Campaign against judicial religious oaths

[drkpower]

Well everything we do is in some sense to make us feel better. What is the bigger picture? It's not my job to protect Irish Catholicism from it's own reactionary elements. W-ww -ww -ell if you don't say nice things about us some might become extreme. Come now don't pretend that you aren't just doing the "not pointing the gun but putting the gun on the table" thing. Nobody is falling for that

Your analysis is all that is wrong with hardcore athesist/secualrists. It is not a battle - catholicism doesnt have to lose for u to win.

As for the "gun", not sure what you are on about.

[jdaly]

It's not just atheists who are affected.

Anybody who doesn't believe in a monotheistic deity is disbarred from office by being required to take the oath in its present form.

The constitution should be amended to provide an alternative to the oath, an alternative which is suitable for non-believers of all kinds.

oh yes, I want to take an oath to the flying spaghetti monster and its cousin the solar golden teapot, far better craic than those old po faced christian, muslim, jewish, or similar gods. An the devil is not bad either.

[garlandgreen]

Your analysis is all that is wrong with hardcore athesist/secualrists. It is not a battle - catholicism doesnt have to lose for u to win.

As for the "gun", not sure what you are on about.

The gun is "Reactionary Catholicism". You introduced it. What do you think we're trying to win?

[drkpower]

The gun is "Reactionary Catholicism". You introduced it. What do you think we're trying to win?

I do wonder about that.
I always thought it was a secular state.
But i think for many it is to have christianity in sackcloth and ashes.

[garlandgreen]

I do wonder about that.
I always thought it was a secular state.
But i think for many it is to have christianity in sackcloth and ashes.

There is nothing that causes blindspots like the psychosis of religious victimhood by saying something like the above while simutaneously advocating that a non believer should swear to their deity.

[JCSkinner]

I do wonder about that.
I always thought it was a secular state.
But i think for many it is to have christianity in sackcloth and ashes.

Christianity can wear whatever raiment it desires. I don't care whether they go for priests in dresses, ashes on their forehead, women in veils or in their birthday suit.
I do consider it hilarious that you're still arguing that secularists, humanists and atheists should just put up with swearing legal oaths to imaginary beings, while playing violins about the poor put-upon believers.

[tmesis2008]

I do wonder about that.
I always thought it was a secular state.
But i think for many it is to have christianity in sackcloth and ashes.

DRK, you've said that you would swear on a Koran, and the oath is essential meaningless. So, you support getting rid of it. You replied "see above" to my point, but I don't see anywhere where you defend the oath or say that it should remain in place.

[lostexpectation]

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.

but you say faith in god is trivial, such contempt from you, my god

[DaBrow]

THE HUMANIST Association of Ireland has launched a poster campaign on Dart trains in the capital against the practice of judges and presidents of Ireland being obliged to take an oath. The poster, headed “Unbelievable”, asks: “Did you know that you must take a religious oath in order to become a judge – or the president – in Ireland?” It continues: “In effect, this rule disbars up to 250,000 Irish citizens who are non-believers. It’s discrimination. It’s unfair. And it has to end.”

Source

Big deal.

The oath is in the constitution which has power over the state and uts public services.

It is merely a declaration of being truthful and honest.................... why is it that Militant Athiests are trying to remove all presence of religiousness?

I'm getting fed up with stuff like this

[lostexpectation]

There has been many Protestant and Jewish judges. There are have been plenty of atheist judges - if it was not a problem for them why is it for the Humanist society such that they want to spend a million on a referendum.

there a need for house cleaning group of referendums, you could have them all on the same day.