Six Council of State members call for removal of religious oaths

recedite

I thought he had previously described himself as "humanist" which could be "spiritual" without believing in Almighty God.
Maybe I misheard him. Or maybe not.
Miriam was a bit naughty asking him straight out "Do you believe in God?"
If he had said no, he would have lost the election there and then.
That's not being over dramatic; the dragons den guy Gallagher lost the election during the RTE Frontline TV debate when he became known as a FF "bag-man". A "godless atheist" could hardly be expected to fare any better.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

I thought he had previously described himself as "humanist" which could be "spiritual" without believing in Almighty God.
Maybe I misheard him. Or maybe not.
Miriam was a bit naughty asking him straight out "Do you believe in God?"
If he had said no, he would have lost the election there and then.
That's not being over dramatic; the dragons den guy Gallagher lost the election during the RTE Frontline TV debate when he became known as a FF "bag-man". A "godless atheist" could hardly be expected to fare any better.

and he said straight out YES he is believer, If I thought he lied there I wouldn't of voted for him, you apparently would.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I thought he had previously described himself as "humanist" which could be "spiritual" without believing in Almighty God.

hmm, humanism doesn't imply any belief in spiritualism at all. But I think some humanists are atheists in denial and/or clinging onto vestiges of their previous religious belief, imho.

Maybe I misheard him. Or maybe not.
Miriam was a bit naughty asking him straight out "Do you believe in God?"
If he had said no, he would have lost the election there and then.
That's not being over dramatic; the dragons den guy Gallagher lost the election during the RTE Frontline TV debate when he became known as a FF "bag-man". A "godless atheist" could hardly be expected to fare any better.

What would Barack Obama say?

He tells theists what they want to hear, without actually endorsing any specific faith (or, on a hard reading. any faith at all)

Reading between the lines, he has one quarter of half of fuck-all time for it, but publicly coming out against it is electorally damaging.

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

well settled by whom? where?

The issue came up a lot in the UK in the nineteenth century, when there were lots of public offices which required either (a) an oath of allegiance taken in theistic terms, or (b) a declaration of (protestant) religious belief as a condition of taking up office, or exercising some function. There were cases about what was the position where you felt you couldn't, in conscience, take the oath or make the declaration, but there were also cases considering the consequences where you did take the oath or make the declaration, and then someone argued that it was improper or invalid for you to do so because it did not accord with your true beliefs.

There were several cases involving Charles Bradlaugh, an atheist who was elected to Parliament. He asked to affirm his allegiance rather than swearing it in a theistic form. When this was denied he indicated he was willing to swear in order to take up his seat, and that he would regard this as binding in conscience on him. There were several controversies, both in Parliament and in the courts, about what was or was not permitted and what the effect would be and the matter dragged on for years. It was eventually resolved with the passage of legislation allowing him to affirm, but one of the rulings which was handed down along the way was, if he had sworn, that would have been valid and binding. The legal requirement is to take the oath; not to have any particular view about the significance of the wording used, and if you take the oath you have fulfilled the legal requirement and the legally-prescribed consequences flow.

Similar rulings were handed down in cases of people who make legally-required declarations of adherence to the established church, and then continued to worship in dissenting churches or in the Catholic church. The courts would not entertain challenges to the validity or efficacy of their declarations.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He can't "enter upon his office", since under the Constitution making the required declaration is the mechanism by which you take up the office. Which means that, if you're not willing to make the declaration, there's not much point in standing in the election. Which, of course, is the argument against having the declaration in a nutshell

Higgins, as pointed out, is not an atheist and, while he would have a preference for a non-religious declaration, didn't have a fundamental problem with making the declaration in its current form. But Eamon Gilmore identifies as an agnostic and, as an ex officio member of the Council of State (as Tánaiste), he was required (by art. 31 of the Constitution) to make a similar theistic declaration. In the case of a Council of State member, the declaration isn't a precondition to taking up office; it's simply something you are required to do. After reportedly taking legal advice, he make the required declaration. We haven't seen the advice he got, of course, but it was likely to the effect that, if he couldn't make the declaration, he couldn't serve as Tánaiste.

Nick Park

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What would Barack Obama say?

He tells theists what they want to hear, without actually endorsing any specific faith (or, on a hard reading. any faith at all)

Reading between the lines, he has one quarter of half of fuck-all time for it, but publicly coming out against it is electorally damaging.

"I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and I am redeemed through him." (Barack Obama, 2008, when asked by Rick Warren to describe his religious faith).

"So one Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called "The Audacity of Hope." And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn't suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works." (Barack Obama, 2008)

So what would it actually take for Obama to be seen as "actually endorsing a specific faith"? Getting John 3:16 tattooed on his forehead?

Hotblack Desiato

He left Wright's church though, and hasn't joined another.

2008 was an election campaign, atheists are unelectable in the US and many other places. Politicians say stuff during election campaigns which most people don't take as gospel, if you'll forgive the pun.

I'd say he's an agnostic at best... but who cares. He's no saint by any means, but at least he's not another Bush.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He left Wright's church though, and hasn't joined another.

That's quite common in the States, though. People would make a distinction between being a Christian believer, and being a member of a particular congregation. You can be a believer (and indeed a regular attender) and not be a member of the congregation of the church you attend, or of any other congregation.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

2008 was an election campaign, atheists are unelectable in the US and many other places. Politicians say stuff during election campaigns which most people don't take as gospel, if you'll forgive the pun.

Yes, he said it in 2008. And he had written about it before, too; he discusses his faith and the reasons for it in The Audacity of Hope. Besides, the events he spoke of in 2008 took place years earlier. He came to Christianity in his twenties, in the 1980s, long before he was involved in electoral politics. (He was still in college.) He joined Wright's church in 1992, at the age of 31 - again, years before he ever stood for election. If anything, it was his departure from Wright's church, in 2008, which was motivated by electoral considerations, rather than the previous period of membership.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'd say he's an agnostic at best...

Any basis for this, beyond wishful thinking on your part? My recollection is that, at the time of the 2008 campaign, it was observed that he was the most engaged and intentional Christian to contest any presidential election since Jimmy Carter. Each of the competing views that he is (a) an unbeliever or (b) a Muslim seem to me to be about as well grounded in evidence as the other is.

Nick Park

Peregrinus wrote: »

Any basis for this, beyond wishful thinking on your part? My recollection is that, at the time of the 2008 campaign, it was observed that he was the most engaged and intentional Christian to contest any presidential election since Jimmy Carter. Each of the competing views that he is (a) an unbeliever or (b) a Muslim seem to me to be about as well grounded in evidence as the other is.

It is certainly true that Obama has spoken much more overtly and frequently about his Christian faith than, for example, George W. Bush ever did.

He has also made more campaign speeches and appearances at churches and religious institutions than any Republican president or nominee in living memory. However, Hillary Clinton (who is, like George W. Bush, a Methodist) is similarly open in discussing her religious faith.

expectationlost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aOI2s_DGuE

Dear young people of Ireland...

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue came up a lot in the UK in the nineteenth century...
It was eventually resolved with the passage of legislation allowing him to affirm, but one of the rulings which was handed down along the way was, if he had sworn, that would have been valid and binding.

Ah right, so if we get this sorted out now, we are only 150 years behind.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

Dear young people of Ireland...

Not the snappiest of videos, but their hearts are in the right place.
Did that Spicer guy skull a few pints in Doheny and Nesbitts before starting to make it?

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

Did that Spicer guy skull a few pints in Doheny and Nesbitts before starting to make it?

thats not very nice!

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Ah right, so if we get this sorted out now, we are only 150 years behind.

Actually, no, we're ahead on points.

While the Irish head of state still has to take a theistic oath, the UK head of state has to take a denominational theistic oath, which is obviously even more objectionable and excludes a wider class of people.

And, while UK parliamentarians can choose either a theistic oath or a nontheistic affirmation, Irish parliamentarians don't make any oath or affirmation at all.

expectationlost

Is it just me, or do the rest of your readers also find it incredible that the Government is, on the one hand, advocating ‘equal rights’ in the marriage referendum, and on the other, promoting religious discrimination in the Presidential-age referendum?

The religious oath required of Presidents (and judges) is being extended to a new generation who might aspire to high office.

This is so clearly a violation of ‘equal rights’ that it is hard to see how anyone could propose both at the same time, let alone vote for both.

Unless, maybe, the left hand won’t know what the right is doing

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/presidents-religious-oath-a-violation-of-equal-rights-328267.html

is it going to make Ireland more or less equal, I would say more equal, CSCs disagrees

Shrap

recedite wrote: »

Not the snappiest of videos, but their hearts are in the right place.
Did that Spicer guy skull a few pints in Doheny and Nesbitts before starting to make it?

Haven't watched it, but Dick Spicer wouldn't be my folks favourite voice out of the Humanists. They joined the association years ago but left over the "loose cannon" elements, of which Spicer was most definitely one. "Losing the plot" were my Dad's words, as I recall.

expectationlost

so atheist ireland have hoped aboard this publicity no train, campaigning on what they wished were on the ballot rather then whats actually on it.