Campaign against judicial religious oaths

[tmesis2008]

If these Atheists don't believe in God then they can hardly take a Oath to him that has the slightest bearing on them IMO.

So you would have no problem swearing an oath on the Koran, yes? I mean, if it doesn't have the slightest then you shouldn't have a problem either, should you?

As for the Office of President I think anyone running to be elected to that position should be legally obliged to say whether they intend to take a religous or a secular oath if they win.

The Irish People have at least the right to know that before they go to the polls.

Don't be silly. You can find out their religious opinion along with all their other opinions. Nobody should be "legally obliged" to give an opinion in a campaign. What are you thinking?

[tmesis2008]

I agree that there should be an alternative oath or a one size fits all oath.
What I cannot understand is why secularists get exercised over such a triviality.

Again, if the oath is a triviality, then I'm sure you would have no problem swearing on a Koran. If, of course, you find that you have a problem with that, and you don't think that that is a triviality, then you might just be starting to see this from the atheist's point of view.

[marmurr1916]

You can merely "affirm" in court or swear on the Koran/Bible, whatever.

The presidential oath (and perhaps the judicia oath) of office is constitutiionallly mandated, i think.

It's Article 34.5:

5. 1° Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration:
"In the presence of Almighty God I, , do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me."


2° This declaration shall be made and subscribed by the Chief Justice in the presence of the President, and by each of the other judges of the Supreme Court, the judges of the High Court and the judges of every other Court in the presence of the Chief Justice or the senior available judge of the Supreme Court in open court.



3° The declaration shall be made and subscribed by every judge before entering upon his duties as such judge, and in any case not later than ten days after the date of his appointment or such later date as may be determined by the President.


4° Any judge who declines or neglects to make such declaration as aforesaid shall be deemed to have vacated his office.

So no choice there for atheists or people who don't believe in a monetheistic deity.

[drkpower]

Not a triviality. It's about eradicating the fairytale belief guff from the operations of a secular society.

Making reference to religon as "fairytale belief guff" is exactly why the religous lobby is so reluctant to let trivialities such as oaths go. They fear that secularism will not allow for the free profession of their beliefs and comments like that re-inforce such a view.

So your (and others) contempt for believers will ultimately slow down the secularisation of the State. Well done.

[drkpower]

So no choice there for atheists or people who don't believe in a monetheistic deity.

Well clearly there is; judges and possibly presidents have been doing it for years. They just say it without believing. Like the manner in which the Oath of Allegiance was sworn years ago.

Of course it is better that it be scrapped/an alternative offered, but lets not pretend that there are thousands of potential judges and presidents not applying because of the oath.

[drkpower]

Again, if the oath is a triviality, then I'm sure you would have no problem swearing on a Koran. If, of course, you find that you have a problem with that, and you don't think that that is a triviality, then you might just be starting to see this from the atheist's point of view.

I wouldnt have a particular problem with it, no. It would be meaningless. Just like swearing on the Bible.

[tmesis2008]

I wouldnt have a particular problem with it, no. It would be meaningless. Just like swearing on the Bible.

Well, if its meaningless, lets get rid of it, eh?

[marmurr1916]

Well clearly there is; judges and possibly presidents have been doing it for years. They just say it without believing. Like the manner in which the Oath of Allegiance was sworn years ago.

Of course it is better that it be scrapped/an alternative offered, but lets not pretend that there are thousands of potential judges and presidents not applying because of the oath.

And what about someone with strong atheist or polytheist beliefs?

Are they supposed to deny those beliefs to suit the monotheists?

There could easily be an alternative, like this:

"I, , do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."

[JCSkinner]

Making reference to religon as "fairytale belief guff" is exactly why the religous lobby is so reluctant to let trivialities such as oaths go. They fear that secularism will not allow for the free profession of their beliefs and comments like that re-inforce such a view.

So your (and others) contempt for believers will ultimately slow down the secularisation of the State. Well done.

I'm not slowing anything. I'm expressing my opinion on the issue on a website.
I consider religion to be fairytale nonsense and won't be silenced from saying so. I see no reason to pay a lip service of respect to something I have no respect for, and do not believe that free profession of all beliefs or none (something I would endorse) should prohibit honest expression of contempt, criticism or otherwise for religious beliefs or indeed for atheistic positions.

[drkpower]

Well, if its meaningless, lets get rid of it, eh?

see above.