Sir, – Nora Gorey’s (Letters, August 4th) proposes a “simple solution” to the problem of compulsory religious oaths by offering a choice between a religious and a secular oath.
Alas, it is not that simple. There may be many reasons why an individual may prefer not to reveal their religious or other affiliation.
For example, they may fear that a case of crucial importance to them may be prejudiced.
Further, there is a right “not to be compelled to reveal one’s thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief in public”. This right was specifically mentioned in the Centre for Civil and Political Rights’ comments on the 2021 United Nations Period Review of Human Rights in Ireland.
Kamala Harris is a descendant of an Irish slave owner in Jamaica
Artist and shepherd Orla Barry: ‘Breeding animals is like making an artwork. You’re putting certain animals together’
Tactical analysis: Clare got their numbers right, but it’s hard to measure sheer magic
Aer Lingus has agreed to increase pilots’ pay as industry challenges mount
Religious oaths were described by the Law Reform Commission as “at best embarrassing and at worst offensive to the religious beliefs of the persons to whom they are meant to apply”.
It recommended that the oath should be abolished and replaced with a solemn statutory affirmation for witnesses, jurors, and for deponents submitting affidavits in all civil and criminal proceedings.
That would be a better solution and is simple enough – apart from the constitutional change required to remove the requirement of a religious oath of the president, judges and members of the Council of State. – Yours, etc,
ALAN TUFFERY,
Raheny,
Dublin 5.