It's pretty simple in my opinion anyway. The state has absolutely no business imposing any religious belief on anyone.

I can't see how a secular oath, based on promising to the court and the people to tell the truth in court, or to behave within the law and in the best interest of the nation while holding public office would be in anyway offensive to anyone.

How is it any worse than a religious oath which may be meaningless to someone who is an atheist, humanist, agnostic, or someone of a different faith. Or, to some may even be offensive.

Religious oaths simply have no place in a democracy, they belong in a theocracy.

I mean, how would a Christian react to having to swear on a Koran in an Islamic-influenced country ? Or, swearing in some Buddhist way in Japan ? Would you do it? Would it have any meaning ? Would it mean you might lie and feel it had no consequence ?! Would you feel that something was being 'forced' upon you ?


In my opinion anyway, if you believe that we should live in a proper democracy and believe that Government and public office holders are granted their authority to rule by the people, and not on some religious basis then you should really see why a religious oath is contrary to all of that.

If you take an oath like this, it should be a promise to the people, not a promise to God. Promising things to God, Buddha, Allah, The Dagda or any other supernatural beings are really a matter of private faith, not of state.

I just think we should grow up and take responsibility for our own affairs as a nation and a society, not pass responsibility for such important civil matters to a religious entity.


Being non-Christian does not mean that you're not Irish, or somehow an outsider in this society. We live in a Republic, these old oaths are throw backs to a different era where the church was established as part of the state, as it remains in Britain today.

We really need to move on and complete the transition from an archaic, theocratic monarchy to a proper republic.