The implications for parents’ rights of the anti-abortion video shown in Tipperary school

Atheist Ireland has written the following letter to the Oireachtas joint committee on Education, about not attending Religious Instruction in schools, and the recent anti-abortion video shown in a school.
We would like the Committee to take the following into account when it reaches the stage of addressing our legal opinion on the constitutional right to not attend religious instruction in publicly funded schools.
Two recent articles in the Sunday Independent and the Irish Examiner describe an anti-abortion video, produced by the Life Network in Texas, which was shown to Leaving Certificate students during curriculum Religious Education in the Ursuline secondary school in Tipperary.
This video contains many controversial claims, including that women who have abortions are at high risk of developing breast cancer, and that abortion clinics harvest foetal organs to sell them to medical researchers to fight Parkinson’s disease.
Parents and students were not informed before the video was shown about the contents of this video. It was shown during the Religious Education class which the State inaccurately claims is suitable for students from all religions and none.
This behaviour cannot be justified on the basis of religious freedom, as integrating Catholic faith formation or Catholic social policy on abortion into curriculum Religious Education is not necessary or proportionate to uphold the free practice of the Catholic religion.
Catholic families already have a Constitutional right to Catholic religious instruction and Catholic faith formation in publicly funded schools under the patronage of the Catholic Church. This right is reflected in Section 30-2(d) of the Education Act 1998.
The Minister is obliged to leave instruction time in the school day for subjects relating to or arising out of the characteristic spirit of the school. That should not also stray into curriculum Religion, which is supposed to be for students from all religions and none.
How the Teaching Council addressed complaints about the video
A parent of a student complained to the school and the issue went to the Teaching Council, who ruled that the complaint did not warrant a full disciplinary inquiry for the religion teacher involved. The teacher in question told the Teaching Council that the video was distributed during an in-service training day for curriculum Religious education.
The Teaching Council found that a Religious Education teacher showing a video to students that was distributed by private bodies, without the consent of parents, did not warrant a full disciplinary inquiry for the religion teacher.
This is despite the fact that parents and students were not informed about the contents of the video before it was shown, some parents objected on conscience grounds to the contents of that video, and the fact that it was shown during curriculum Religious education that is supposed to be suitable for students from all religions and none.
There is a complete lack of transparency regarding this issue. Under the Constitution parents have rights in relation to the education of their children. In accessing curriculum Religious Education, students are being exposed to videos that are harmful and against the conscience of their parents.
In-service days organised by the PDST and involving the Catholic Church
According to the correspondence of the Teaching Council to the parent, the DVD was acquired by the teacher at a registered training day, meaning it was sanctioned by the Department of Education. The Department of Education said it and its teachers’ education supports service has no knowledge of the video referred to in the article.
The Professional Development Service for Teachers (PDST) runs registered training days for curriculum Religion teachers alongside the Catholic Church. It seems at the very least plausible that it was at one of these training days that the religion teacher was given the video to show her students.
In the past Atheist Ireland has tried unsuccessfully to obtain information about these training days between the PDST and the Catholic Church but the Information Commissioner found that the PDST are a private body and did not come under the FOI Act.
Consequently, a body that is State-funded but has no legal status, is now working with the Roman Catholic Church to deliver in-service training to religion teachers in State-funded schools, without any day-to-day role for the Department of Education in supervising this work.
Furthermore, there is no public accountability in relation to how this work is conducted. No other religion or belief group is involved, despite the fact that curriculum Religion is supposed to be suitable for students from all religions and none.
Guidelines for the Faith Formation and Development of Catholic Students
The Guidelines for the Faith Formation and Development of Catholic Students are integrated into curriculum Religious Education in publicly funded schools under the patronage of the Catholic Church.
The Department of Education are aware that this is happening. In Circular Letter 0062/2018 the Department told ETB schools that they could not use the Guidelines for the Faith Formation and Development of Catholic students during curriculum Religious Education anymore. This Circular was only for ETB schools and not for schools under Catholic patronage.
Students from minority backgrounds who attend schools under Catholic patronage are not informed that Catholic faith formation is integrated into curriculum Religious Education. This important information is not included in the Admission Policy of the Ursuline secondary school in Tipperary.
As far as we are aware, the vast majority of Catholic second level schools present curriculum Religious Education as a core subject, open to students from all religions and none. This means that they just enrol students into the course and it is up to parents to seek to exercise the right for their child to not attend the subject. Read more…

Students not attending Religious Instruction is a condition of State funding

Students are returning to school and many will face the prospect of being forced to take religion class. If they do manage to not participate, they are left sitting at the back of the class. The right to ‘not attend’ is written into the Constitution, it is not a matter of opting out or not participating but of ‘not attending’ religious instruction.
Vast amounts of State resources go into helping religious parents with the religious education of their children, while the constitutional condition for those resources is ignored by Church and State.
Telling families that Religious Education is not Religious Instruction and therefore the right to not attend does not arise has no legal basis. Curriculum Religious Education is an optional subject at junior and leaving certificate. It is schools and teachers that make it mandatory and many force students to take it despite the fact that they are breaching the constitutional right to freedom of conscience and religion of families. It is not up to the Department of Education, Patron bodies, schools or teachers to decide for parents what is or is not against their conscience. It is the right of parents to decide what religous and moral education is suitable for their children under Article 42.1 of the Constitution.
Students not attending Religious Instruction is a condition of state funding
State aid to denominational schools is conditional on students ‘not attending’ religious instruction. Students have a constitutional right to be supervised outside religious instruction and there is a good legal argument for being allocated another subject.
The fact that the state does not vindicate this right is a reflection of their disrespect for minorities and their deference to the Catholic Church. The right to not attend religious instruction is not part of the ethos of schools, it is a condition of their funding. Patron bodies have accepted state funding on this constitutional basis.
Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution states that:

Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

These references appear to me to establish two facts. First the Constitution does not contemplate that the payment of monies to a denominational school for educational purposes is an “endowment” of religion within the meaning of Article 44 S.2 s.s.2 of the Constitution. Secondly, the Constitution contemplated that if a school was in receipt of public funds any child, no matter what his religion, would be entitled to attend it. But such a child was to have the right not to attend any course of religious instruction at the school. (page 24)

Yet again, the State ignores the Constitutional right to not attend religious instruction

A new school year is starting. It will be another year where the State ignores the Constitutional right to not attend religious instruction in publicly funded schools.
The Minister for Education, Norma Foley continues to ignore her duty to protect the right to freedom of conscience and religion of minorities by ensuring that schools give practical application to the right to not attend religious instruction (Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution).
Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution follows Article 44.2.1, which enshrines the right to freedom of conscience and religion. The funding of schools is conditional on the right to not attend religious instruction. The very purpose of the right to not attend religious instruction is to protect the right to freedom of conscience and religion of parents and their children.
You can read a more detailed article on the right to not attend religious instruction with sample letters for primary and second level schools here.
The Supreme Court has also recognised the right of parents in relation to the religous and moral education of their children. Despite what the Supreme Court has said, the Minister for Education, Norma Foley, refuses to protect the freedom of conscience and religion of minorities in publicly funded schools.
The Supreme court said that Article 42.1 (the inalienable  right of parents) must be read in the context of Article 44.2.4 (the right to not attend religious instruction). It is not up to the Department of Education, the NCCA, Patron bodies, schools or teachers to decide for parents what is or is not against their conscience by claiming that certain religion courses are suitable for students from all religious backgrounds and none.
The Supreme Court has stated that:

“These references appear to me to establish two facts. First the Constitution does not contemplate that the payment of monies to a denominational school for educational purposes is an “endowment” of religion within the meaning of Article 44 S.2 s.s.2 of the Constitution. Secondly, the Constitution contemplated that if a school was in receipt of public funds any child, no matter what his religion, would be entitled to attend it. But such a child was to have the right not to attend any course of religious instruction at the school.” (page 24)
“But the matter does not end there. Article 42 of the Constitution acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of the parents of provide for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children. Article 42 S.2 prescribes that the parents shall be free to provide “this education” (i.e religious moral intellectual physical and social education) in their homes or in private schools or “in schools recognized or established by the State”. In other words the Constitution contemplates children receiving religious education in schools recognized or established by the State but in accordance with the wishes of the parents.(page 25)
It is in this context that one must read Article 44 S.2s.s.4 which prescribes that:-….” (Campaign to Separate Church and state case – Supreme Court 1998)

The Right Not to Attend Religion Class