Gilmore gets legal advice over swearing to God as Agnostic

expectationlost

At the first meeting of the council of state members have to swear to God

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf#page=29&zoom=240,0,243
article 31 4

Every member of the Council of State shall at the first meeting thereof which he attends as a member take and subscribe a declaration in the following form: "In the presence of Almighty God I, , do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfil my duties as a member of the Council of State."

Gilmore has described himself as an agnostic: "I doubt rather than I believe, let me put it that way
http://www.hotpress.com/archive/4154654.html?new_layout=1&page_no=12&show_comments=1


Atheist Ireland brought this up and its interesting to see it got some sort of response, although it was the black hole of legal advice, which could mean anything and nothing.

http://www.atheist.ie/2013/07/ask-tanaiste-eamon-gilmore-to-not-swear-the-religious-oath-next-monday/

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/agnostic-gilmore-got-legal-advice-on-swearing-religious-oath-1.1476539

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

At the first meeting of the council of state members have to swear to God

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf#page=29&zoom=240,0,243
article 31 4


Gilmore has described himself as an agnostic: "I doubt rather than I believe, let me put it that way
http://www.hotpress.com/archive/4154654.html?new_layout=1&page_no=12&show_comments=1


Atheist Ireland brought this up and its interesting to see it got some sort of response, although it was the black hole of legal advice, which could mean anything.

http://www.atheist.ie/2013/07/ask-tanaiste-eamon-gilmore-to-not-swear-the-religious-oath-next-monday/

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/agnostic-gilmore-got-legal-advice-on-swearing-religious-oath-1.1476539

He is agnostic. What is the big deal? That athiest website is a load of ****e. Stupid militants making mountains out of molehills.

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

He is agnostic. What is the big deal? That athiest website is a load of ****e. Stupid militants making mountains out of molehills.

Really? You don't see a problem with swearing on something that you don't believe in?

MrP

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote: »

Really? You don't see a problem with swearing on something that you don't believe in?

MrP

I thought he said he had doubts. He believes that there is potentially a god (or not). If he doesn't take the oath, it will interfere with state business. It is just a technicality.

expectationlost

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought he said he had doubts. He believes that there is potentially a god (or not). If he doesn't take the oath, it will interfere with state business. It is just a technicality.

while carrying out one of the important functions of the state he's going to swear to something he doubts

there was no doubt that he would do it , but absolutley fair and right to bring it up, to highlight the issue.

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought he said he had doubts. He believes that there is potentially a god (or not). If he doesn't take the oath, it will interfere with state business. It is just a technicality.

A technicality perhaps, but do you not see an issue with the first act of the minister being, in effect, a lie?

MrP

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

He is agnostic. What is the big deal? That athiest website is a load of ****e. Stupid militants making mountains out of molehills.

Would you swear to Allāh that you'd do your job right etc even if you didn't believe in Allāh?

Keeping in mind that if you do swear to Allāh then you are openly lieing, not a good start to things really.

Geomy

MrPudding wrote: »

Really? You don't see a problem with swearing on something that you don't believe in?

MrP

If you don't believe in superstition or God's, whats the big deal ?

It's only a procedure, making a big deal out of it just goes to show your irrational fears.

Surely Mr Gilmore would never tell a lie. ...

Geomy

Cabaal wrote: »

Would you swear to Allāh that you'd do your job right etc even if you didn't believe in Allāh?

Keeping in mind that if you do swear to Allāh then you are openly lieing, not a good start to things really.

In all fairness are any of us one hundred percent honest, if there's no one looking are you going to drive within the speed limits at 5am...
In a 50 kph zone on a stretch of road, that goes on as far as the eye can see...

He's a politician,he's only going with procedure...

Manach

Being a typical politician the only thing he can swear on that he believes in is himself.

Busted Flat.

Manach wrote: »

Being a typical politician the only thing he can swear on that he believes in is himself.

Therein lies the problem.

Sarky

"just a procedure" is a lovely cop out.

HurtLocker

Sarky wrote: »

"just a procedure" is a lovely cop out.

Hopeful Enda will call him aside, read him our constitutions preamble and remind that this is a "Cat-Lick Cuntry" and that'll be that.

Busted Flat.

Geomy wrote: »

In all fairness are any of us one hundred percent honest, if there's no one looking are you going to drive within the speed limits at 5am...
In a 50 kph zone on a stretch of road, that goes on as far as the eye can see...

He's a politician,he's only going with procedure...

Like P Rabbite saying " everyone says things they don't mean in elections" or words to that effect. We the electorate, are some bunch of clowns.

Dave!

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Like P Rabbite saying " everyone says things they don't mean in elections" or words to that effect. We the electorate, are some bunch of clowns.

The most taken-out-of-context quote in the history of Irish politics.

Delirium

Geomy wrote: »

In all fairness are any of us one hundred percent honest, if there's no one looking are you going to drive within the speed limits at 5am...
In a 50 kph zone on a stretch of road, that goes on as far as the eye can see...

He's a politician,he's only going with procedure...

Big difference between a citizen ignoring the law and an elected official essentially telling a lie before they've even started their job. If they can't display a backbone for something as simple how can we trust them to be honest when it comes to things that affect the running of the country?

Just because something is procedure doesn't mean he should go with the flow. Especially if it's a matter of public record what his religious stance is.

I don't see why the procedure still remains. It's not as if the general public breathe sigh of relief once they've sworn on the bible. "It's alright lads, the government won't shaft us. they swore on the bible!" :rolleyes:

Geomy

koth wrote: »

Big difference between a citizen ignoring the law and an elected official essentially telling a lie before they've even started their job. If they can't display a backbone for something as simple how can we trust them to be honest when it comes to things that affect the running of the country?

Just because something is procedure doesn't mean he should go with the flow. Especially if it's a matter of public record what his religious stance is.

I don't see why the procedure still remains. It's not as if the general public breathe sigh of relief once they've sworn on the bible. "It's alright lads, the government won't shaft us. they swore on the bible!" :rolleyes:

Exactly not all that glitters is gold....

If they could maybe do a deal with the people, bring in a law that every time they fall back on their promises, drop their salary on an incremental scale...call it black tape rather than red tape....

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Would you swear to Allāh that you'd do your job right etc even if you didn't believe in Allāh?

Keeping in mind that if you do swear to Allāh then you are openly lieing, not a good start to things really.

I'd do my job right regardless of swearing to Allah, God or Tom sellers. It is just a procedural thing. He is still going to swear instead of disrupting state business. Sign of a good politicians is to place their countrymen concerns ahead of their own.

Personally if I were either A, I'd swear to the Universe, to all that is, seen & unseen. Pretty much covers any scenario. If there's a diety, goes to him/them, if not, then you're declaring to all fellow inhabitants of the universe that (insert what you swear to).

COYVB

Geomy wrote: »

If you don't believe in superstition or God's, whats the big deal ?

It's only a procedure, making a big deal out of it just goes to show your irrational fears.

So then what's your problem with having it changed?

Geomy

COYVB wrote: »

So then what's your problem with having it changed?

I never said I had a problem with having it changed.

Kidchameleon

He lies about EVERYTHING so I don't see why this would be a problem for him

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd do my job right regardless of swearing to Allah, God or Tom sellers. It is just a procedural thing. He is still going to swear instead of disrupting state business. Sign of a good politicians is to place their countrymen concerns ahead of their own.

Its a concern for me and others clearly, people shouldn't have to swear to a mythical being they don't believe in regardless of if they are a TD or not.

So its not just his concern,

magicbastarder

Geomy wrote: »

If you don't believe in superstition or God's, whats the big deal ?

Deleted User wrote:

Sign of a good politicians is to place their countrymen concerns ahead of their own.

it's because i don't believe in gods that it is a big deal.
any suggestion that there is religious influence on a body such as the council of state is odious and should be removed. and in this instance, gilmore *is* acting in the interests of plenty of his countrymen who believe a secular state is preferable.

Banbh

What did he do in the end, or has the swearing-in taken place yet?

magicbastarder

the council of state meets tomorrow. i assume that's when the oath would be taken.

while i hate the fact that he has to take it, i don't have much time for the notion that he should refuse. the issue the COS is meeting about it too important to use as a grandstand for another issue.

expectationlost

magicbastarder wrote: »

the council of state meets tomorrow. i assume that's when the oath would be taken.

while i hate the fact that he has to take it, i don't have much time for the notion that he should refuse. the issue the COS is meeting about it too important to use as a grandstand for another issue.

not swearing an oath you don't believe is grandstanding? oath are personal professional statements to do your duty, they are not for anybody else.

Banbh

Change only comes about when people say 'No. I don't accept that.'
We have to stand up for our beliefs or things will never change.

Geomy

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's because i don't believe in gods that it is a big deal.
any suggestion that there is religious influence on a body such as the council of state is odious and should be removed. and in this instance, gilmore *is* acting in the interests of plenty of his countrymen who believe a secular state is preferable.

It's a travesty, absolutely ghastly....

I know where your coming from, but if you make one side happy there's always another side unhappy. ..

Another piece of red tape that causes division and upset, the laws in this country are very contradictory. ...

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought he said he had doubts. He believes that there is potentially a god (or not). If he doesn't take the oath, it will interfere with state business. It is just a technicality.

No. The oath begins 'In the presence of Almighty God...' and only a theist can swear that.

If an agnostic accepted the presence of a god, then they wouldn't be an agnostic any more.

Geomy wrote: »

I know where your coming from, but if you make one side happy there's always another side unhappy. ..

You think that people (such as in the U.S.) who insist that all politicians, public officials, etc. should swear allegiance to god, should be entertained?

Another piece of red tape that causes division and upset, the laws in this country are very contradictory. ...

There's no contradiction - our constitution is explicitly christian, and many of our laws are strongly influenced by catholic doctrine. Our constitution and laws are inherently discriminatory in nature. That's the problem.

Geomy

ninja900 wrote: »

No. The oath begins 'In the presence of Almighty God...' and only a theist can swear that.

If an agnostic accepted the presence of a god, then they wouldn't be an agnostic any more.




You think that people (such as in the U.S.) who insist that all politicians, public officials, etc. should swear allegiance to god, should be entertained?



There's no contradiction - our constitution is explicitly christian, and many of our laws are strongly influenced by catholic doctrine. Our constitution and laws are inherently discriminatory in nature. That's the problem.

Ok what's the solution to the problem ?

What's good for theists atheists and people who just don't give a **** whether there's a God or not. ..

Enlighten me :-D

Banbh

The solution is no oath or let those who believe in such things make any public declarations they like. It is unjust to require people who do not share your belief to call upon your god to witness what they are saying.
It is a power trip by the religious establishment and needs to be stopped.

Geomy

Banbh wrote: »

The solution is no oath or let those who believe in such things make any public declarations they like. It is unjust to require people who do not share your belief to call upon your god to witness what they are saying.
It is a power trip by the religious establishment and needs to be stopped.

That makes sense, its a good solution.

legspin

If it is in the constitution that this oath must be taken it can only be changed with a referendum.

Anything else is waffle.

Sarky

Geomy wrote: »

Ok what's the solution to the problem ?

What's good for theists atheists and people who just don't give a **** whether there's a God or not. ..

Enlighten me :-D

Laws and systems based on rational logic, instead of superstitious dogma. It's not rocket science.

HurtLocker

Geomy wrote: »

Ok what's the solution to the problem ?

What's good for theists atheists and people who just don't give a **** whether there's a God or not. ..

Enlighten me :-D

How about an actual separation of church and state? A state that doesn't endorse a God or a Religion as true. One where people of all faiths (that's important as our constitutions specifies Christianity) and no faiths can live without the state using "procedures" as a way to mention a specific religion. Becoming a member of office shouldn't mean sucking it up, pretending and hiding who you truly are.

And people can simple do there hocus pocus in the safety of their own home on their own time away from me! There is freedom of religion and freedom from religion, you can't have one without the other.

Sulla Felix

Collins Dictionary wrote:

4. a man who has qualities regarded as making him superior to other men

So. He can swear to himself I guess.

expectationlost

one presume the oath is _like_ signing a contract, like swearing you'll tell the truth in court, you say it out loud so people you hear you say it, you acknowledging that you know what your supposed to do, so if they catch you doing wrong they can point to that so you can't say you didn't know.

AI makes a good point that they don't want an option but a secular oath, so everybody says the same one, and no difference between how people say it

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

Laws and systems based on rational logic, instead of superstitious dogma. It's not rocket science.

I was happy enough with one answer, I know that this is the A+A no need to point out that **** to me, an answer like that is typical and old school.

That attitude isn't what's going to bring people together, its why we have division in the first place.

I know your stance on religion etc.
No need to keep repeating yourself
:-D
Move along now Sarky.....

magicbastarder

expectationlost wrote: »

not swearing an oath you don't believe is grandstanding?

it'd be using the abortion issue to force a debate about the oath issue; and i believe the oath issue is less important than establishing a reasonable abortion regime in this country - so in that sense, i think it would be grandstanding.

magicbastarder

actually, i was surprised to read that the constitution actually stipulated the wording of the oath. seemed unnecessarily specific.

Hotblack Desiato

Geomy wrote: »

I was happy enough with one answer, I know that this is the A+A no need to point out that **** to me, an answer like that is typical and old school.

That attitude isn't what's going to bring people together, its why we have division in the first place.

I know your stance on religion etc.
No need to keep repeating yourself
:-D
Move along now Sarky.....

Right, so religious divisions are atheists' fault :rolleyes:

Do you actually read the posts before hitting reply?

Geomy

ninja900 wrote: »

Right, so religious divisions are atheists' fault :rolleyes:

Do you actually read the posts before hitting reply?

I read the post, maybe I answered it in a negative tone. ..

Didn't know whether he or she was being funny or serious....

Sure if they are taking a stance from a reddite type Atheists view that's acceptable.

Can't argue with that :-D

Cabaal

Seems he's going to take the outh
http://www.thejournal.ie/eamon-gilmore-agnostic-god-oath-council-of-state-1012539-Jul2013/

magicbastarder

and i think he's right to. this is a lesser issue than the bill they're discussing.

Geomy

I think he's doing the right thing, all part of procedure...

Banbh

If the oath is required by law, and there is no afirmation alternative as in a court, then he has no option but to say the words.
It would be crazy for him to jeopardise the law after all we have been through.

I wonder if the zealots are praying that the agnostic will follow his godless conscience and refuse to swear to their god?:)

Obliq

Geomy wrote: »

I think he's doing the right thing, all part of procedure...

He's doing the ONLY thing available to him (apart from hindering the vote). The "right" thing is not available to him, which would be a secular oath.

Banbh

Okay. He's doing the righter of the two things available.

Geomy

Obliq wrote: »

He's doing the ONLY thing available to him (apart from hindering the vote). The "right" thing is not available to him, which would be a secular oath.

Ah but there's no secular oath, so for now he's doing what's available to him, you're spot on there....

Would it be costly to the exchequer to change all the oaths, and any law's that have anything to with Christian or Catholic influence ?

Im asking from a financial point of view, I don't need to know about the cost so far from the church and state intertwined together to make the laws of the land. ...

Would a change be costly ?

I'm only finding out about all this from popping in and out of here reading posts etc

magicbastarder

Geomy wrote: »

Would it be costly to the exchequer to change all the oaths, and any law's that have anything to with Christian or Catholic influence ?

it would need a referendum (or several) to deal with changing constitutional references.