I’ve been enjoying seeing all the oath swearing for the hundreds of new MPs into the House of Commons (UK). Many people swearing their allegiance to the King in the languages of the regions they represent – Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish.
But it’s also wonderfully revealing about MPs’ religious affiliations – or not. Something like 40 % of MPs chose to take the non religious affirmation rather than the religious oath:
Humanists UK:
The UK has elected the most openly non-religious House of Commons in history, with roughly 40% of MPs during their swearing-in ceremony choosing to take the secular affirmation instead of a religious oath to God, up from 24% after the 2019 election. The non-religious include the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and 50% of the Cabinet.
And precisely nobody has batted an eyelid. How refreshing.
Perhaps in 150 years the territory now labeled “USA” will have gone through its own disastrous authoritarian theocratic stage just like Iran is now doing and will have emerged into the delightful freedom from imaginary sky fairies that more enlightened nations now enjoy. Despite the carnage along the way.
How do you know that they’re doing the nonreligious affirmation in place of the religious oath, and not, say, doing the religious affirmation in place of the irreligious oath?
The religious oath is assumed to be the default, just as everyone’s assumed to be Church of England unless they make a conscious effort to say otherwise.
But the reason why the “affirmation” as an alternative to an oath exists, and has existed for so long, isn’t due to atheists or secularists. It’s due to religious people who refuse, on the basis of their religion, to swear oaths.
Which I’ve always thought is silly. An affirmation is just an oath by another name, and the prohibition against oaths would apply just as much to an “affirmation”. The point is that there shouldn’t be some silly ritual that makes you more honest than usual, because you should just always be honest.
The texts of both the affirmation and the oath are prescribed; you don’t get to make them up. The text of the affirmation includes no religious language, so it’s a non-religious affirmation. The text of the oath includes explicitly religious language, so it’s a religious oath.
Those are the only two options. If you have a conscientious objection to both the oath and the affirmation you’re out of luck; you either violate your conscience or you don’t take your seat. This is at least part of the reason why the seven Sinn Féin MPs do not take their seats.
Sinn Féin continues to decline its seats to demonstrate that it does not recognise British rule in Northern Ireland.
The parliamentary oath is another issue - as Irish republicans, Sinn Fein MPs will not swear allegiance to the British monarch.
Oath: “I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
Affirmation: “I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.” (A suitable religious book is provided by arrangement)
It has to be stated in English first and then in I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.
Charles Bradlaugh was the first to refuse to swear on the grounds that he didn’t believe in a God, and was repeatedly excluded from the House and repeatedly re-elected by his voters.
Well before Bradlaugh, Joseph Pease, a Quaker, was elected in 1832. (This only became possible from 1829, when the Test Acts were repealed. The Test Acts confined a variety of public offices, including the position of MP, to people who took communion in the Anglican church.) Pease declined to take the oath on religious grounds. A committee of the House of Commons considered the matter and decided that he should be allowed to affirm, and he duly took his seat.
When Bradlaugh was elected in 1880 he asked to be allowed to affirm, and of course he could point to the Pease precedent. A committee of the House decided that the two cases were different: Pease regarded the oath as one which would bind him, were he to take it; Bradlaugh regarded the oath as meaningless. On those grounds the committee declined to allow him to affirm, whereupon Bradlaugh said he would take the oath, under protest, but the committee also refused to allow him to do that, given his view of the oath. A lengthy dispute ensued which involved Bradlaugh being not only unseated but also imprisoned for his attempts to take his seat before he was eventually allowed to take the oath after the 1886 general election.
One of his first acts as an MP was to promote legislation to create a general right to choose between affirming and swearing; this was enacted in 1888. Ironically Bradlaugh died in 1891, before the next election, so he never got to affirm himself.
Similar, I guess. Every time I’ve watched a US president sworn in, they’re asked to place a hand on a Bible. (I think there have been different editions/versions – and maybe something else instead, like a Book of Prayer?)
Anyway, is it similar for the MPs? Can they pick completely different books? Like, could they be sworn in on the OED? Or how about the Dungeon and Dragons manual?