. San Marino
Grand Chamber judgment 18.02.1999

Elected to the San Marino parliament in 1993, the applicants complained of the fact that they had been required to swear an oath on the Christian Gospels in order to take their seats in parliament, which in their view demonstrated that the exercise of a fundamental political right was subject to publicly professing a particular faith. The Court found a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). It held in particular that the obligation to take the oath was not “necessary in a democratic society” for the purpose of Article 9 § 2, as making the exercise of a mandate intended to represent different views of society within Parliament subject to a prior declaration of commitment to a particular set of beliefs was contradictory.

Alexandridis v. Greece (19516/06)
Chamber judgment 21.02.2008

Mr Alexandridis was admitted to practise as a lawyer at Athens Court of First Instance and took the oath of office in November 2005, which was a precondition to practising as a lawyer. He complained that when taking the oath he had been obliged, in order to be allowed to make a solemn declaration, to reveal that he was not an Orthodox Christian, as there was only a standard form to swear a religious oath. The Court found a violation of Article 9, holding that that obligation had interfered with Mr Alexandridis’ freedom not to have to manifest his religious beliefs.

True, it would probably also be much more of a problem for a non-Christian theist who may hold that such an oath was insulting to their own religion (I'm pretty sure Christians wouldn't touch an oath that mentioned the existences of another deity).

Again I'm all for getting rid of any religious references, I'm just saying that for me I would not feel that swearing that oath was lying or being dishonest.