Gilmore gets legal advice over swearing to God as Agnostic

Geomy

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

I'd say that will take a while,I wonder would the state be ready for a change ?

Dave!

I'd say it would easily be ready. If the hardline conservatives couldn't manage to stop the abortion legislation (and abortion is a pretty contentious issue for non-religious people too), then I don't think they'd have much luck campaigning against a change like this.

I'm not terribly confident of it being changed soon (although I'm hoping the letter I just sent to the Irish Times will kick-start it! ), but we'll see.

Does anyone know if this is being discussed as part of the Constitutional Convention?

Banbh

Does anyone know if this is being discussed as part of the Constitutional Convention?

I'm not sure they discuss letters to the Times.

LittleBook

Dave! wrote: »

Does anyone know if this is being discussed as part of the Constitutional Convention?

It's not on the agenda at the moment but there's a sort of "Any Other Business" section (point 9) where it could be included in theory.

It could be a simple enough "yay or nay" type amendment regarding the removal of Section 4 of Article 31 ... or even just removing the "In the presence of Almighty God" part.

expectationlost

Under the Constitution, the President has only the power to dismiss or accept the resignation of a council member that he himself appointed and because of this, it is not immediately clear if the council would be prevented from conducting its business if Gilmore refused to take the oath. According to Eoin Daly, lecturer at UCD School of Law, it is unlikely that the meeting would be abandoned under those circumstances.

http://www.thejournal.ie/eamon-gilmore-agnostic-god-oath-council-of-state-1012539-Jul2013/

expectationlost

Dave! wrote: »

Does anyone know if this is being discussed as part of the Constitutional Convention?

yes they supposed to discuss it in december although they seem to only want to discuss blasphemy although people have made submission to discuss all godly things in the constitution in the AOB part of the convention if not while discussing blasphemy.
https://www.constitution.ie/Meetings.aspx

Hotblack Desiato

He should've brought along a stuffed toy with 'Almighty God' written on it in marker.

'In the presence of Almighty God...' and 'Almighty God' is there...

ridiculous, but then so is having religion embedded in the constitution.

Dave!

If my letter doesn't change the world, then nothing will!

Sir, – In light of Eamon Gilmore, an agnostic, being required to pledge an oath “in the presence of Almighty God” in order to take his seat on the Council of State (Home News, July 27th), I think it’s about time we discuss the removal of these explicitly religious, exclusionary references from Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Public representatives are rightly lambasted if they are discovered to be dishonest, yet, in order to become a judge, president, or, as the tánaiste has discovered, to sit on the Council of State, those of us who do not have a religious faith are constitutionally required to perjure ourselves.

There can be surely no reasonable case made for the retention of religious oaths in a modern, democratic country – they are unjust, discriminatory, and archaic – so for the sake of efficiency, let us bypass the hysteria and faux outrage, bundle them all together and, with the referendum on Seanad abolition, allow the public to vote on their removal. – Yours, etc,

Banbh

Definitely a world changer and I like "hysteria and faux outrage".

Is not the quango on the Constitution going to come up with a formula that removes the subservience of the State to the Controller of the Universe? I'm under the blissful impression that they are going to come up with a new, simplified Constitution which does away with religious nonsense.

Michael Nugent

Hello, all. I have been busy with various things in recent months, so I have had to take a break from some time-consuming activities such as posting here but I hope to gradually spend more time here again from now on.

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.

Not attending would not hinder any vote, because the Council of State does not vote. The members individually advise the President, and the President then takes his own decision afterwards. At least two Council of State members this time around were reported as having not attended the meeting, and instead sent written advice to the President.

Eamon Gilmore said that his legal advice was that he had constitutional obligations that he would fulfill. Atheist Ireland is now asking him to clarify one important aspect of this legal advice.

The advice could include one or both of two obligations.

• He could merely have a constitutional obligation to swear the oath in order to take his place on the Council of State, in which case his options would be to swear the oath or not be on the Council of State;
  
• Or he could also have a constitutional obligation to take his place on the Council of State as part of his constitutional duties as Tanaiste, in which case his options would be to swear the oath or not be Tanaiste.

The second obligation would be far more onerous than the first.

Not attending one meeting would presumably not breach either obligation, but refusing to swear the oath presumably would.

When we get a reply to this question, we will decide how best to continue to highlight the issue, which involves an obligation that is contrary to the human right of freedom of conscience, religion and belief and which has featured in various forms in two cases at the European Court of Human Rights.

Dave! wrote: »

Does anyone know if this is being discussed as part of the Constitutional Convention?

The Constitutional Convention has a specific agenda to deal with, which includes blasphemy but not religious oaths, although the final item on their agenda allows them to raise other items that they feel to be relevant.

The Convention will be holding public meetings around the country in, I think, October, as part of trying to find out what other issues people want them to consider under this item.

You can also make submissions directly to the Convention’s website at http://constitution.ie
.

expectationlost

why was all religious constitutional stuff not included?

Michael Nugent

expectationlost wrote: »

why was all religious constitutional stuff not included?

At risk of being flippant, because the Government didn't want it included.

Myksyk

It'd be so much more satisfying if everyone just had to 'swear to f**k'.

Genghiz Cohen

I, Genghiz Cohen do hereby solemnly swear to Fu*k, to ....

I like it.

[-0-]

Why does this matter? You shouldn't have to swear on anything, because, well, it's completely bloody meaningless.

Geomy

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Hello, all. I have been busy with various things in recent months, so I have had to take a break from some time-consuming activities such as posting here but I hope to gradually spend more time here again from now on.


Not attending would not hinder any vote, because the Council of State does not vote. The members individually advise the President, and the President then takes his own decision afterwards. At least two Council of State members this time around were reported as having not attended the meeting, and instead sent written advice to the President.

Eamon Gilmore said that his legal advice was that he had constitutional obligations that he would fulfill. Atheist Ireland is now asking him to clarify one important aspect of this legal advice.

The advice could include one or both of two obligations.

• He could merely have a constitutional obligation to swear the oath in order to take his place on the Council of State, in which case his options would be to swear the oath or not be on the Council of State;
  
• Or he could also have a constitutional obligation to take his place on the Council of State as part of his constitutional duties as Tanaiste, in which case his options would be to swear the oath or not be Tanaiste.

The second obligation would be far more onerous than the first.

Not attending one meeting would presumably not breach either obligation, but refusing to swear the oath presumably would.

When we get a reply to this question, we will decide how best to continue to highlight the issue, which involves an obligation that is contrary to the human right of freedom of conscience, religion and belief and which has featured in various forms in two cases at the European Court of Human Rights.



The Constitutional Convention has a specific agenda to deal with, which includes blasphemy but not religious oaths, although the final item on their agenda allows them to raise other items that they feel to be relevant.

The Convention will be holding public meetings around the country in, I think, October, as part of trying to find out what other issues people want them to consider under this item.

You can also make submissions directly to the Convention’s website at http://constitution.ie
.

What does Atheist Ireland represent ?

What's their agenda ?

sdanseo

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 it, then the parts referring to God simply have no meaning. They don't bind you to something in which you don't believe, purely and simply because you don't believe in it.

The part of the swearing of the oath that makes it legal and binding are the only parts that matter to anyone else in a material form, so let that be the part you care about and just say the damn words. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill, to steal a phrase from an earlier reply.

Banbh

No need to make a mountain out of a molehill? We owe our liberty to those who stand up to injustice. And it is an injustice for our republic to align itself to a religious organisation and oblige all citizens to conform to the ritual and beliefs of that organisation.

Dave!

Wow, I am so bored of the "what's the big deal"/"there are bigger problems in the world"/"get over it" merchants.

TwoShedsJackson

Why is it always the religious who say 'oh what is the big deal! If you don't believe sure it'll be grand anyway'.

Just change every instance of God to Satan, or worse, Simon Cowell, and ask yourself would you be happy to swear that oath. Don't forget that an oath is something you are expected to actually believe in what you are saying, and then follow it.

Myksyk

Dave! wrote: »

Wow, I am so bored of the "what's the big deal"/"there are bigger problems in the world"/"get over it" merchants.

Agreed. Ask them if they're happy to swear they DON'T believe in god in public and the issue would become the most important in the world.

kylith

Dave! wrote: »

Wow, I am so bored of the "what's the big deal"/"there are bigger problems in the world"/"get over it" merchants.

What gets me is that Catholics seem quite happy for people to lie about their belief in gods (which I'm pretty sure is a sin) - 'sure it's only a few words' while it's atheists who actually 1) have the courage of their convictions and 2) respect religions enough to not want to pay lip service to them.

And yes, I too would be interested in what a Catholic would do if asked to swear an oath to Allah.

TwoShedsJackson

kylith wrote: »

What gets me is that Catholics seem quite happy for people to lie about their belief in gods (which I'm pretty sure is a sin) - 'sure it's only a few words' while it's atheists who actually 1) have the courage of their convictions and 2) respect religions enough to not want to pay lip service to them.

And yes, I too would be interested in what a Catholic would do if asked to swear an oath to Allah.

The vast majority would not know that they would supposedly be swearing to the same God as the one mentioned in the Bible.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

expectationlost wrote: »

<...>

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

I'd like to see the legal advice on what steps the Council of State should take to ensure Almighty God is actually present while they take the oath.

Sulla Felix

Myksyk wrote: »

It'd be so much more satisfying if everyone just had to 'swear to f**k'.

I'm not sure, wouldn't such an oath be legally binding and the forsworn subject to the full weight of the law?
Just looking for clarification, because in the case of a friends mother swearing "to **** if you don't stop that racket I'll crucify ye!" when we were teenagers, I don't really like the idea of her either facing jail time or actually having to crucify me if it ever happened again.

expectationlost

i'd like to know about the context of the time they removed of the special position of the church in 72, not that much on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Benny_Cake

I'm not exactly sure how swearing "on the Bible" squares with the instruction of Jesus to "let your yes be yes and your no be no". Surely it is important to be equally truthful at all times rather than coming up with categories of truthfulness?

Regardless, its ridiculous to require someone to declare something that is meaningless to them. It only serves to encourage dishonesty. In all situations where an oath is required a simple affirmation should also be an acceptable alternative.

Banbh

It is interesting (well to me anyway) that no Catholics have come forward to support secularism, restoring their religion to an association of like-minded people. The gradual removal of the church's grip on the rules and regulations of society, finger by finger, must be demeaning to those who merely want to be allowed practise their prayers and rituals in peace.
For example, my darts club meets once a meet and we play darts. We have no aspirations to make other people play darts or to have darts on the school curriculum.
It makes one wonder if the church can only exist by being in other people's faces and by being part of the state apparatus.

Chattastrophe!

Banbh wrote: »

It is interesting (well to me anyway) that no Catholics have come forward to support secularism, restoring their religion to an association of like-minded people. The gradual removal of the church's grip on the rules and regulations of society, finger by finger, must be demeaning to those who merely want to be allowed practise their prayers and rituals in peace.
For example, my darts club meets once a meet and we play darts. We have no aspirations to make other people play darts or to have darts on the school curriculum.
It makes one wonder if the church can only exist by being in other people's faces and by being part of the state apparatus.

Exactly.

You'd think Catholics would be up in arms about this, looking for the reference to a god to be removed. It's basically making a mockery of their religion and their god to have open non-believers swear on his/its existence.

And yet Catholics seem to see the fact that the oath isn't being changed as some sort of 'win' for them?

I don't get it.

CiDeRmAn

In a secular state there is simply no place for religion as part of that states procedure.
Anywhere it remains is a legacy of when this countries founders sold the place out to the church.
In short, as we are making this country more inclusive, so we should remove any mention of a god from such procedures, such things are ultimately residing in people's minds and consciences, if they believe in such things.

Banbh

But why won't religious people join in making our republic more inclusive? I know of no group of Catholics or Muslims who merely want to be left to practise their religion in peace. They all want laws and regulations to bolster their views.

Cabaal

Banbh wrote: »

But why won't religious people join in making our republic more inclusive? I know of no group of Catholics or Muslims who merely want to be left to practise their religion in peace. They all want laws and regulations to bolster their views.

Because they are preprogrammed to "spread the word",
If thats done by forcing their views on other none-believers then so be it in their eyes

Galvasean

Tlachtga wrote: »

Exactly.

You'd think Catholics would be up in arms about this, looking for the reference to a god to be removed. It's basically making a mockery of their religion and their god to have open non-believers swear on his/its existence.

And yet Catholics seem to see the fact that the oath isn't being changed as some sort of 'win' for them?

I don't get it.

It's like a male dog humping another male dog. He's not necessarily gay himself, but he wants to make sure the other dog is beneath him.

Dave!

Bit more discussion on this in the letters page today:
https://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/pledging-an-oath-1.1487444

And I get name-checked a couple of times

I'm hoping there's a bit of momentum building on this - I just sent emails off to a few radio shows asking them to discuss it. And asking them to invite Mr Nugent on too :pac:

robindch

Dave! wrote: »

And I get name-checked a couple of times

And I see Simon Dunne get mentioned too -- another former boardsie

Obliq

Dave! wrote: »

Bit more discussion on this in the letters page today:
https://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/pledging-an-oath-1.1487444

And I get name-checked a couple of times

I'm hoping there's a bit of momentum building on this - I just sent emails off to a few radio shows asking them to discuss it. And asking them to invite Mr Nugent on too :pac:

That's very cool, nice one

Loving the hyperbolic last letter too (Maolsheachlann O' Ceallaigh) - "But how far exactly are secularists going to take this antipathy?" Goodness, I don't know?! To arms Christians! You must threaten/warn of slippery slopes and floodgates opening, letting the atheist hoards stream through. Why, one day we might have an atheist president, if these militant secularists have their way.....God forbid (*cross self in trepidation and/or touch wood/throw salt over left shoulder*)

Dave!

robindch wrote: »

And I see Simon Dunne get mentioned too -- another former boardsie

huh, what was his 'handle'?

Wi--err, Zombrex?

robindch

Dave! wrote: »

huh, what was his 'handle'?

Actually, it was "SimonDunne"

magicbastarder

the first letter suggest gilmore committed perjury.
perjury is committed if you lie after taking an oath, i assume?
taking an oath to god is not explicitly stating that you believe in god, and we have no evidence that he lied while fulfilling the duties laid out after taking the oath.

Dave!

In my own letter I was using the term in the broader sense of:

per•jure (ˈpɜr dʒər)
v.t. -jured, -jur•ing.
to make (oneself) guilty of swearing falsely, esp. in a court of law.

I doubt he broke any laws.

Otacon

robindch wrote: »

And I see Simon Dunne get mentioned too -- another former boardsie

Dave! wrote: »

huh, what was his 'handle'?

Wi--err, Zombrex?

robindch wrote: »

Actually, it was "SimonDunne"

For some odd reason, I have been laughing to the point of tears at this exchange...

Sorry, off-topic.

expectationlost

the constitutional conventions AOB is being put on the long finger http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85891782&postcount=113

expectationlost

Sunday Independent has to clarify that President Higgins isn't an atheist http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/clarification-29637495.html
even though will hanafin thought he was, in reference to swearting on bible for oath of office

PopePalpatine

Is Will Hanafin related to the batshit crazy Mary?

expectationlost

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Is Will Hanafin related to the batshit crazy Mary?

i don't think so, he's ray darcy producer and news columnist, i think it was more wishful thinking then criticism