Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Hobby Horses of Belief (and assorted hazards)
Options
Comments
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Priest defends staging regular Sunday mass in breach of lockdown saying ‘no one has got Covid from being in there’
He's obviously very used to claiming things to be true without any evidence at all...
“There are too many people who love this old messing - making rules for everyone and telling others what to do. I don’t tell anyone what to do."
Right...0 -
Seems to be a common thing - one elderly member of my extended family down the country abandoned public health guidelines around March of last year on the grounds that "well, none of the people in church got sick, so we're fine really!"Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Priest defends staging regular Sunday mass in breach of lockdown saying ‘no one has got Covid from being in there’[/0 -
Swearing of religious oaths is hypocritical as Ireland becomes more secularWhat if an elected president declined office due to the religious oath required by our Constitution?
Brian Whiteside
As we mark the 10th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth’s visit tomorrow I recall two other events that happened that same day: Garret FitzGerald died; and then taoiseach Enda Kenny held a meeting which I attended along with the religious leaders of our country.
This plenary meeting was part of the structured dialogue process which had been set up in 2007 as a platform for leaders of the various religions and other “non-confessional philosophical groups” to make the government aware of any issues they might have.
It was felt that, with the religious leaders congregated in Dublin to dine with the visiting monarch, it would be a good opportunity to hold such a meeting.
I had attended a number of bilateral meetings with the government as I was, at the time, a director of the Humanist Association of Ireland. We had presented a document entitled Equality for the Non-Religious and distributed it to all participants in this dialogue process.
The document set out very clearly those areas in our Constitution, our laws and in custom and practice, where non-religious people were discriminated against.
Very little progress was being made and there was a growing frustration that this might simply be a talking shop. But then the invitation came for the plenary meeting of May 19th, 2011. This meeting, attended by politicians, senior civil servants and leaders from all the different religions, would, we hoped, be an opportunity to air some of our issues with the other participants.
Kenny welcomed everyone and said how wonderful it was for such a diverse group to be assembled in the same room; this reflected a new Ireland, a more tolerant and pluralist country.
He then invited the Catholic representative to speak, who thanked the taoiseach and said how wonderful it was, indeed, for us all to be gathered here together on this occasion. There followed a recitation of the same platitudes from the rest of the religious leaders.
Eventually the taoiseach turned to me and asked, “Brian, would you like to add anything from a humanist perspective?” I reiterated how good it was for all of us to meet like this and then added that, as the only representative of the non-religious community, we probably had more on our agenda than any other group.
I referred to our Equality for the Non-Religious document and said that I would like to focus on just one topic. We were amid a presidential election campaign at the time so I asked: “How embarrassing would it be for our State if in November we elected a president who declined to take up office because he/she could not in all conscience take the religious oath required by the Constitution?”
This was followed by a period of silence as I looked around the room at these eminent religious leaders pondering something which, to them, up to that moment had probably been utterly unthinkable. Then Kenny leaned over his secretary general and addressed his minister for justice. “You’d better take a note of that, Alan.”
We’re still holding our breath.
Some people wonder why I get so incensed with this. What harm does it do? Are there not more important things to worry about?
Well, I believe this is important; a sizeable and ever-growing percentage of our population no longer subscribes to any religious belief – are they to be ignored?
Similarly with members of the Council of State and our judges, a religious oath is required on taking office.
At a meeting in 2007 I challenged then minister for justice Brian Lenihan on this point who replied that he knew “lots of judges” who were not in the least religious who had no difficulty taking the oath. When I pointed out how disingenuous and hypocritical this was he conceded that I had a point.
Some time ago I met with a very senior Catholic church man who told me he found it extremely offensive for non-believers to take religious oaths; he favours change.
Going home that evening I reflected on FitzGerald’s life and his ambition for a constitutional crusade. I remembered the last time I met him when he told me he was “nearly a humanist”.
It is now only four years until our next presidential election. As Ireland becomes ever more secular the chances of a non-religious citizen being elected is growing all the time.
This situation has been known for a very long time and was highlighted at the meeting on the day the queen came to Dublin 10 years ago. Is four years enough time to get our house in order or are we headed for a possible constitutional crisis?
Brian Whiteside is a humanist and a funeral celebrant; he is a former member and director of the Humanist Association of Ireland
So Brian's not even a member of HAI any more - trouble at t'humanist mill?
The PDs raised the issue of god in the constitution in their early days well over 30 years ago and were roundly ridiculed for it - but Ireland has changed a very great deal since then.
Like schools though most appear willing to go along with the flow no matter how ridiculous they acknowledge the situation to be.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
It is literally a foundational value for Fianna Fail that an oath that you don't like but are required to take can be an "empty formula". So even those in the party who think the republic should be more secular are unlikely to find this the most pressing concern.
Whiteside views the issue in terms of the injury done to a non-religious citizen who is required to take a religious oath and who doesn't subscribe to the "empty formula" principle. He has a fair point. But it seems to me that there is another and even fairer point, which the injury done to the character of the republic. Even if everyone elected to office is a fervent evangelical who is happy to throw their hands in the air and cry "Halleluiah!", it's still fundamentally wrong that the law should require them to make a declaration that, as a matter of fundamental principle, people should be free to make or not to make, according to their own conscience.0 -
As a juror, witness (or accused!) you can choose to affirm instead of swearing on the holy book of your choice.
However it's quite possible a jury could look upon you less favourably if you outed yourself as a member of a minority religion or not religious at all. A real problem if you are the accused!
Nobody should have to declare what their religious views are or are not in order to access our justice system, our health or education systems, or be appointed to a State office.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Advertisement
-
There's a distinction - actually, two distinctions - between the presidential/judicial oath on the one hand and the witness's oath on the other.
The first is that the presidential/judicial oath is enshrined in the Constitution; it can't be made non-religious without a referendum. And even people who have no liking for religious oaths might be a bit pissed off at having a referendum on this. So this might need to be dealt with as part of a larger package of constitutional reforms, I think, rather than in isolation. Whereas the witnesses' oath can be changed by ordinary legislation.
The second is that the presidential/religious oath is mandatory; there is no non-religious option. Witnesses are already free to make a religious oath or a secular affirmation, as they prefer. So there isn't the same imposition on their conscience as there is for presidents and judges.
Hotblack makes the point that some jurors might take a scunner against a witness who affirms (and I suppose others might against a witness who swears). Two thoughts in response to that: first, on the principle that policy should be evidence-based, I'd be inclined to wait for evidence that there actually is a problem of jurors reacting in this fashion before advocating legislation to address it. And, secondly, one of the characteristics of the jury system is that jurors can, in fact, act irrationally or perversely or in a bigoted fashion. The fact that we maintain the jury system at all means that we operate on the faith that, on the whole, they don't. Which provides another reason for not leaping to the conclusion that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed.
The purpose of the witness's oath/affirmation is not to impress anything on the jury, but rather to impress on the witness the solemnity, significance and responsibility of what he is doing. There is a view that the achievement of this purpose is assisted by given witnesses some ownership of the process; allowing them to choose the form of declaration they will make. This helps to secure their "buy-in", is the theory. But I suspect there is no more evidence for this than there is for the theory that jurors may evaluate testimony according to whether the witness has sworn or affirmed.
They seem to do just fine in France, where witnesses "swear to speak without hatred and without fear, to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth". This seems to me to steer a middle course. On the one hand, there's no explicit reference to God (and you're not allowed to introduce one; you have to stick to the formula laid down by law). On the other hand, the concept of an appeal to the supernatural or the sacred is implicit in the concept of swearing, and if you object to that implication there is no alternative of making a declaration or affirmation; again, you have to stick to the formula laid down by law.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »They seem to do just fine in France, where witnesses "swear to speak without hatred and without fear, to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth". This seems to me to steer a middle course. On the one hand, there's no explicit reference to God (and you're not allowed to introduce one; you have to stick to the formula laid down by law). On the other hand, the concept of an appeal to the supernatural or the sacred is implicit in the concept of swearing, and if you object to that implication there is no alternative of making a declaration or affirmation; again, you have to stick to the formula laid down by law.
The problem I'd have with this is that by forcing someone who is not religious to take an oath (e.g. to swear), as opposed to making an affirmation, you're forcing them to be openly dishonest before the court. I don't think any form of religious statement should be publicly mandated in a secular society.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »There's a distinction - actually, two distinctions - between the presidential/judicial oath on the one hand and the witness's oath on the other.
The first is that the presidential/judicial oath is enshrined in the Constitution; it can't be made non-religious without a referendum. And even people who have no liking for religious oaths might be a bit pissed off at having a referendum on this. So this might need to be dealt with as part of a larger package of constitutional reforms, I think, rather than in isolation. Whereas the witnesses' oath can be changed by ordinary legislation.
The second is that the presidential/religious oath is mandatory; there is no non-religious option. Witnesses are already free to make a religious oath or a secular affirmation, as they prefer. So there isn't the same imposition on their conscience as there is for presidents and judges.
Hotblack makes the point that some jurors might take a scunner against a witness who affirms (and I suppose others might against a witness who swears). Two thoughts in response to that: first, on the principle that policy should be evidence-based, I'd be inclined to wait for evidence that there actually is a problem of jurors reacting in this fashion before advocating legislation to address it. And, secondly, one of the characteristics of the jury system is that jurors can, in fact, act irrationally or perversely or in a bigoted fashion. The fact that we maintain the jury system at all means that we operate on the faith that, on the whole, they don't. Which provides another reason for not leaping to the conclusion that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed.
The purpose of the witness's oath/affirmation is not to impress anything on the jury, but rather to impress on the witness the solemnity, significance and responsibility of what he is doing. There is a view that the achievement of this purpose is assisted by given witnesses some ownership of the process; allowing them to choose the form of declaration they will make. This helps to secure their "buy-in", is the theory. But I suspect there is no more evidence for this than there is for the theory that jurors may evaluate testimony according to whether the witness has sworn or affirmed.
They seem to do just fine in France, where witnesses "swear to speak without hatred and without fear, to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth". This seems to me to steer a middle course. On the one hand, there's no explicit reference to God (and you're not allowed to introduce one; you have to stick to the formula laid down by law). On the other hand, the concept of an appeal to the supernatural or the sacred is implicit in the concept of swearing, and if you object to that implication there is no alternative of making a declaration or affirmation; again, you have to stick to the formula laid down by law.
how is that an oath? there is no mention of God. this is an oath"I swear by Almighty God (or whoever is relevant according to your religious belief) that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
this is the affirmation that may be used"I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"
which is pretty much the same as the french. so the french use what we would call an affirmation.0 -
The problem I'd have with this is that by forcing someone who is not religious to take an oath (e.g. to swear), as opposed to making an affirmation, you're forcing them to be openly dishonest before the court. I don't think any form of religious statement should be publicly mandated in a secular society.
Your contrasting responses illustrate the sensitivities here!ohnonotgmail wrote: »how is that an oath? there is no mention of God. this is an oath
this is the affirmation that may be used
which is pretty much the same as the french. so the french use what we would call an affirmation.
It's a fine point, but the word "swear", the Oxford English Dictionary assures me, imports an appeal to the supernatural or the sacred. The French text uses jurer, which, according to Larousse online, has exactly the same connotations (“...en engageant un être ou une chose que l'on tient pour sacré”).
So, on the one hand, “sacred” doesn’t have to mean religious or supernatural. (Sacred: dedicated, set apart, exclusively appropriated to some person or some special purpose. A tombstone can be "sacred to the memory of so-and-so", and a tombstone is a natural and material object.) On the other hand, we mostly use "sacred" in a religious context, and an atheist witness might think requiring him to swear requires him to imply that he has some religious faith, or at least requires him to risk creating the impression in others that he does. Plus, a, very, um, assertive atheist materialist might be uncomfortable with the notion that anything is sacred to him. And then you have members of religious traditions like the Quakers who do have a religious faith but have a conscientious objection to swearing anyway.
So, the declaration/affirmation formula that is used in Ireland (and many other countries) is intentionally crafted to avoid swearing and all the implications that that word may have.
I think the French would defend their formulation by saying that God may or may not exist but the Republic certainly does, and it has claims on you as a citizen that ought be sacred to you, so requiring you to swear is entirely appropriate.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Your contrasting responses illustrate the sensitivities here!
It's a fine point, but the word "swear", the Oxford English Dictionary assures me, imports an appeal to the supernatural or the sacred. The French text uses jurer, which, according to Larousse online, has exactly the same connotations (“...en engageant un être ou une chose que l'on tient pour sacré”).
So, on the one hand, “sacred” doesn’t have to mean religious or supernatural. (Sacred: dedicated, set apart, exclusively appropriated to some person or some special purpose. A tombstone can be "sacred to the memory of so-and-so", and a tombstone is a natural and material object.) On the other hand, we mostly use "sacred" in a religious context, and an atheist witness might think requiring him to swear requires him to imply that he has some religious faith, or at least requires him to risk creating the impression in others that he does. Plus, a, very, um, assertive atheist materialist might be uncomfortable with the notion that anything is sacred to him. And then you have members of religious traditions like the Quakers who do have a religious faith but have a conscientious objection to swearing anyway.
So, the declaration/affirmation formula that is used in Ireland (and many other countries) is intentionally crafted to avoid swearing and all the implications that that word may have.
I think the French would defend their formulation by saying that God may or may not exist but the Republic certainly does, and it has claims on you as a citizen that ought be sacred to you, so requiring you to swear is entirely appropriate.
well for me it demonstrates that the english translation you provided for the french "oath" is not accurate. I see no mention of "sacred" in the translation you provided.0 -
Advertisement
-
Most priests and religious I know, and myself, would not, in most instances, swear on the bible in a court. What right does a secular state, which acts so often contrary to the will of God, have to demand that I swear on my sacred book to fulfill some requirement of the state?
Of course, this makes things particularly difficult for the priest or religious should they find themselves in court, as what impression does it give if they do not swear on the bible?
Having spent much of my professional life in and around the High Court, I don't think people put too much weight on any affirmation or oath anyway given the amount of "twisting" that goes on.
As for judicial and other oaths, if anything they exclude religious people, as the duties of the office, in light of the laws of the country, are often irreconcilable with the will and direction of God. A non-religious may shrug off the oath as nonsense, an impossibility for the Christian.0 -
. . . en engageant un être ou une chose que l'on tient pour sacré" means ". . . by invoking a being or a thing that we hold sacred".ohnonotgmail wrote: »well for me it demonstrates that the english translation you provided for the french "oath" is not accurate. I see no mention of "sacred" in the translation you provided.0 -
Strictly speaking, this is improper. The default legal position is that a witness is required to take the explicitly religious oath, with the alternative of a declaration/affirmation only available to people who have no religious belief, or whose religious belief precludes the taking of oaths. A cleric or religious of any of the mainstream Christian denominations won't qualify under either head. (The belief that a secular state has no right to insist on the taking of a religious oath is a political belief that this particular oath ought not to be mandatory, not a religious belief that precludes oath-taking generally.)Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »Most priests and religious I know, and myself, would not, in most instances, swear on the bible in a court. What right does a secular state, which acts so often contrary to the will of God, have to demand that I swear on my sacred book to fulfill some requirement of the state?
Of course, this makes things particularly difficult for the priest or religious should they find themselves in court, as what impression does it give if they do not swear on the bible?
Having spent much of my professional life in and around the High Court, I don't think people put too much weight on any affirmation or oath anyway given the amount of "twisting" that goes on.
As for judicial and other oaths, if anything they exclude religious people, as the duties of the office, in light of the laws of the country, are often irreconcilable with the will and direction of God. A non-religious may shrug off the oath as nonsense, an impossibility for the Christian.
In practice, of course, this law is not enforced; anyone who wants to declare/affirm is usually allowed to do so, with no enquiry into their motives. But the mismatch between the legislation and the practice just highlights the point that the law here is archaic and in need of an overhaul.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: ». . . en engageant un être ou une chose que l'on tient pour sacré" means ". . . by invoking a being or a thing that we hold sacred".
You didnt include the original french in the post i responded to. I responded to the english translation you provided.0 -
If an oath or affirmation does not make reference to anything exterior to one's self, by which you believe you will be held 'accountable' by, any such oath or affirmation is meaningless. Historically this was acknowledged, which was why atheists and other non-Christians (except for Jews) were not permitted to give testimony in court.Peregrinus wrote: »Strictly speaking, this is improper. The default legal position is that a witness is required to take the explicitly religious oath, with the alternative of a declaration/affirmation only available to people who have no religious belief, or whose religious belief precludes the taking of oaths. A cleric or religious of any of the mainstream Christian denominations won't qualify under either head. (The belief that a secular state has no right to insist on the taking of a religious oath is a political belief that this particular oath ought not to be mandatory, not a religious belief that precludes oath-taking generally.)
In practice, of course, this law is not enforced; anyone who wants to declare/affirm is usually allowed to do so, with no enquiry into their motives. But the mismatch between the legislation and the practice just highlights the point that the law here is archaic and in need of an overhaul.
Once any deviation was made away from reference to God and the supernatural order, and indeed since such belief was not essentially universally held in society, the entire thing should have been scrapped. There is still the 'protection' of the law should people have been proven to have lied in court.
To require a Catholic, or any other person of faith, to have to satisfy a much higher bar with (what they believe to be) much more serious consequences than an atheist is patently unfair. A Catholic swearing by God to tell the truth, is far different to a Catholic, or an atheist, merely promising the state, with no reference to God, to tell the truth. Telling a lie, depending on the subject matter, may be the 'correct' and just thing to do in some instances. However, the religious oath would make telling a lie essentially a mortal sin. This tends to result in either a refusal to take the oath, or to answer questions. This type of imposition by the state has long been wrestled with, by Catholics in particular, and has led to more than a few martyrdoms.
Even in circumstances where it may not be the correct thing to lie, the burden and consequences of not telling the truth are far higher for a person of religious belief who takes a religious oath, than an atheist or anyone else who merely affirms. This is not a level field. I have often wondered why atheists and secularists think they are getting some sort of raw deal when it comes to oaths for giving testimony, if anything it is those of faith who are being dealt with unfairly. For someone who 'affirms' they merely have the wrath of the state to fear should they lie, and get caught out (unlikely). For the religious person who swears an oath, they have that, and the altogether more serious consideration of the definite and all-knowing judgment of God having called it upon themselves.
So I think this may be one of the rare occasions where the secularists and religious can agree, albeit perhaps for totally different reasons.0 -
I did include the original French. Go back and reread post #340. You quoted it yourself in post #341, complete with the original French.ohnonotgmail wrote: »You didnt include the original french in the post i responded to. I responded to the english translation you provided.0 -
(Actually, these occasions are not all that rare.)Draven Savory Supernova wrote: ». . . So I think this may be one of the rare occasions where the secularists and religious can agree, albeit perhaps for totally different reasons.0 -
Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »To require a Catholic, or any other person of faith, to have to satisfy a much higher bar with (what they believe to be) much more serious consequences than an atheist is patently unfair. A Catholic swearing by God to tell the truth, is far different to a Catholic, or an atheist, merely promising the state, with no reference to God, to tell the truth. Telling a lie, depending on the subject matter, may be the 'correct' and just thing to do in some instances. However, the religious oath would make telling a lie essentially a mortal sin. This tends to result in either a refusal to take the oath, or to answer questions. This type of imposition by the state has long been wrestled with, by Catholics in particular, and has led to more than a few martyrdoms.
Simply believing it to be a higher bar doesn't make it true though does it? The implication that Catholics act with a greater degree of integrity having sworn on a bible than atheists who make a solemn declaration is specious and somewhat insulting. Unless of course you can provide evidence that Catholics are less likely to perjure themselves after swearing on a bible than anyone else who makes an affirmation.0 -
Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »So I think this may be one of the rare occasions where the secularists and religious can agree, albeit perhaps for totally different reasons.
Something of a false dichotomy going on here. Many if not most religious people in this country are secularists. Ireland is a largely secular country with an overwhelming religious majority, increasing secularity has been arrived at through democratic process.0 -
I don't think ex loco is claiming that Catholics who swear will be more truthful than atheists who affirm. He's saying that Catholics who swear are under a greater burden to be honest than are atheists who affirm (because of their beliefs about what swearing entails) and therefore if the state singles out Catholics or Christians or religious people and requires them to swear it is burdening them in a way that it does not burden people who are permitted to affirm. It should impose the same burden on everybody, which it could do by (a) requiring everybody to swear; (b) permitting everybody to affirm; or (c) requiring everybody to affirm.Simply believing it to be a higher bar doesn't make it true though does it? The implication that Catholics act with a greater degree of integrity having sworn on a bible than atheists who make a solemn declaration is specious and somewhat insulting. Unless of course you can provide evidence that Catholics are less likely to perjure themselves after swearing on a bible than anyone else who makes an affirmation.0 -
Advertisement
-
It depends on what you mean by "secularist".Something of a false dichotomy going on here. Many if not most religious people in this country are secularists. Ireland is a largely secular country with an overwhelming religious majority, increasing secularity has been arrived at through democratic process.
If you understand secularism to mean the doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state, then obviously a religious person is very unlikely to be a secularist, since most religions understand their supernatural beliefs to make moral claims upon adherents.
But if you think the secularism has a narrower meaning, and just involves the belief that the state's actions should be based solely on well-being in the present life and should disregard considerations drawn from religious belief then, yes, of course religious people can be secularists, and many are.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I don't think ex loco is claiming that Catholics who swear will be more truthful than atheists who affirm. He's saying that Catholics who swear are under a greater burden to be honest than are atheists who affirm (because of their beliefs about what swearing entails) and therefore if the state singles out Catholics or Christians or religious people and requires them to swear it is burdening them in a way that it does not burden people who are permitted to affirm. It should impose the same burden on everybody, which it could do by (a) requiring everybody to swear; (b) permitting everybody to affirm; or (c) requiring everybody to affirm.
I agree entirely that no one should be limited in the choice they're permitted to make based on their declared religious beliefs. To say otherwise would run contrary to basic secular principals. Personally I think that any properly solemn declaration should be acceptable and would go for (b) from your list on that basis. That said, Christians regularly commit sins and have mechanisms for atonement, so I don't consider swearing on a bible to be a higher standard than an affirmation, either subjectively or objectively.0 -
But it doesn't matter what you think of Christian beliefs (in this context). If atheists can reasonably demand that their beliefs about oaths, swearing, etc should be accommodated so that the law does not unduly burden them, then obviously Christians can make an analogous demand. And just as the weight to be attached to atheist's beliefs doesn't depend on what Christians think of those beliefs, so the weight to be attached to Christian's beliefs can't depend on what atheists think of those beliefs.I agree entirely that no one should be limited in the choice they're permitted to make based on their declared religious beliefs. To say otherwise would run contrary to basic secular principals. Personally I think that any properly solemn declaration should be acceptable and would go for (b) from your list on that basis. That said, Christians regularly commit sins and have mechanisms for atonement, so I don't consider swearing on a bible to be a higher standard than an affirmation, either subjectively or objectively.
It's a bit of an irrelevant argument, though, as we've already seen that there are simple rules that would accommodate both atheist and religious sensitivities:
- Everyone has a free choice between swearing and affirming; or
- Everyone affirms.
In terms of what will actually be done about this, there's a bit of a straw in the wind in legislation enacted last year dealing, not with the oaths sworn by witnesses in court, but with affidavits, statutory declarations and the like - written documents which are made outside a court setting but which can be given in evidence in court proceedings.
The deal with these is that, in order to create a document of this kind, you'd go before a commissioner for oaths (usually a solicitor in private practice, but not your solicitor), either sign the document in front of him or point to your signature already on the document and say "yes, that's my signature", and then swear or affirm as to the truth of the contents of the document. The Commissioner would then add a note to the document to say that you had sworn or affirmed it before him.
Right. All a bit of a palaver in these covidy days, so since last August s. 21 of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 provides an alternative. Rules of court can now be amended to provide that, as an alternative to this procedure, you can make a "statement of truth" asserting that you have an honest belief that the facts set out in your document are true. You can do this electronically or on paper; you don't have to involve a Commissioner for Oaths; and - relevant here - there's no swearing or declaring or affirming; you just "state" your honest belief in the truth of the facts set out. And that has the same legal significance and evidentiary value as if you has sworn or declared or affirmed. (And if in fact you don't have that honest belief you're committing an offence, plus if the document is used in court proceedings you're exposed to the sanctions associated with contempt of court.)
So, if they do get around to dealing with the law on witnesses' oaths, that's probably an indication of where they will go with this.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »It depends on what you mean by "secularist".
If you understand secularism to mean the doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state, then obviously a religious person is very unlikely to be a secularist, since most religions understand their supernatural beliefs to make moral claims upon adherents.
But if you think the secularism has a narrower meaning, and just involves the belief that the state's actions should be based solely on well-being in the present life and should disregard considerations drawn from religious belief then, yes, of course religious people can be secularists, and many are.
Personally, I run with the NSS descriptions on this;The principles of secularism which protect and underpin many of the freedoms we enjoy are:
1. Separation of religious institutions from state institutions and a public sphere where religion may participate, but not dominate.
2. Freedom to practice one's faith or belief without harming others, or to change it or not have one, according to one's own conscience.
3. Equality so that our religious beliefs or lack of them doesn't put any of us at an advantage or a disadvantage.
When I say that the majority of Irish people favour secularism, it is in those terms. This is in contrast to some more repressive secular notions that would seek to limit diversity and exclude religion expression.0 -
Sure. And nothing wrong with that.Personally, I run with the NSS descriptions on this . . .
But "secularism" is hardly the only word in the English language that has more than one sense. And other senses are well established; secular humanism, for example, is distinguished from Christian humanism not because of any beliefs about how the state should behave but because it itself involves a rejection of religion as a basis for moral judgment and action for secular humanists themselves; a secular humanist cannot also be religious.
Someone who objects to taking a religious oath may be doing so because he believes that the state ought not to require or accept one; he's a secularist in your sense. But someone who objects to taking a religious oath because he believe that he ought not to do so regardless of what the state demands or permits is a secularist in ex loco's sense; he believes that he himself should live in a secular way.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Someone who objects to taking a religious oath may be doing so because he believes that the state ought not to require or accept one; he's a secularist in your sense. But someone who objects to taking a religious oath because he believe that he ought not to do so regardless of what the state demands or permits is a secularist in ex loco's sense; he believes that he himself should live in a secular way.
I disagree. The bolded bit would also be secularist by my definition as it involves a choice made in accordance with a persons freedom of religious expression.
There is a class of argument that I regularly see made by both atheists and Christians on these forums that fall foul of this. e.g. Because it states such and such in the bible, as a self declared Christians you are obliged to act in a given manner. Because you are openly gay and sexually active, you are not a 'real' Christian. This goes all the way down to the charter of the Christianity forum, e.g. because you are a member of a non-trinitarian branch of Christianity you are not a 'real' Christians. All of these examples run contrary to the ideal of freedom of religious expression by attempting to dictate a person's behaviour based on their nominal religious affiliation and are hence anti-secular in my opinion.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I don't think ex loco is claiming that Catholics who swear will be more truthful than atheists who affirm. He's saying that Catholics who swear are under a greater burden to be honest than are atheists who affirm (because of their beliefs about what swearing entails) and therefore if the state singles out Catholics or Christians or religious people and requires them to swear it is burdening them in a way that it does not burden people who are permitted to affirm. It should impose the same burden on everybody, which it could do by (a) requiring everybody to swear; (b) permitting everybody to affirm; or (c) requiring everybody to affirm.
Yes, precisely.
It is not a question of honesty or character, but of the burden imposed. Indeed, I am sure we can all imagine a scenario in a tyrannical state where one is called to testify in court and a 'lie' may be the correct thing to do. If a mere promise to the state - to be honest - is required then this is a trifling hurdle to overcome. If God is invoked, much less so.
Taking an oath to God is serious business. Taking such an oath and not upholding it is even more serious. Saying that it is not, because Catholics have confession available to them should they sin, betrays a misunderstanding of Christianity.
All this talk of oaths reminds me of one of my favorite films
It's one of the classics and worth watching if you have not seen it... I think the full thing is on youtube somewhere.
0 -
If somebody decided that he would take a religious oath, would that also be a secularist in your definition?I disagree. The bolded bit would also be secularist by my definition as it involves a choice made in accordance with a persons freedom of religious expression.
It seems to me that in your definition whether someone chooses to take a religious oath or not is irrelevant to the question of whether he is a secularist; all that matters is whether he thinks the state should require religious oaths or not. The definition focusses entirely on what the state should do and not at all on what he should do.
Whereas ex loco's definition focusses on a person's beliefs about how he himself should live. In this definition, a secularist is one who believes that he himself should live in a secular way (i.e. in making his own ethical decisions, he should disregard considerations of God, the supernatural, the afterlife, etc.)
The definitions aren't mutually exclusive; you can be as secularist in both senses, and there's no contradiction.
I don't know that they are "attempts to dictate a person's behaviour; just to describe it. They're just arguments about definitions; about the ownership of labels. They may not be very edifying, but I don't think that's enough to make them them anti-secular.There is a class of argument that I regularly see made by both atheists and Christians on these forums that fall foul of this. e.g. Because it states such and such in the bible, as a self declared Christians you are obliged to act in a given manner. Because you are openly gay and sexually active, you are not a 'real' Christian. This goes all the way down to the charter of the Christianity forum, e.g. because you are a member of a non-trinitarian branch of Christianity you are not a 'real' Christians. All of these examples run contrary to the ideal of freedom of religious expression by attempting to dictate a person's behaviour based on their nominal religious affiliation and are hence anti-secular in my opinion.
Suppose I hold the view that (a) the state should not criminalise adultery, but (b) adultery is wrong and you definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment you made, and (c) adultery is contrary to my religious faith and I definitely shouldn't do it because I might go to hell. Would you describe my position as a secular one?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »If somebody decided that he would take a religious oath, would that also be a secularist in your definition?
Yes, insofar as we're facilitating their choice and hence freedom of religious expression. In a purely pragmatic sense, affirmation without religious reference is a more versatile default, as a declaration of honesty is not incompatible with anyone's religious belief and at the same time does not demand the state has to cater for a plethora of religious nuances. e.g. I wonder can you swear on the Koran or Veda in Ireland?I don't know that they are "attempts to dictate a person's behaviour; just to describe it. They're just arguments about definitions; about the ownership of labels. They may not be very edifying, but I don't think that's enough to make them them anti-secular.
The problem comes when we start making definitive statements about another person's chosen identity based on our own subjective beliefs. e.g. Jimmy is a Jehovah's Witness and considers himself a devout Christian. Johnny is a Catholic and say's Jimmy isn't really a Christian as the Jehovah's Witnesses are a non-trinitarian Christian cult. To my mind, denying someone their chosen religious identity is anti-secularSuppose I hold the view that (a) the state should not criminalise adultery, but (b) adultery is wrong and you definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment you made, and (c) adultery is contrary to my religious faith and I definitely shouldn't do it because I might go to hell. Would you describe my position as a secular one?
If we look at (b) and (c) here, the principal difference is the change of person from 'you' to 'I'. If you'd said 'adultery is wrong and I definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment I've made' I'd have no problem with it. Even if you'd said 'I believe adultery is wrong and in my opinion people definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment they've made', I'd have sympathy for your position. However, the statement 'adultery is wrong and you definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment you made' is however anti-secular as it is asserting an imperative (i.e. telling me how to behave) based on your belief system that I may not subscribe to.
With all these arguments, it is fine to express one's own beliefs and preferences but not so to make definitive statements about others or how they should behave. We arrive at limits of collective acceptable behaviour through a process of consensus and refinement.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, insofar as we're facilitating their choice and hence freedom of religious expression. In a purely pragmatic sense, affirmation without religious reference is a more versatile default, as a declaration of honesty is not incompatible with anyone's religious belief and at the same time does not demand the state has to cater for a plethora of religious nuances. e.g. I wonder can you swear on the Koran or Veda in Ireland?
The problem comes when we start making definitive statements about another person's chosen identity based on our own subjective beliefs. e.g. Jimmy is a Jehovah's Witness and considers himself a devout Christian. Johnny is a Catholic and say's Jimmy isn't really a Christian as the Jehovah's Witnesses are a non-trinitarian Christian cult. To my mind, denying someone their chosen religious identity is anti-secular
If we look at (b) and (c) here, the principal difference is the change of person from 'you' to 'I'. If you'd said 'adultery is wrong and I definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment I've made' I'd have no problem with it. Even if you'd said 'I believe adultery is wrong and in my opinion people definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment they've made', I'd have sympathy for your position. However, the statement 'adultery is wrong and you definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment you made' is however anti-secular as it is asserting an imperative (i.e. telling me how to behave) based on your belief system that I may not subscribe to.
With all these arguments, it is fine to express one's own beliefs and preferences but not so to make definitive statements about others or how they should behave. We arrive at limits of collective acceptable behaviour through a process of consensus and refinement.
you forgot
(a) the state should not criminalise adultery
If someone says that adultery is wrong from their religious perspective but they don't think it is the states business from a criminal perspective then I don't see how that isn't secular.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement