Madam, – I'm rapped on the knuckles by Michael Drury (April 7th) for referring to an "oath" rather than a "declaration" in relation to the wording required in the Constitution by those taking high office in this State. The Oxford English Dictionarydefines an oath as a "solemn declaration naming God etc. as witness", so I think I can be forgiven for thinking that the wording of the declaration ("In the presence of Almighty God, I . . . ., do solemnly swear . . . .") sounded suspiciously like an oath.
The important point, however, is the suggestion that non-believers shouldn’t “object to saying a few meaningless words . . .” when assuming high office. The idea of someone at this level making an oath – sorry, a declaration – in the presence of a God that they don’t believe in seems preposterous.
In the spirit of equality and as seems appropriate in a modern republic in the 21st century this needs to be changed. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – While I agree with Michael McElree (April 8th), that non-believers could insert gobbledegook of their choice in place of a religious reference, he should probably have come up with a less religious lyric to illustrate his point. For wouldn’t Hindus include “Rama”, Tibetan Buddhists “Lama”; and as for the “ding dong”, well, how many of us will answer the call these days? – Yours, etc,