The European Court of Human Rights has rejected the complaints of several Irish political and media figureheads, after they objected to the presidential oath’s reference to “Almighty God.”
As it stands, as bearla the oath reads:
“In the presence of Almighty God, I, [name], do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and the welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me.”
This wording has met resistance from Social Democrat co-leader Róisín Shortall, former CEO of Barnardos and Irish Examiner columnist Fergus Finlay, Sinn Féin TD John Brady, Senator David Norris and Trinity College Dublin chancellor David McConnell.
The complainants argued that, being prominent figures in Irish society, they may one day choose to run for presidential office, and a reference to God would go against their personal beliefs (presumably because they are secular atheists or agnostics).
However, the court threw out the complaint, arguing that those complaining didn’t have sufficient standing, and had failed to demonstrate that this oath could realistically have a negative impact on them as none of the individuals in question had indicated they actually planned to run for president.
Since the ECHR complaint was thrown out, Roisín Shorthall has since called for a national referendum on the matter.
Why is the Govt so staunchly defending mandatory religious oaths?
I will be bringing forward a Bill proposing a referendum to remove the requirement to make religious oaths from the Constitution. https://t.co/BmSvuIhoOU
— Róisín Shortall (@RoisinShortall) November 18, 2021
Now, someone needs to point out what an absolute waste of time this is during an unprecedented national emergency.
If you’re sceptical of the government’s Covid restrictions, then you’re seriously worried about State overreach and increasingly authoritarian attitudes among our leaders.
You’re worried about the potential for another lockdown, the irreversible damage to our economy, and the soaring national debt (which is about to hit a quarter of a trillion euros). This is to say nothing of the missed cancer screenings and the health timebomb lurking around the corner.
Even if you’re not sceptical of the government restrictions, then you’re probably seriously worried about rising Covid numbers and the country’s rapidly-filling ICU capacity.
In other words, no matter who you are or what concerns you, one way or another, the country is experiencing a major crisis.
And yet what are Roisín Shorthall and the Social Democrats worried about? Parents’ cars idling outside schools, and the idea that she may, hypothetically, have to mention the name of God at some point if she ever decided to run for president and won (which would not be for around 4 years at the very earliest).
"The Social Democrats, being a small party, get limited Dáil time. They could use that Dáil time for proposals on health, or crime, or housing.
Instead, they are using it on this. A stupid publicity stunt which will strike sensible people as ridiculous."https://t.co/qQyhYB5yic
— gript (@griptmedia) November 18, 2021
Talk about having out-of-touch priorities with the average person.
But regardless, since they brought it up, do these journalists and politicians have a point? Is an oath before God a bridge too far in a secular society? Should secular politicians be made to pledge an oath to a God they don’t believe in?
To answer this question, we have to think about an Bunreacht na hÉireann, as well as the powers and rights contained in it.
We all accept that the Constitution has power. After all, it is the highest legal document in the land. An Garda Síochana, judges, the president, as well as the Irish Defence Forces swear an oath to defend it. It is hugely revered and respected at all levels of State.
But what is the Constitution, at the end of the day? Well, it’s a collection of pieces of paper with ink on them. It’s an inanimate object. Alone, it has no power to do anything.
So where does it derive its power from? Who cares if you disobey a few pages bound together with glue? What authority does a book have over anyone or anything?
Well, the Constitution itself answers this question, in the opening preamble:
“In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire…Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.”
In other words, the people of Ireland give themselves the Constitution, but the source of the Constitution’s authority is God. All of the Irish people’s fundamental rights rest upon a divine power.
“Now hold on a minute,” you say. “I don’t believe in God. I’m an atheist. We should get rid of the preamble.”
But hold your horses; if God is gone, then we’re back to the problem of the Constitution being a meaningless piece of paper. It’s basically a wish-list at that point, and is no more binding than any other document.
So where does its power come from? Who or what gives the Constitution its authority?
“The State,” some might say.
But if the State gives people their constitutional rights, then the State can take those rights away. The purpose of the constitution is primarily to restrain the State and keep it in check from interfering with the people. It would be incredibly unwise to make the State its own referee.
“The people should give the constitution its power,” others might say.
But that would be unwise as well.
After all, how many atrocities historically were legal, and carried out with the consent of the majority?
To give the people ultimate control over the rights of society would be to create a tyranny of the majority, where 51% of society could vote to revoke the rights of the 49%. It would lead to tribalism and brutality as groups vied to grant themselves more rights and take freedoms away from their rivals.
What you need is a source of authority that is perfectly fair, powerful, unchanging, and independent. And this is where God comes in.
The people who authored and implemented our Constitution, in their infinite wisdom, foresaw this problem, and placed our rights on a firm foundation; an external, unchanging, independent authority, which is not subject to worldly faults, and has the power to enforce its edicts – namely God. God is not subject to corruption, or tribalism, or unfairness. His views don’t change from one year to the next. He is solid; a perfectly consistent mediator and judge.
Atheists roll their eyes at this, of course. If you don’t believe in God, then this is just a nonsense fantasy. And my purpose in writing this is not to convince you otherwise or convert you to theism.
But even if you believe God is a false construct, so what? He is an incredibly useful one.
Only the concept of God as a cosmic yardstick can restrain kings, presidents and prime ministers from having unlimited power over a society. No matter how many tanks, guns and bombs you have, there is always a heavenly force larger than the government which imposes an independent standard of justice on the world.
European law and society is built upon the idea that all human beings – young and old, rich and poor, male and female – must be subject to a divine judgement at the end of their life, at which time they will be held accountable for their actions, good and bad. This idea is the glue which has held our civilization together through the centuries.
Without it, your rights are nothing more than whatever the biggest bandit in the town is willing to grant you.
Having our leaders swear an oath to Almighty God – whether you believe in that God or not – is a vital part of our civic process, and to do away with it, even if it only feels like symbolism, would leave us at the mercy of man and the State’s worst excesses.
I support the presidential oath to Almighty God, and even if you’re an atheist, so should you.