The Minister for Education, Norma Foley and the Department of Education are trying to control the language around Relationship and Sexuality Education in order to hide the influence that a catholic ethos has on the teaching of the subject.
The Minister and the Department use the words  ‘treated’ and ‘hear’ when they are questioned regarding the impact of a religious ethos on the teaching of RSE in schools. They say that ‘ethos’ may well have an impact on how the syllabus is ‘treated’ and on what student ‘hear’ in RSE.
The impression given by the use of these words doesn’t actually convey how syllabus Relationship and Sexuality Education is taught.
The purpose of a religious ethos is to influence children into a Catholic understanding of the world. If RSE is taught through a Catholic ethos, then the purpose is to evangelise (or as the Catholic Church has said, to pre-evangelise) all students into a catholic understanding of the world in relation to social and moral education.
The religous ethos of schools is legally protected under the Education Act, Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Act.
Constitutional right to moral and social education
All students have a Constitutional right to a basic moral and social education under Article 42.3.2. They also have a right to objective RSE under Article 11 of the European Social Charter. Relationship and sexuality education are part of SPHE, Social, Personal and Health education. The State has a Constitutional duty to provide it.
Section 9 (d) of the Education Act 1998 obliges Boards of Management to consult with parents in relation to the moral and social education of their children, but that section of the Act goes on to say that the Board must have regard to ethos of the school. Section 15 – 2 (b) of the Education Act obliges the Board of Management to uphold the ethos of the school, and Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act means teachers can be fired if they refuse to uphold the ethos of the school.
No matter what parents and students require in relation to social and moral education  on the basis of conscience, it can be refused by private patron bodies in order to uphold the religous ethos of schools.
Parents may have rights under the Constitution, but successive governments have handed control of those rights to private patron bodies, mostly religious, to implement according to their mission and educational philosophy. Despite this, the Constitutional duty lies with the Minister to provide social and moral education, while respecting the philosophical convictions of parents in relation to the education of their children.
In the Burke case at the Court of Appeal in March this year it was stated that:

“191. This Court considers that the case law demonstrates that the relationship between parents, the State and the child as envisaged by Article 40, 41 and 42, is a trifecta not just of the participants but of the rules under which constitutional engagement on education must take place; namely rights, duties and powers. It is only through understanding the interwoven nature of those relationships, that clarity can be brought to the complex constitutional provisions on education.”

The Court of Appeal has linked the Constitutional right to moral and social education with the balance of provisions set out in Article 42 of the Constitution. Article 42 obliges the State to respect the philosophical convictions of parents.
Our chldren should not be denied their right to moral and social education because of the philosophical convictions of their parents. Many Catholic parents and and those from religous minorities would have the same issue. It is Catholic moral and social education or no moral and social education at all.
Parents are left trying to negotiate with the school to opt their children out of aspects of their education that they have a Constitutional right to. The State ‘provides for’ the education of our children in schools with a Catholic ethos. Even some ETBs operate with a catholic ethos.
The Constitution does not envisage minorities suspending their constitutional rights because they have no choice but to send their children to their nearest publicly funded school, when they are legally obliged to do so.
The Court of Appeal said in the recent Burke Case that: Read more…

Understanding the Right to Freedom of Thought – Atheist Ireland input to United Nations Report

Atheist Ireland has made the following submission about Freedom of Thought to Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Mr Shaheed had called for inputs to a report he is compiling for the UN General Assembly on the topic.
Contents
1. Internal — Freedom of Thought
2. External — Manifestation of Thought
3. Conflict of Rights when Manifesting Thought
4. Analysis of the Situation in Practice
4.1 The Right to Freedom of Thought
4.2 The Right to Not Reveal Your Thoughts
4.3 The Right to Not Be Penalised for Your Thoughts
4.4 The Right to Receive Information
4.5 The Right to Nonreligious Philosophical Convictions
4.6 The Situation in Ireland
4.7 The Irish Education System
1. Internal — Freedom of Thought
Freedom of opinion and belief are particular examples of freedom of thought. A thought is any idea that occurs in your mind. Two examples of thoughts are:

• An opinion, which is a view or judgment about something, and
• A belief, which is an acceptance that something is true or corresponds with reality.

In human rights terms, the words “religion and belief” refer to two subsets of all beliefs — religious beliefs and nonreligious philosophical convictions about life that amount to a coherent worldview and can shape a person’s conscience.

2. External — Manifestation of Thought
Freedom of expression, speech, behaviour, culture, and association are particular examples of the manifestation of freedom of thought.

• You have the choice to keep your thoughts private or to manifest them by making them clear to others.
• You can choose to manifest your thoughts by expressing them. This can include speech, behaviour, culture, and association.

Choosing whether or how to manifest your thoughts also has a correlation with freedom of conscience.

3. Conflict of Rights when Manifesting Thought

• Each person’s internal Freedom of Thought is inviolable.
• Each person’s external Manifestation of Thought is limited by the requirement to not violate the rights of others.

This can create conflicts of rights when different people manifest their thoughts through expression, speech, behaviour, culture, or association. The conflict can be made more difficult when the manifestation of thoughts contravene a person’s conscience.

4. Analysis of the Situation in Practice
4.1 The Right to Freedom of Thought
The right to Freedom of Thought is part of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It is an absolute right which cannot be interfered with in any circumstances.
4.2 The Right to Not Reveal Your Thoughts
Many States do not recognise the right to not reveal your thoughts, particularly when it comes to religious beliefs or nonreligious philosophical convictions.
This includes the right to not be forced to behave publicly in a manner that others can infer, even indirectly, what your religious beliefs or nonreligious philosophical convictions are.

• This can happen where the State forces people to take religious oaths, or to publicly choose between taking a religious oath and a secular declaration, in order to take up public office or in any interaction with the State.
• It can happen where the State is carrying out its obligation to provide education by delegating the running of schools to religious bodies that are allowed to run the schools in accordance with their religious ethos.
• It can happen where technological advances enable the State and/or private corporations to indirectly monitor people’s thoughts, by tracking their online behaviour including their social media and web browsing history (as well as more directly through monitoring their online search history, where most people would have an expectation of privacy).
• It may happen on a more serious level in the future, as further technological advances may enable neuroscience to decode what you are thinking from your brain activity.

It is important that the right to not reveal your thoughts is protected under the right to freedom of thought, which is absolute, and not merely under the right to privacy, which has to be balanced against other rights. Read more…

Calling concerned teachers