The Constitution prohibits an Atheist President

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,817
CookieMonster said:
Riadach said:
CookieMonster said:
Seeing as the Irish are being ethnically cleansed our of their own country perhaps it should be re-written as...

“In the presence of Allah and his prophet Muhammed, do solemnly swear…”
TAKFIR!

EDIT: I withdraw my accusation.
WUSS!
Wusses are haram. Calling me one makes you a kuffir. Takfir, Takfir.
 


CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
Riadach said:
CookieMonster said:
Riadach said:
CookieMonster said:
Seeing as the Irish are being ethnically cleansed our of their own country perhaps it should be re-written as...

“In the presence of Allah and his prophet Muhammed, do solemnly swear…”
TAKFIR!

EDIT: I withdraw my accusation.
WUSS!
Wusses are haram. Calling me one makes you a kuffir. Takfir, Takfir.
Posts like that make the baby Allah cry.
 

R Paul

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
29
pauriceenjack said:
Article 12 (section 8) provides that the President, on taking office, make a declaration which opens as follows:

“In the presence of Almighty God I, , do solemnly swear…”



The declaration ends with the words:


“May God direct and sustain me.”

How could an Atheist make such an Oath?

Surely this is Gross Discrimination
Logically, a committed Atheist couldn't take such an Oath.

Isn't there an oath of affirmation you can take in court if a witness if you don't want to take the regular oath? Maybe, that could be used instead altough that would probably require a constitutional amendment to be used.
 

ivnryn

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
1,303
R Paul said:
Isn't there an oath of affirmation you can take in court if a witness if you don't want to take the regular oath? Maybe, that could be used instead altough that would probably require a constitutional amendment to be used.
It would be a pretty simple change, just put the religious parts into brackets.

"[In the presence of Almighty God] I ,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 welfare of the people of Ireland. [May God direct and sustain me.]"
 

pauriceenjack

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
111
There is difference between being eligible for election and being sworn in

Even if you are elected you cant be sworn in without taking the Oath

Why not drop the Swearing in by oath and ask the President to make a simple declaration to the people?
 

Seán E. Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
808
I'd be more concerned with our current unelected president and whether she'd complied with the terms of the oath. Much moreso than whether she was an atheist or not or whether the oath would present difficulties for an atheist.

I'm one of those ultra atheists. I don't even consider the position of agnosticism to be a tenable position. It would be my position to argue, that not only is there not a God, there cannot be one.

And I don't see any issue concerning the oath that would prevent an atheist from taking up office as the president after being elected to do so. Distasteful - absolutely. Prohibitive - absolutely not. (And I use the word 'absolute' with relativistic intent ;) )
 

R Paul

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
29
Seán E. Ryan said:
I'd be more concerned with our current unelected president and whether she'd complied with the terms of the oath. Much moreso than whether she was an atheist or not or whether the oath would present difficulties for an atheist.

I'm one of those ultra atheists. I don't even consider the position of agnosticism to be a tenable position. It would be my position to argue, that not only is there not a God, there cannot be one.

And I don't see any issue concerning the oath that would prevent an atheist from taking up office as the president after being elected to do so. Distasteful - absolutely. Prohibitive - absolutely not. (And I use the word 'absolute' with relativistic intent ;) )
Not sure I agree that the oath would be just distasteful for an Atheist. Were the Atheist to stand up and swear NOT to do what the oath requires, it would be clear that the person hadn't fullfilled the constitutional requirements to be President. Likewise, deciding to omit the God parts of the oath would fall into the same category. If the person stands up and says "I am an Atheist but "In the presence of God, etc ..."", their oath would be open to legal challenge. After all, if you don't believe you are in the presence of God, it is hard to argue that you believe in the validity of what you are swearing, hence the oath is essentially null and void.
 

pauriceenjack

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
111
Not much of a Republic if 186,000 of its citzens can vote but are not eligible to be President or a Judge
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,817
pauriceenjack said:
Not much of a Republic if 186,000 of its citzens can vote but are not eligible to be President or a Judge
There are plenty of republics who do not allow their citizens to vote at all (at least not in anything meaningful).
 

pauriceenjack

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
111
Riadach said:
pauriceenjack said:
Not much of a Republic if 186,000 of its citzens can vote but are not eligible to be President or a Judge
There are plenty of republics who do not allow their citizens to vote at all (at least not in anything meaningful).
Why should 186000 people be prevented by an oath from serving as President or a Judge?
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,817
pauriceenjack said:
Riadach said:
pauriceenjack said:
Not much of a Republic if 186,000 of its citzens can vote but are not eligible to be President or a Judge
There are plenty of republics who do not allow their citizens to vote at all (at least not in anything meaningful).
Why should 186000 people be prevented by an oath from serving as President or a Judge?
To stop you from getting elected or enjoying any judicial power.
 

an Toimíneach

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
379
*Off Topic*

Seán E. Ryan said:
I'm one of those ultra atheists. I don't even consider the position of agnosticism to be a tenable position. It would be my position to argue, that not only is there not a God, there cannot be one.
Why not (if you don't mind me asking) ?
 

pauriceenjack

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
111
A Republic which prevents 186,000 non religous citizens, from becoming President or a Judge, is not worthy of being called a Republic nor a Democracy.
 

supamolli

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
194
pauriceenjack said:
Not much of a Republic if 186,000 of its citzens can vote but are not eligible to be President or a Judge
Greece is a Christian Republic.
 

R Paul

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
29
Riadach said:
pauriceenjack said:
Not much of a Republic if 186,000 of its citzens can vote but are not eligible to be President or a Judge
There are plenty of republics who do not allow their citizens to vote at all (at least not in anything meaningful).
It reminds me of the comment in a Terry Pratchett book - The Patrician believed in the concept of "One Man, One Vote". He was THE one man with THE one vote (in the city).
 

Seán E. Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
808
an Toimíneach said:
*Off Topic*

[quote="Seán E. Ryan":1bhay87a] I'm one of those ultra atheists. I don't even consider the position of agnosticism to be a tenable position. It would be my position to argue, that not only is there not a God, there cannot be one.
Why not (if you don't mind me asking) ?[/quote:1bhay87a]

*More off topic*

My attitude is forever getting me into trouble :)

Omnipotence and all the other words beginning with "omni" result in paradoxical logic bombs. In my way of seeing it, a believer is only duping himself or herself and is mistaking a want for a God to exist with believing that a God actually exists. This is very easilly demonstrated.

Ask a theist, any theist, the following questions:

If a creature winked into existence right before your eyes, how could that creature prove to you that it was God?

How would you know for example, that it wasn't Satan (or some other 'bad god,' or advanced lifeform or indeed the onset of madness) trying to trick you?

From these two questions it can be demonstrated that theists do not have a firm grasp of what it is that they claim to believe in. They could compare any core belief they wanted with this magical creature before them and the creature could never prove beyond a reasonabe doubt to the so-called believer, that it was their God.

Some frustrated theists will claim the above questions to be nonsensical. That's easy to remedy too. Ask them if they believe in an afterlife. When they say that they do, tell them to apply the above scenario to the creature that they claim will claim them.

An omnipotent omnicient (etc.) being is a hypothetical being that's been reinvented, reproduced and re-presented for thousands of years (at least) and still not a single shred of evidence has been produced to promote this hypothesis to even a weak theory. I take the position that evidence cannot be produced because God can neither be defined nor can he, she or it exist to begin with.

My apologies to folks who take offence at my stance. It's not my intent to offend. It's merely where I stand.

*back on topic*

The above is why I consider the presidential and indeed the judicial oaths to offer no threat to an atheist. I swear before something that cannot exist, that Ill perform my named duties. May some creature that doesn't exist guide me.

I'd still be bound under my oath to perform my duties, but I'd have offered no proof of God in the swearing of an oath. Of course, I'd prefer not to bring religion into the picture at all, but as far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't change me, neither would it make a liar of me. It'd generate confusion and that's a pity, but confusion can be cleared up.
 

bobbysands81

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
946
pauriceenjack said:
Article 12 (section 8) provides that the President, on taking office, make a declaration which opens as follows:

“In the presence of Almighty God I, , do solemnly swear…”



The declaration ends with the words:


“May God direct and sustain me.”

How could an Atheist make such an Oath?

Surely this is Gross Discrimination
I bet you don't complain about the British monarchy being sectarian.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top