Atheist Ireland welcomes bill to amend religious oath that judges must swear

Barry Ward, Fine Gael TD for Dun Laoghaire, has introduced a bill in the Dáil to amend the religious oath that judges must swear before taking up office. Atheist Ireland welcomes this bill. We have been campaigning for this development since our foundation in 2008. We have lobbied for it at Government level, as well as at the United Nations where we have special consultative status, and the Council of Europe and OSCE.

The current judicial oath reads in English:

“In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office … without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws … May God direct and sustain me.”

Deputy Ward’s bill would remove references to “God” from both the English and Irish versions of the oath, and change the word “man” to “person” in the English version.

We are particularly pleased that Deputy Ward’s Bill is proposing one declaration only with the deletion of the references to God, and not alternative religious and secular options. This is what the Constitution Review Group of 1996 recommended, when a majority concluded that:

“It does not appear desirable that a judge be required openly to choose between two forms of declaration thereby indicating his or her religious beliefs. The daily exercise of the judicial function requires that a judge’s impartiality should not be put in doubt by a public declaration of personal values.”

Atheist Ireland supports the same approach to the religious oaths for President and members of the Council of State, which includes the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, as well as other public figures.

This is particularly relevant during a year in which we will see yet another Presidential election in which a conscientious atheist will be unable to aspire to the office.

The UN Human Rights Committee has grouped these three religious oaths together.

In 2014, in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Ireland under the ICCPR, the UN Human Rights Committee told Ireland:

“The Committee is concerned at the slow pace of progress in amending the provisions of the Constitution that oblige individuals wishing to take up senior public office positions, such as President, members of the Council of State and members of the judiciary, to take religious oaths…

The State party should take concrete steps to amend articles 12, 31 and 34 of the Constitution that require religious oaths to take up senior public office positions, taking into account the Committee’s general comment No. 22 (1993) on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, concerning the right not to be compelled to reveal one’s thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief in public.”

In 2022, in its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Ireland under the ICCPR, the UN Human Rights Committee told Ireland:

“41. [The Committee] is also concerned at the slow progress in amending the provisions of the Constitution that oblige individuals wishing to take up senior public office positions to take religious oaths…

42. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendations that the State party should:

(a) Consider taking concrete steps to amend articles 12, 31 and 34 of the Constitution that require religious oaths to take up senior positions in public office, taking into account the Committee’s general comment No. 22 (1993) on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, concerning the right not to be compelled to reveal one’ s thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief in public;”

The issue of religious oaths has also been addressed by the European Court of Human Rights, as outlined in its 2023 factsheet on freedom of religion.

In 2021, in Shortall and Others v. Ireland, the applicants were found to not personally have standing in their challenge to Ireland’s religious oaths. However, the Court considered that while the Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin of discretion in questions concerning the relationship between States and religion, it nevertheless went hand in hand with European supervision. 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.

In 2013, in Dimitras and Others v. Greece, The applicants were summoned to appear in court on various dates, as witnesses, complainants or suspects in criminal proceedings. They were asked to take the oath by placing their right hands on the Bible. They informed the authorities that they were not Orthodox Christians and were allowed to make a solemn declaration instead. The applicants complained that they had been obliged to reveal their “non-Orthodox” religious convictions.

The European Court reiterated that freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which went hand in hand with pluralism, was one of the foundations of a “democratic society” and that in its religious dimension that freedom was an essential part of any believer’s identity, as well as being a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. It had already held that freedom to manifest one’s religious beliefs included an individual’s right not to reveal his faith or his religious beliefs and not to be obliged to act or refrain from acting in such a way that it was possible to conclude that he did or did not have such beliefs.

The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, finding that requiring the applicants to reveal their religious convictions in order to be allowed to make a solemn declaration had interfered with their freedom of religion, and that the interference was neither justified nor proportionate to the aim pursued.

In 2008, in Alexandridis v. Greece, the applicant was admitted to practise as a lawyer at Athens Court of First Instance and took the oath of office, which was a precondition to practising as a lawyer. He complained that when taking the oath he had been obliged, in order to be allowed to make a solemn declaration, to reveal that he was not an Orthodox Christian, as there was only a standard form to swear a religious oath. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, finding that that obligation had interfered with the applicant’s freedom not to have to manifest his religious beliefs.

In 1999, in Buscarini and others vs San Marino, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention [against parliamentarians required to take an oath on the Christian Gospels] . It found in particular that the obligation to take the oath was not “necessary in a democratic society” for the purpose of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention, as making the exercise of a mandate intended to represent different views of society within Parliament subject to a prior declaration of commitment to a particular set of beliefs was contradictory.