Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
The Daily PollTHE REQUIREMENT FOR a president to make a declaration when entering office has cropped up as a talking point before due to its mention of religion.
The Constitution states that the president when entering office must make a declaration “in the presence of Almighty God” about their promise to fulfil their duties and maintain the constitution.
TDs Róisín Shortall and others including Senator David Norris are taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge this constitutional requirement for the president and a body that advises the president.
According to the Irish Times, they argue that this oath excludes non-Christians and non-believers from these positions unless they are willing to declare something “which goes against their conscience”.
This issue previously cropped up in the past, including in 2013 when then-Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore said he would swear the oath despite being an agnostic.
So today we’re asking: Should the President have to swear an oath in the presence of God when being sworn in?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Of course not.
Belief in ‘god’ is an entirely private matter and has no place in public life.
Getting rid of the Angelus seems impossible though – we need to start with the removal of that from the state broadcaster.
@Cookie:
Angelus is less religious now and is more about a reflection of the day… Leave it, sometimes it is better to stop and take a break
@Cowboy Ted: No, no, no. Dump it. People can take a break during the ads. All religious ma la rk ey should be removed from our lives.
@Cowboy Ted: how can anyone call a call to prayer with church bells less religious. Ffs.
@Cowboy Ted: is less religious now?
How are bells chimes recorded in a Catholic Church and the the Angelus recordings themselves being made by a Catholic TV production company less religious?
Remove the bells and use imagery that’s none Christian specific and then we can claim its none religious
@Barry Somers: *non. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until the second one.
@Cowboy Ted: the Angelus is a Christian call to prayer. They may have changed the pictures but it is what it is.
@Cookie: don’t get rid of the Angelus only way I can remember when the Simpsons is on.
@John: Plenty of Irish women used it as a reminder to take the pill. Nowadays we can set up alarms on our smartphones.
@Cowboy Ted: switch the tv off and reflect then instead.
@Cowboy Ted: I’ve never liked the Angelus since they changed it from all the random people staring off into the distance
How do we know God is present? Its time we removed any reference to God in every aspect of our government and constitution.
@Fr.Todd Unctious: If he accepts the invitation in Outlook then surely (don’t call me Shirley) he will be there in person no?
@J: That could mean meeting clashes in God’s calendar?
@David Corrigan: he must have a PA to sort that stuff out though
@Fr.Todd Unctious: is that the official position of the catholic church now father?
@Fr.Todd Unctious: surely if he/she is voted in we can’t get rid of them and the Healy-Raes are like demi-gods anyway so they should count.
Religion has no place in politics. Governments being controlled by the church is what got us in to the mess we’re in right now in the first place.
@Pat Doran: that’s the fake god’s you’re on about! I’d argue that it’s everything that ends with an -ism that’s got us to the mess we’re in, nepotism, veganism, pseudodisestablishmentarianism, all of them!
@This time its personable!: journalism?
@Pat Doran: in fairness, our president has no place in politics. Pointless position.
@Charles Mander: he’s the head of state of a sovereign nation. Someone has to be there.
@Pat Doran: Don’t forget schools and hospitals. It’s time to sever all links between government and church.
Of course not.
As soon as there is a mention of a so called ‘God’ all logical discussion and responsibility flies out of the window…
@Nomis Andrews: you’d be wrong here. Most comments are casually and sensibly in favour of no mention of a god. It’s a silly thing in this day and age. And very very lazy.
Only if you can also swear to saten, thor or Richard Dawkins as well.
@Derek Moran: ahh feck sake..what about the flying spaghetti monster??
@Pol Mlp: people always forget about the flying spaghetti monster, people need to make time for lovecraft
@Colm Connolly: blessed are his noodleey appedidges.
@Pol Mlp: R’amen Brother
@Pol Mlp: oops how could I forget his noodlyness
@Pol Mlp: Um yeah, this is a bit awkward but he landed in my garden and the dog gobbled him up.
He’s now the flying poo bag monster.
How can the actual presence of God at the time of the oath being sworn be legally proven.? It can’t so pretty pointless.
@Peter B: how about if god (whichever one) shows up and swears an oath in front of the president then the president returns the favour? Seems fair.
@Pseud O’Nym: swear the oath in court and do you think that means fck all
No, of course not.
What a load of nonsense. God is whatever you believe it to be, whether it be a Christian God, Sun God, God of nature. As far as I’m aware most politicians think they themselves are God incarnate anyway, so it means nothing to them. Let’s focus on making the office of president more effective and more accountable.
@Sean McCarthy: true. Better off doing away with the position and stripping it of its worth.
I think Nietzsche already did away with the position?
How about swearing allegiance to the constitution and the people and upholding ethical standards? Maybe take the oath on a copy of the constitution and if someone so wishes, on an approved tract/book/symbol of choice as well?
He should swear an oath to Greta, the all powerful Earth goddess.
@edward: at least she’s real
Constitution doesn’t say which god, I’d have no problem swearing in the presence of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster
@john barnes: R’amen
@Ross Mc Gann: under appreciated
Very demanding of us to expect God to be present at our little swearing in gig, I’m sure God has a fairly hectic schedule as it is.
@Moss Cotter: yeah, s/he’s off busy ignoring the deaths of children
@: it is mankind that ignores the deaths of children among many other obscenities, not otherworldly beings.
@Moss Cotter: I think you missed the point
@: Au contraire, his reply indicates that understood precisely what cheap ‘point’ you were trying to make.
@Terry Larkin: shup Terry
Which God?
@albhbc: A very valid question, especially as everyone is an atheist. All that varies is the number and identities of the gods about whom they are a-theistic.
I think it should be optional to bring god into it. Should not be forced upon those that have to take a oath. We live in a country that allows religious freedom. forcing someone to take a oath before god (against their will) is in infringement of their human rights and against the EU and Irish Constitution. (to the best of my knowledge) I’m not a constitutional solicitor.
@alan scott: It’s not contrary to the Irish Constitution (since that document is what insists on the oath) and the EU does not (yet) have a Constitution. But you are nonetheless correct, the practice is an infringement, and makes non-believers into 2nd class citizens as they (we) can not become president.
If you believe in God then why not but if you’re swearing to a God you don’t actually believe in, you are being dishonest. A bit like making a promise with your fingers crossed.
As long as there is an Oath to the Roman god, non-believers are second-class citizens, and therefore the South is not a true Republic.
@Fachtna Roe: Which Roman god? There’s a rather large pantheon to choose from.
@Fachtna Roe: To be fair I understand you calling Catholicism the Roman religion but it is the Jewish/Christian/Islamic (all the same god) god that they seae the oath to.
@William Tallon: In Mickey Dee’s case, I assume that the Roman God in question is Fascinus!
@William Tallon: Any, all,, or the lad they call Al Mighty.
@Diarmuid Hunt: Thanks, Diarmuid, I’m aware. But they brought the story here, wherever they co-opted that mind-control tool from. I think you’ll agree with my central point.
@Terry Larkin: “A loud silence erupted gently from the center of the edge of the room…”
@Diarmuid Hunt: That being the Abrahamic god.
I’m the presence of god? Does that mean god exists and actually is gonna show up for once?
@Golden Steph: You should feel his presence. If not then it’s obvious he doesn’t like you.
@Will: I wouldn’t wanna feel the presence of a god that doesn’t like me for not feeling his presence. That’s not a god, that’s a megalomaniac
@: Well, it’s no wonder he doesn’t reveal himself to you with that attitude! A thousand years in purgatory unless you recite the rosary backwards while standing on your head.
@Will: he must hate me so the oul b011ix
The Angelis is a religious program, that goes out at the same time every day. It doesn’t bother me at all and in fact is a good time marker. If we cannot tolerate one minute of one person’s beliefs no matter anachronistic they are! what kind of country do we want? As for the Constitution, all references to deities should be removed and the President should swear his loyalty to the people of the State. Gods are ok in churches , synagogues, mosques etc for consenting adults but should never be spoken of in parliament or in front of children.
Ohhb for God’s sake….
God schMod.
As long as He / She can pick their God – otherwise No.
I thought Michael D was a Pastafarian. All hail the flying spaghetti monster!
A wonderful question. Not believing in God, is like a fish not believing in water
@Desmodromic: Fish don’t believe in anything, they’re atheists.
Or like like mr.freeze not believing in single use plastic.
Or Karate not believing in Kid
How does anyone know for sure ,where does it all come from,when did creation begin.
@Aine O Connor: an almighty big bang
@Hear me now: You can’t prove that.
@Aine O Connor: How is that relevant?
What’s more likely? A natural occurance or a supernatural one?
Absent any evidence of a supernatural entity I’ll go with the more rational option.
@Tricia G: Which brings me back to no one knows for sure.
@Aine O Connor: We know that the universe is expanding outward, at increasing speed and galaxies, etc are moving away from each other. Like when you drop a stone into a calm body of water and the ripples move out from the centre point where the stone hit the water. This is observable in the universeas a whole. Science has proven this. Due to the nature of expansion, logic and science shows it is expanding from a point back in time 13.5 billion years ago. Science proves this is where the universe expanded or exploded into existence and resulted in the known universe we know and see today.
@Aine O Connor: you might want to Google the COBE experiment.
Or perhaps not…
@Aine O Connor: no but we can make good guesses based on what we can see. A lot might be wrong but we are slowly revealing the workings of the universe.
@Aine O Connor: While no one CURRENTLY knows for sure, what we do know for sure is that every phenomenon previously attributed to Gods that has been explained has found to have had a natural explanation e.g. earthquakes, and that not a single phenomenon that has been explained has been found to have a supernatural explanation e.g. God. Given that there is no single testable piece of evidence of the existence of any of the thousands of Gods ever proposed by humankind, occams razor should apply.
@Aine O Connor: you can actually Aine
@: As far as I can see mankind has not got the capacity to understand creation and will spend eternity trying to figure it all out. Wherever it all came from the World and outer space is a magnificent place.
@Aine O Connor: As far as you can see… OK Aine, thankfully science doesn’t rely on what you can see.. bahahaha the arrogance is astounding lmao
@JustMeHere: Funny I was just thinking the very same thing about you.LOL
@Aine O Connor: It is one situation not to comprehend something, and quite normal. But it is enturely another situation altogether to think that because _you_ cannot comprehend that thing, that _no one_ can comprehend that thing.
LOL
In the presence of God?? How do we know he turned up ? Oh he’s everywhere so its not possible to swear an oath not in the presence of God ?
Who’s god?
@John Lyons: Eric Clapton…
Paul McGrath, obvs.
Ah our little leprechaun in the park
The Yanks or the UK have no problem with respecting their religious rituals. Why are we so different.?
Yes its tradition.
Why would God care?
A wonderful question. Not believing in God, is like a fish not believing in water
@Desmodromic: Very poetic. Now, if only we could prove water exists?
Not believing in God is like a fish , not believing in fingers.
Who is this god of whom you speak? Ball or Zeus or Ahura Mazda. Swear on the citizens of Ireland as thats who the position serves
It should stay, but the president should have to list all known god’s (past and present). It should be timed, and each president could try to better the pervious’ time.
Lol, religion, what a joke.
Not sure what the ECHR can do other than issue an opinion. Maybe that’s what the case is for.
@Paul Clancy: Surely they could issue a ruling stating that this infringes on the individuals human rights for freedom of religion.
@: yeh that’s what I’m saying, they can issue a ruling but that won’t change it. Only the Irish people can change the Irish constitution.
I would be much happier if he could pass a medical test
A wonderful question. Not believing in God, is like a fish not believing in water
@Desmodromic: Once more, with feeling.
@David F. Dwyer: And that feeling should be … damp.
Not believing in God, is like a fish not believing in cod liver oil.
Of course he should because if the president takes that oath then he will never lie – I mean come in who has ever lied after making an oath to God! ?
Of course he should because if the president takes that oath then he will never lie – I mean come on who has ever lied after making an oath to God! ?
What if God cannot attend?
@Pablo Rojas Coppari: Bono will do in a pinch!
A wonderful question. Not believing in God, is like a fish not believing in water
@Desmodromic: Or in deja vous.
It’s like a fish not believing in amble street.
What an utter and complete non-issue. We already know that since 1927 Ireland’s most venerable political party, Fianna Fail, have considered such oaths to be an empty formula. Let’s just all do the same rather than wasting time on a referendum.
Too the people of this country
Who’s god? Eric the god killing penguin already delt with them all
I’m sure an all knowing, in all places simultaneously, God should she exist will be present anyway so the question is not if you swear an Oath in her presents but rather swear and Oath in her name?
Hilarious.
Who cares
I laugh at the gullibility of humanity in this day and age. Seriously, this beggars belief.
Who gives a Fock he does Fock all anyway.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a “yes” or a “no”, God is omnipresent.
Jesus Christ no
have your say