IT WAS a potential problem that seemed to go away very fast; the Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore sought legal advice before he attended his first meeting of the Council of State when it was convened by President Higgins last July to consider the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill.
Council members are constitutionally required to
swear an oath before sitting, which includes the words "In the presence
of Almighty God. . . I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare. .
.".
The Tanaiste, who told Pat Kenny during an interview in 2011 that
"I doubt rather than I believe" concerning the existence of God, sought
and received legal advice on the taking of the oath.
Subsequently, his
spokesman confirmed that he would take the oath in order "to comply with
his constitutional obligations".
So everything went swimmingly;
the Council met with everyone duly sworn in, including the Tanaiste. And
another possible constitutional crisis was averted.
But it would
seem that concerns remain, and rightly so.
Six of the President's own
nominees to the Council have now made a submission to the Convention on
the Constitution. They want the Convention to consider if it is
appropriate for public office-holders to have to take religious oaths.
Only
one presidential nominee to the Council of State, historian Gearoid O
Tuathaigh, did not join in the submission which the six (who include
former Supreme Court Judge Catherine McGuinness, to whom the State
already owes much for her wisdom and dedication to essential justice)
made in their individual capacities.
They told the Convention that the
respect due to religion and those who profess it is "sacrosanct".
But
they suggested that to "require a citizen to publicly profess a faith,
any faith, as a pre-condition to enter and hold public office serves
neither religion nor the ideal of a public space open to all who are
willing to contribute to the common good in a Republic".
There's
that word again: republic.
A word which, in Ireland, has been equated
with nationalism since before independence, when it is, in fact, the
antithesis of it.
Nationalism is narrow and inward-looking, and in
Ireland has been synonymous with Roman Catholicism; republicanism is
inclusive, internationalist, and not even pluralist, but secular.
So
of course, if we are a Republic, all our public offices should also be
secular. That does not, and will not, mean that Ireland is not a
Catholic country: the majority of its people profess to belong to the
Church of Rome.
The same is true of France. But its official title
is the "French Republic" and it is unambiguous in its republican legal
structure; religion, any religion, is not permitted to enter into its
law-making, its public services, its education system, and its health
system.
The country's rigorous republicanism has not resulted in French
Catholics "losing their faith", as the phrase used to be.
It
was that fear which so rigidly controlled Irish life for so many
generations, and indeed still controls our health system, although
Ruairi Quinn as Minister for Education is attempting to make progress
towards a republican ethos in our education system (albeit at glacial
speed).
The submission to the Convention declares that
the requirements of Article 31.4 "could exclude or cause embarrassment
to atheists, agnostics and humanists. It could also be unacceptable to
Quakers and other Christians who do not approve of religious oaths, and
to members of other non-Christian faiths". And that's one heck of a slew
of the citizenry.
What's more, the mild language belies the fact: the Article does exclude and cause embarrassment to such categories of people. Or it should.
What's more, the mild language belies the fact: the Article does exclude and cause embarrassment to such categories of people. Or it should.
If you decide to take the easy way
out, and regard an oath merely as an empty formula (for which we have a
political precedent in Eamon de Valera concerning the Oath of
Allegiance), you are effectively committing blasphemy. Let's remember
the First Commandment of the Christian Churches: "Thou shalt not take
the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
Leaving aside the
grave sinfulness of such behaviour for a believer, it is also against
the law of the land. It may be ludicrous that blasphemy is against the
law, since its definition can be subjective. ("Jaysus" uttered in
irritation can be termed blasphemy in some minds.)
But Dermot Ahern as Minister for Justice brought in laws against blasphemy only a few years ago, saying they were required under the Constitution.
But Dermot Ahern as Minister for Justice brought in laws against blasphemy only a few years ago, saying they were required under the Constitution.
Leaving
that aside, there may be many other reasons not to take an oath in
which you don't believe.
You may have too much respect for the religious beliefs of others to insult them so grossly by silently degrading the solemn oath that is the basis of their faith. You may have too much respect for your own integrity to imply a public lie which spits in the face of a serious public commitment.
You may have enough respect for the institutions of the State of which you are a citizen that you are prepared to tell only the absolute truth in giving your allegiance to its institutions.
You may have too much respect for the religious beliefs of others to insult them so grossly by silently degrading the solemn oath that is the basis of their faith. You may have too much respect for your own integrity to imply a public lie which spits in the face of a serious public commitment.
You may have enough respect for the institutions of the State of which you are a citizen that you are prepared to tell only the absolute truth in giving your allegiance to its institutions.
Those are the honourable reasons for
refusing to take an oath in statutory situations, from the simple
procedures of the District Court up to the awesome responsibility of
being a member of the Council of State. They should also be the bottom
line in all judicial situations which currently require an oath;
principle demands a refusal to take the oath.
If you deny
the existence of a Prime Being (an atheist); if you are unsure (an
agnostic); or if you owe allegiance to a god other than the Christian
one (Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and many others), you are honour bound to
refuse your country's most eminent duty: membership of the Council of
State.
And right down the line, you are faced, in honour, with decisions which, by definition, disenfranchise you as long as the religious oath is a constitutional requirement.
And right down the line, you are faced, in honour, with decisions which, by definition, disenfranchise you as long as the religious oath is a constitutional requirement.
In simple language, if
you are not a baptised member of one of the Christian Churches in this
country, you are denied the right to serve it or to be honoured by it.
The only contemporary comparison is a remark made by George Bush as president of the United States: "Atheists are not citizens. We are a nation under God."
Even supposed republics can make mistakes.
In the case of America, it once went to the polls and chose an idiot as its president.
But only once.
In our case, we also like to call ourselves a Republic.
As things stand, we're a George Bush Republic.
The only contemporary comparison is a remark made by George Bush as president of the United States: "Atheists are not citizens. We are a nation under God."
Even supposed republics can make mistakes.
In the case of America, it once went to the polls and chose an idiot as its president.
But only once.
In our case, we also like to call ourselves a Republic.
As things stand, we're a George Bush Republic.
We
can continue to exclude eminent and wise members of our society from
serving it, or we can replace religious oaths with a solemn affirmation
that is entirely inclusive.
It's a choice which will say a lot about the reality of our supposed abandonment of sectarianism.
It's a choice which will say a lot about the reality of our supposed abandonment of sectarianism.