Do you think this rule should be changed?

Currently I reside in Dublin, and I found out recently that, in order to become a judge or the president in Ireland, you *must* take a religious oath. This essentially discriminates against and disbars up to 250, 000 citizens in Ireland who are...

non-believers.

My question is, do you think this rule of having a *religious* oath is justified? Or do you think that it needs to change?

I think it's objectionable and recidivist, but you already knew that.

If there's some specific thing that an elected official should do or shouldn't do, make them swear to do/not do that (or better, make it a law). Religion has no place in such matters.

Remember, it is just to protect you and all of the other citizens of Dublin!

Protect us from what?

I don't think it's fair on athiests / agnostics / those of another religion. However, some of the morals and values within the oath may be relevant and practical.

I think it is wrong, but at the same time I can understand it. Remember, it is just to protect you and all of the other citizens of Dublin!

protect you from the horrors of an atheist of course captain.

babyangel, perhaps you should find out the beliefs of the asker before answering, or you'll end up telling someone they need to protect themselves from people just like them...

Of course it's wrong, but someone could have quite a bit of fun with it if the law does not specify *which* religion. For example, showing up in some bizarre obscure religious garb and sacrificing a chicken as part of the oath might be sort of fun.

I don't agree with it. I agree somewhat with hedgehog, maybe it should be turned into a moral oath, rather than a religious one.