One Oath For All

Michael Nugent

Atheist Ireland is launching a ‘One Oath For All’ campaign, to enable conscientious atheists and other non-Christians to hold the office of President, Judge, Taoiseach, or other members of the Council of State.

Michael D Higgins today starts his second term as President, after fourteen elections or uncontested nominations since 1938, all of which have excluded conscientious atheists as candidates.

This is because, in order to take office as President, Judge, or Taoiseach, we would have to swear a religious oath that would force us to dissemble about our beliefs, and breach our human right to freedom of conscience and belief.

We need a referendum to replace these religiously discriminatory oaths in our Constitution, so that all citizens of our Republic can be treated equally regardless of their religious or nonreligious beliefs.

These public office-holders should instead make a single declaration of loyalty to the Irish Constitution, State, and people, that does not reveal anything about the person’s religious or nonreligious beliefs.

The oath that the President must swear is contained in the Constitution (Article 12).

While it is described as a declaration, it is clearly a religious oath. It is a solemn promise, invoking a divine witness described as Almighty God, regarding the President’s future action or behaviour, and asking Almighty God to direct and sustain him or her.

It is clear from the Preamble that the ‘Almighty God’ involved is the Christian God, explicitly naming ‘the Most Holy Trinity’ and ‘our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ.’

If instead, in order to become President, the Constitution required that a winning candidate had to swear that there is no God, everybody would immediately realise that this would be a breach of their rights. But there is a blind spot when the discrimination is the other way around.

A similar religious oath exists for Judges (Article 34) and members of the Council of State (Article 34).

The Council of State includes the Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Chairs of the Dail and Seanad, Chief Justice, Presidents of the High Court and Court of Appeal, Attorney General, former Presidents, former Taoisigh, former Chief Justices, and seven nominees of the President.

Our Constitution should acknowledge the important right to freedom of religion or belief of every citizen, regardless of whether those beliefs are religious or philosophical. But the Constitution of a Republic should not give preference or privilege to the beliefs of either religious or atheist citizens.

Hotblack Desiato

Watching the presidential inauguration now, it's practically a mass. Sickening.

TheChizler

100% supportive of this but I'm bracing myself for the blasphemy style comments from people thinking the God-hating atheists and liberals are getting too ahead of themselves, getting too cocky after successes with same sex marriage and abortion - near quote.

recedite

Yaaay... lets hear it; "One oath for all, and all for no oath".

antiskeptic

"breach our human right to freedom of conscience and belief"

Not sure where you got this idea from. A human right is one granted by convention: if folk consider it a human right then it is one. If they don't then it's not.

Currently Ireland doesn't consider freedom of belief a human right when it comes to being president. Free to your private thoughts, perhaps, but not in your office taking. No breach there.

Do you mean that other folk outside this land currently consider freedom of belief expression a human right .. and you want that opinion to hold sway here? What happens if folk outside this land change that view in the future - ought we follow suit?

It seems odd that an atheist would seemingly make an appeal to something absolute (like a universal and inalienable human right, one which isn't subject to the ebb and flow of cultural mores). You kind of need a God for that.

BTW, I'd have no problem removing the oath. It's a hangover from a time when cultural Christianity reigned.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

Yaaay... lets hear it; "One oath for all, and all for no oath".

Go hoe some wild oaths.

Michael Nugent

antiskeptic wrote: »

"breach our human right to freedom of conscience and belief" Not sure where you got this idea from. A human right is one granted by convention: if folk consider it a human right then it is one. If they don't then it's not.

I agree with you about this. I'm not sure why you assumed otherwise.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Currently Ireland doesn't consider freedom of belief a human right when it comes to being president. Free to your private thoughts, perhaps, but not in your office taking. No breach there.

Currently, we have a contradictory position on this, which I will describe.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you mean that other folk outside this land currently consider freedom of belief expression a human right .. and you want that opinion to hold sway here? What happens if folk outside this land change that view in the future - ought we follow suit?

No, I mean that the States that have signed up the relevant treaties (which include Ireland) have agreed that freedom of belief and expression are human rights. These States (including Ireland) have also agreed that they (including Ireland) will vindicate these rights in the territories that they govern (including Ireland) and that they will collectively (including Ireland) oversee their obligation to do this.

In signing up to these treaties, Ireland was legally stating that the rights within are consistent with our Constitution. Otherwise, we would have had to hold a referendum before signing them. So where a discrepancy arises, we are obliged to amend our constitution or else be in breach of our obligations (that we have chosen to enter into) under the treaties.

We are campaigning to have the constitution amended, which would resolve the discrepancy.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seems odd that an atheist would seemingly make an appeal to something absolute (like a universal and inalienable human right, one which isn't subject to the ebb and flow of cultural mores). You kind of need a God for that.

It's not odd once you realise that you are mistaken in your assumption about what we are saying.

antiskeptic wrote: »

BTW, I'd have no problem removing the oath. It's a hangover from a time when cultural Christianity reigned.

That's good. I hope you will consider moving from having no problem with it happening, to actively campaigning to help make it happen.

antiskeptic

Michael Nugent wrote: »

In signing up to these treaties, Ireland was legally stating that the rights within are consistent with our Constitution. Otherwise, we would have had to hold a referendum before signing them.

If stating so, then Ireland was clearly mistaken, since the rights weren't consistent with our constitution.

So where a discrepancy arises, we are obliged to amend our constitution or else be in breach of our obligations (that we have chosen to enter into) under the treaties.

We could equally decide to amend our participation in the treaties and leave our constitution alone. Or withdraw from our participation in those treaties if amendment wasn't possible.

What we are obliged to do is for us to decide.

It's not odd once you realise that you are mistaken in your assumption about what we are saying.

We can see (from the above point) that these human rights you are referring to only become human rights (here in Ireland) in the event Ireland changes it's constitution and is correctly and fully aligned with the treaties.

Until then, they're someone else's human rights.

That's good. I hope you will consider moving from having no problem with it happening, to actively campaigning to help make it happen.

Sticky one that. Whilst I've no love for cultural Christianity, neither am I a great fan of anti-theist/atheistic secularism (which I see as an equally distasteful religion).

I've no particular desire to help either of them progress their agendas.

antiskeptic

I can see the campaign trail now: the oatheists vs. the atheists.

Michael Nugent

Antiskeptic, I’m happy to discuss your new points, but let’s first acknowledge how we got here. You originally believed that my argument was based on the idea that human rights were not agreed by humans, and that the rights to freedom of belief and expression are coming from other people outside of Ireland.

You have glided over being corrected on both of those points, and you are now arguing that we could escape our international human rights obligations (that we have collectively shaped and agreed to) by withdrawing from participating in international human rights treaties.

That is of course correct, but it is simply not going to happen. What will happen, sooner or later, is that we will replace the religious oaths in our constitution, both in order to reflect our international human rights obligations, and to respect all of our citizens equally. The stronger the campaign for this to happen, the sooner it will happen.

I agree with you about not supporting anti-theist or atheistic secularism. That would involve forcing the incoming President etc to explicitly declare that there is no God. I would be as opposed to the State supporting atheism in this way, as I am to the State supporting theism as it now does.

What we are seeking is that holders of these public offices should make a single declaration of loyalty to the Irish Constitution, State, and people, that does not reveal anything about the person’s religious or nonreligious beliefs. Do you support this as an expression of secularism that is neither theistic or atheistic?

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Until then, they're someone else's human rights.

That line would go down just great in contemporary Myanmar or Pakistan or many other places you'd rather not live in... places that take their laws and values from 1000+ year old religious books full of hatred, murder, rape and slavery in the name of god. Luckily for us, the western world has mostly moved on.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That line would go down just great in contemporary Myanmar or Pakistan or many other places you'd rather not live in... places that take their laws and values from 1000+ year old religious books full of hatred, murder, rape and slavery in the name of god. Luckily for us, the western world has mostly moved on.

Yeah, but there is a point here. If antiskeptic (and Michael) are correct in saying that human rights are simply a conventional societal construct, then any society is as free to construct any set of rights for itself as any other, and all are equally valid. Which means we have no basis for criticising the constructs of Myanmar or Pakistan.

Indeed, it would mean that Michael would have no basis for criticising the Irish constitutional requirement for a theistic oath, if Ireland had not ratified varous human rights conventions which guarantee freedom of religion.

More worryingly still, Michael's critique of the Irish situation fails if, correctly interpreted, those various human rights conventions don't, in fact, prohibit theistic oaths of this kind. And this isn't a negligible risk; many countries which are party to these conventions have varying degrees of establishment of religion, impose varying religious tests or require ostensibly religious declarations in various contexts. I don't think there's a general opinion that human rights treaties ban this, and I'm pretty sure there's no authority in the way of court decisions to the effect that they do. It may be that if Ireland was hauled before the European Court of Human Rights on this issue the finding would be that the current situation is not in breach of the ECHR.

Slightly surprisingly, I'm inclined to take a stronger position on this than Michael (seems to be). In my view the republic should be secular, and this is so even if it has not entered into treaty obligations which require this, and even if the population does not necessarily wish it to be secular.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, but there is a point here. If antiskeptic (and Michael) are correct in saying that human rights are simply a conventional societal construct, then any society is as free to construct any set of rights for itself as any other, and all are equally valid. Which means we have no basis for criticising the constructs of Myanmar or Pakistan.

Regardless of whether human rights are a convention societal construct that should not prevent any from criticising those who adopt a different set of rights. If we to take that position then nobody could have criticised the Jim Crow laws in the states or the practice of slavery. "Oh but they have a different set of rights defined" is not a reason to say nothing.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Indeed, it would mean that Michael would have no basis for criticising the Irish constitutional requirement for a theistic oath, if Ireland had not ratified varous human rights conventions which guarantee freedom of religion.

But we have signed such treaties so Michael does have a basis for his criticism

Peregrinus wrote: »

More worryingly still, Michael's critique of the Irish situation fails if, correctly interpreted, those various human rights conventions don't, in fact, prohibit theistic oaths of this kind. And this isn't a negligible risk; many countries which are party to these conventions have varying degrees of establishment of religion, impose varying religious tests or require ostensibly religious declarations in various contexts. I don't think there's a general opinion that human rights treaties ban this, and I'm pretty sure there's no authority in the way of court decisions to the effect that they do. It may be that if Ireland was hauled before the European Court of Human Rights on this issue the finding would be that the current situation is not in breach of the ECHR.

Slightly surprisingly, I'm inclined to take a stronger position on this than Michael (seems to be). In my view the republic should be secular, and this is so even if it has not entered into treaty obligations which require this, and even if the population does not necessarily wish it to be secular.

I'm not sure what interpretation you are applying here. If we have signed treaties saying we adopt freedom of belief as a human right then we cannot also say that holders of public office must subscribe to one set of beliefs. Effectively we make people who do not subscribe to those beliefs second class citizens. Can you not see the conflict here?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Slightly surprisingly, I'm inclined to take a stronger position on this than Michael (seems to be). In my view the republic should be secular, and this is so even if it has not entered into treaty obligations which require this, and even if the population does not necessarily wish it to be secular.

I'm sure Michael would strongly agree with you on this, which is after all a fairly basic premise.
Its just that if you launch a campaign, you really need to have an "angle".
If you remember back a couple of years, there was a campaign to have the proposed constitutional convention debate the topic "separation of church and state".
Michael's campaign at the time helped to ensure that more requests went in requesting that topic than any other. Despite that, some other topics were accepted instead, including some very "lack lustre" ones such as the minimum age of the president.


So the theme of this campaign seems to be the ECHR, which may help to apply some pressure from outside the state. Fair enough, its worth a try.


This route has two main limitations;
1. The ECHR is a toothless wonder. States regularly ignore it whenever it gives an inconvenient ruling. The state just says something like "Right, thanks for that, we must look into that issue sometime alright".
Ireland has form already, for example our "(in)action plan" for the O'Keeffe case...

Ireland is committed to ensuring that the Judgment in this case is implemented expeditiously, while noting that the case relates to events in 1973, over forty years ago.

The final step in the action plan was taken directly from the Peoples Front of Judea handbook - Substitute the PFJ for Ireland and it seems to be the same as the motion they passed when The Messiah (Brian) was taken away to be crucified by the Romans.

Next Steps

18. A further Action Plan will be filed by 28th July 2018 to report on the actions.

2. ECHR may ditch their own principles when things get sticky, such as when blasphemy and freedom of speech collide. As happened recently in Austria in the Susanne Winter case.
Never engage in yodelling or sean-nos singing while cutting your lawn.
Hence I agree they cannot be relied upon to give a good ruling if they were ever called upon to rule on the issue of mandatory religious oaths.


Recedite, The Universal Trustee

recedite

Ah yes, here we go... The P.F.J. "Meeting to Take Action".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA

Classic.


Recedite, The Maintainer of life

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seems odd that an atheist would seemingly make an appeal to something absolute (like a universal and inalienable human right, one which isn't subject to the ebb and flow of cultural mores). You kind of need a God for that.

It's not in the slightest bit odd if one starts off by declaring the existence of certain rights, then sticking to them.

recedite

The O'Keeffe Action Plan.




Recedite, The Assembler of Scattered Creations

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Ah yes, here we go... The P.F.J. "Meeting to Take Action".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA

Classic.


Recedite, The Maintainer of life

recedite wrote: »

The O'Keeffe Action Plan.




Recedite, The Assembler of Scattered Creations

what does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread?

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread?

Read the post before questioning me.


Recedite, The Inflictor of Death

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Read the post before questioning me.


Recedite, The Inflictor of Death

i did. so what do they have to do with the topic of the thread?

Hotblack Desiato

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If we have signed treaties saying we adopt freedom of belief as a human right then we cannot also say that holders of public office must subscribe to one set of beliefs. Effectively we make people who do not subscribe to those beliefs second class citizens. Can you not see the conflict here?

It's not only the treaties though, the constitution itself declares that all citizens have freedom of belief, which is entirely incompatible with a religious test or oath for a public office.

Where the constitution contradicts itself, the legislature really should come up with a suitable amendment to remove the contradiction.

Strawberry1975

Racedite
Hope You are Well
The Manager
Manage Well
With Your Au ��������
Keep up the good work
A Great Action Plan

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Regardless of whether human rights are a convention societal construct that should not prevent any from criticising those who adopt a different set of rights. If we to take that position then nobody could have criticised the Jim Crow laws in the states or the practice of slavery. "Oh but they have a different set of rights defined" is not a reason to say nothing.

That’s pretty much my point. If rights are just a conventional societal construct then the Jim Crow construct (in which I have a right to sell my goods or not as I please) has as much validity as the MLK construct (in which I have a right not to have my custom refused on account of my race). If we are going to argue that the MLK construct has a validity that the Jim Crow construct lacks, we have to say that rights are not just a conventional societal construct, but that they need to be validated or not by an appeal to some external standard.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

But we have signed such treaties so Michael does have a basis for his criticism

Only if the treaties in fact ban what he objects to. Which, I suspect, they may not.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not sure what interpretation you are applying here. If we have signed treaties saying we adopt freedom of belief as a human right then we cannot also say that holders of public office must subscribe to one set of beliefs. Effectively we make people who do not subscribe to those beliefs second class citizens. Can you not see the conflict here?

Yes, I can see the conflict, but the question is what do we do about it? Rights are always coming into conflict with one another, and the greater the number of fundamental rights and values that we recognise the more potential there is for conflict and tension between them. Any human rights system that is of any use has to incorporate a mechanism for addressing those conflicts, reconciling them, prioritising different rights and values over one another, etc.

We can no more say “the ECHR guarantees freedom of religion, therefore these oaths are contrary to the ECHR” than we can say “the ECHR guarantees freedom of expression, therefore libel laws are contrary to the ECHR”. (And the same goes for any other international human rights instrument that we may have adhered to.) To find out if this or that treaty does in fact ban religious oaths for public office-holders, you need to go through the processes that the treaty itself provides for answering such question, whether that be taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights or going to the UN Human Rights Commission or whatever.

So, if the campaign rests on a claim that the consitutional requirement for these declarations is a violation of the international human rights commitments we have made, that’s a fairly shaky foundation; the basic claim is, to put it no higher, still open to question.

But I have another concern about this. Framing the issue in terms of human rights suggests that the objection to this requirement is the injury done to individuals who may wish to seek office, but are deterred by the requirement for a declaration. While I don’t minimise the injury to individual candidates or would-be candidates, that seems to me to miss the main objection, which is the injury done to the character of the republic, and so to the community that it serves, by having these requirements. Even if all the candidates for the offices concerned are demonstrative evangelical believers who are happy to cry “Hallelujah” at every opportunity, and none of them find the requirement in the least oppressive, the requirement is still objectionable, not on human rights ground but on fundamental principles of republican democracy. It seems to me the way this should be argues is not “we’ve signed these treaties; we’ll be embarrassed if someone successfully calls us on this”; it’s “is this the kind of republic we want?”

recedite

Strawberry1975 wrote: »

Racedite
You & Your Action plan
Hypocrite

Not my action plan, Ireland's action plan.
And stop searching for my gold, the Leprechauns of Wickla gave it to me. Its all mines.


Recedite, The Self-Subsisting One

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

If we are going to argue that the MLK construct has a validity that the Jim Crow construct lacks, we have to say that rights are not just a conventional societal construct, but that they need to be validated or not by an appeal to some external standard.

In that example, the "external standard" was federal law as opposed to state law. In another example it might be EU law trumping Irish law. But always its a societal construct. If you take a larger subset of people, you incorporate more diversity of society or societies, and eventually you are left with just the core common principles that nearly everyone can agree on.
Or so the theory goes anyway...


Recedite, The Pointing One

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

It's not in the slightest bit odd if one starts off by declaring the existence of certain rights, then sticking to them.

What's in a declaration?

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if all the candidates for the offices concerned are demonstrative evangelical believers who are happy to cry “Hallelujah” at every opportunity, and none of them find the requirement in the least oppressive, the requirement is still objectionable, not on human rights ground but on fundamental principles of republican democracy.

It can't be objectionable in a republican democracy unless the people decide it's objectionable (in this case, by voting for it's abolition in a referendum)

Hotblack Desiato

We may find many things in our constitution objectionable, but we only get to vote on changing them if the government says we can.

robindch

Mod:

Strawberry1975 wrote: »

Racedite
You & Your Action plan
Hypocrite

Strawberry - great to have you posting with us this week and welcome to the forum. You should spend a few minutes reviewing the forum charter before posting again as being uncivil towards your fellow posters isn't tolerated around these here parts under threat of cards, bans and the like. The forum charter is here.

Thanking youze.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's in a declaration?

What you'd expect to find there - ideas expressed through the medium of words.

Hotblack Desiato

Rather silly letter last Thursday in the IT:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/atheists-and-the-constitution-1.3697766

Sir, – I presume that the convention for taking an oath arose from a time when people had a genuine fear of God and consequently would have intended to keep their word if they had sworn on a Bible.

Since atheists, by definition, do not believe in God, it is difficult to envisage a change to the Constitution, as proposed by Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland (“Atheists and oaths of office”, November 14th), which would make an atheist’s oath taking any more relevant whether or not it was made to a god or to no-god.

Rather than dredging up an excuse for another referendum on this subject, Mr Nugent might reflect on whether his own organisation needs a change first, since the name “Atheist Ireland” is as presumptuous as the reference to God in the Constitution to which he objects.

“Atheists of Ireland” would surely be more accurate. – Yours, etc,

KEVIN O’SULLIVAN,

Letterkenny,

Co Donegal.

Hmm, wouldn't like to have this guy on the jury if I was affirming as a defendant or a witness.

His complaint about the name of AI is pointless and ridiculous.


A response the next day:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/atheists-and-the-constitution-1.3699078

Sir, – Those of us who affirm as opposed to swear when required to do so in court, for example, know that we are making a promise to the State to support the rule of law when we undertake to tell the truth. It is also very much the case that the fear of the punishments prescribed for perjury, and the skill of cross-examiners, have been far more important in the past than the involvement of any deity in ensuring that the facts emerge. That would remain the case were oaths to be abolished.

Atheist Ireland, whatever quibbles a letter writer (November 15th) might have with its name, is correct.

Conscientious non-believers should be able to take public office without being obliged to indulge in hypocrisy because of the current requirement that they must solemnly invoke a belief in an esoteric entity to which they emphatically do not subscribe. – Yours, etc,

SEAMUS McKENNA,

Windy Arbour,

Dublin 14.