More Double Standards from Irish Republicans

[Evil Genius]

Irish Republicans object to having to swear an Oath to the Queen, whether this be to take a seat in Parliament or become a Barrister etc. They also object to the UK's Constitutional requirement that the Monarch be Protestant etc, eg citing that as a reason why Queen Elizabeth II should not be invited to the Republic, for instance (though I note they never seem to voice any such objections to the Protestant-only Danish Royal Family!)

Anyhow, whether I personally agree or not, all this seems fine enough to me as a matter of principle.

Except that in an Irish Times commentary on Dermot Ahern's imminent new Blasphemy Law (I can't believe that hasn't got its own thread on this Board, btw), noted Irish Atheist Michael Nugent makes the following observations:

"The preamble to our Constitution states that all authority of the State comes from a specific god called the Most Holy Trinity. It also humbly acknowledges all of the obligations of the people of the State to a specific god called Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Up to a quarter of a million Irish atheists cannot become President or a judge unless they take a religious oath. These religious declarations are contrary to Ireland's obligations under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0710/1224250387007.html

I find it astonishing that Irish Republicans can be so concerned about Civil and Religious Freedoms etc in the UK (and NI especially), whilst remaining completely silent about the clearly discriminatory practices enshrined in the very Constitution of the state which they would have subsume Northern Ireland.

P.S. If anyone wants to comment on the new anti-Blasphemy Law specifically, I'd appreciate if they were to open a separate thread.

[magpie seanie]

I think the swearing of oaths is a bit outdated and should be done away with. If necessary a declaration of some sort undertaking to act ethically and professionally should more than suffice.

[ziggysego]

Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.

[DuffleKing]

Don't see why you single out irish republicans. its stoopid all right but laying it at the door of the republicans is silly.

[lynchbhoy]

in order for there to be 'more' - please show us where the first 'double standard' is !


will it be yet more rhetoric with the exact same 'hypocricy' as littered throughout 'history' as per every other state and state leaders/activists !
I'd expect so !

[Evil Genius]

Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.

I never mentioned SF. However, Irish Republicans in NI frequently object to the UK having an established religion (C of E), plus previous requirements (now legally avoidable) to swear various Oaths etc to the Monarch, for being discriminatory against them.

Yet they would have NI subsumed by a State which quite clearly has similar discriminatory practices against others, enshrined in its very Constitution.

Are these not double standards?

[magpie seanie]

Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.

I never mentioned SF. However, Irish Republicans in NI frequently object to the UK having an established religion (C of E), plus previous requirements (now legally avoidable) to swear various Oaths etc to the Monarch, for being discriminatory against them.

Yet they would have NI subsumed by a State which quite clearly has similar discriminatory practices against others, enshrined in its very Constitution.

Are these not double standards?

EG - I think you're reaching slightly. I would possibly accept that there is a double standard if you are being completely letter of the law about it. I would say the ROI's "discriminatory practices" in this area are of a much lesser extent that in NI. God only vs. God and Monarch. The Monarch thing is the main problem for Republicans, God is a seperate issue.

[heganboy]

you're completely correct it is indeed a double standard.
The Danish royal family and their lack territorial claims over the territory of Ireland, or to the fealty of the people of the Ireland probably keep them off most folks radar.
I for one don't believe that anyones faith should prevent them from holding any non religious post, but thats just me.

I think that the issue of the oath to the queen is an objection of all but the monarchists, and should be removed.

Similarly I feel it should not be a requisite of any non religious office in Ireland to take any religious oath so if that is indeed the case then it should be removed.

The creation of a state and the historical context of a  preamble within that text is a different matter. Should the USA remove one nation under God, or In God we trust from it's texts. All authority from a state comes from the will of the people of that state despite the sentiment of those who documented the creation of that state who in many cases believe a higher power grants them some moral superiority to create a state different from their previous territorial claims to a piece of land or indeed sea...

[Evil Genius]

Don't see why you single out irish republicans. its stoopid all right but laying it at the door of the republicans is silly.

I'm tempted to reply something about this being the Constitution of the Irish Republic  we're talking about here(!), but that might be a bit trite.

Anyhow, I declined to open a thread on the new anti-Blasphemy Law, since I am not a citizen of thew Irish Republic, so it doesn't really affect me.

However, I am directly affected by the workings of the UK's Constitution etc. On which point, in my experience those people who complain loudest about various discriminatory practices in the UK are Irish Republicans, most obviously those in NI. Which, as I said, is fair enough.

Yet as someone who is from NI himself, those same Irish Republicans would have my country joined with/taken over by a Republic which itself discriminates directlu in similar manner against Atheists like me (as well as all my non-Christian compatriots).

As a distinguished Lawyer, with an interest in Human Rights, I wonder whether it didn't occur to Mary McAleese that in taking the Oath of the Presidency, she was actually condoning, even conniving with, a clearly discriminatory and anachronistic practice, which imo should have no place in any modern, secular, 21st Century democracy?

P.S. For the sake of clarity, may we assume that President McAleese may be fairly called an Irish Republican?  

[SLIGONIAN]

Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.

I never mentioned SF. However, Irish Republicans in NI frequently object to the UK having an established religion (C of E), plus previous requirements (now legally avoidable) to swear various Oaths etc to the Monarch, for being discriminatory against them.

Yet they would have NI subsumed by a State which quite clearly has similar discriminatory practices against others, enshrined in its very Constitution.

Are these not double standards?

EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs. There is NOT 1 person on this planet who is PERFECT or indeed that isnt a hypocrite about something in their lives.

Will ya give this Republican bashing a rest for a while, its getting boring. You clearly have 2 chips on each shoulder and agenda against Republicans.

[Evil Genius]

Whilst you are right that Government and Religion should be kept separate and this oath needs to be looked, I can't see how you can equate this with Sinn Fein or Republicanism.

I never mentioned SF. However, Irish Republicans in NI frequently object to the UK having an established religion (C of E), plus previous requirements (now legally avoidable) to swear various Oaths etc to the Monarch, for being discriminatory against them.

Yet they would have NI subsumed by a State which quite clearly has similar discriminatory practices against others, enshrined in its very Constitution.

Are these not double standards?

EG - I think you're reaching slightly. I would possibly accept that there is a double standard if you are being completely letter of the law about it. I would say the ROI's "discriminatory practices" in this area are of a much lesser extent that in NI. God only vs. God and Monarch. The Monarch thing is the main problem for Republicans, God is a seperate issue.

OK, let's simplify matters. Irish Republicans criticise the UK on account of the fact that a non-Protestant cannot be Head of State. Yet a non-Christian cannot be Head of State of the Irish Republic.

Does this mean that Irish Republicans only care about reilgious discrimination when it is RC's who are effected, and don't care about people of other faiths, or none?

[orangeman]

Blame the dissidents. It's all their fault. So says Gerry Kelly.

[deiseach]

I had a look at what the oath says:

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

The whole God thing is anachronistic and I would be content to see it removed. To compare it the tone and scope of the Act of Settlement is a stretch though.

[Evil Genius]

EG what is your problem with people who want a United Ireland? ffs.

Er, you've answered* your own question!  

* - They are "people who want a United Ireland", in case you still don't get it...

You clearly have...       ... [an] agenda against Republicans.

Must be something to do with being a Unionist.

Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?

[deiseach]

Oh and btw, if you're not sure what a "Unionist" is, there are around a million Unionists to the North and East of Sligo; I daresay if there ever should be a United Ireland, you'll have to get plenty used to us then, so why not make an early start?

Given the length of time it took for Unionism to get used to all the Irish Nationalists / Republicans / Whateveryourehavingyourself in their midst, if we start now we might be ready by, ooh, 2090