Today, Ireland swears in yet another president in a ceremony that prevents a conscientious atheist from honestly taking office.
Why? Because the Constitution requires them to swear a religious oath that begins “In the presence of Almighty God” and ends “May God direct and sustain me.” The Preamble makes clear this God is the Holy Trinity “from Whom is all authority.”
In the last census, a million people, or one in every five, either said they have no religion (14%) or didn’t answer the question (7%). That’s with a leading question that likely inflates the religious number. Of every ten Irish marriages, four are now secular. This is twice as many as twenty years ago.
But regardless of the numbers, we wouldn’t dream of requiring a religious person to swear there isn’t a god. So why do we require an atheist to swear there is? Under international human rights law, we are all equally protected by the right to freedom of religion or belief.
Atheist Ireland campaigns, here and at the United Nations, for One Oath for All. Holders of high public office should make a single, neutral declaration to uphold the Constitution, with no reference to their personal beliefs. That is how a Republic should treat its citizens equally.
Protecting nonreligious beliefs
This problem isn’t limited to the Presidency. There are similar oaths required to be a judge or members of the Council of State. This includes the Taoiseach and Tánaiste. And these oaths are written into the Constitution, so a referendum is needed to change them.
The European Court of Human Rights says the right to freedom of religion and belief is one of the foundations of a democratic society. It has also held that the right to manifest your religion or belief has a negative aspect.
This means the State cannot oblige you to disclose your beliefs. Nor can it oblige you to act in such a way that it is possible to infer that you hold, or do not hold, beliefs. That is intervening in the sphere of your freedom of conscience.
What is the legal test of whether a nonreligious philosophical belief is protected? It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and be worthy of respect in a democratic society. Atheism, agnosticism, and secularism are all protected.
The right to hold or change your belief is absolute and unconditional. The right to manifest your beliefs can be limited by law, but only if necessary in a democratic society to pursue a legitimate aim. These religious oaths do not satisfy that test.
Legal concerns ignored for decades
This isn’t a new concern.
- In 1996, the Constitution Review Group called for these oaths to be replaced. They said judges in particular should swear a single, neutral oath. Why? A choice of oaths could create the impression of religious and nonreligious judges.
- In 2008, 2014 and 2023, the UN Human Rights Committee told Ireland to end these oaths, taking into account the right not to be compelled to reveal one’s thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief in public.
- In 2013, Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore was on record as not believing in God. Yet he had to swear an oath in order to sit on the Council of State, which was a necessary function of being Tánaiste.
- That year, six of the President’s Council of State asked the Convention on the Constitution to remove the oath. They included former Supreme Court judge Catherine McGuinness and solicitor Michael Farrell. They said the oath “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 members of other non-Christian faiths.”
- In 2021, President Michael D. Higgins told BBC Radio Ulster that the religious oath he swore during his inauguration should be removed and replaced with an affirmation.
- Also that year, Roisin Shortall TD and four other citizens brought the issue to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court did not hear the case, as the five were not direct victims, but it noted the UN Human Rights Committee has criticised the oath.
- In 2023, the European Court referred to the Irish oaths in its factsheet on freedom of religion. It said the reference by a State to a tradition could not relieve it of its obligation to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention.
- Earlier this year, Barry Ward TD introduced a private members bill to amend the oath that judges must swear. His Bill, like the Constitution Review Group proposal, seeks a single, neutral oath for all judges.
We should take oaths of office seriously
It undermines freedom of belief, and democracy itself, to treat such oaths as empty phrases to be said with a nod and a wink. If you don’t have to mean that part of the oath, why do you have to mean any of it? We urgently need a referendum to remove these oaths, and protect equally everybody’s right to freedom of religion or belief.