The NCCA is holding a Public Consultation on the new Draft Primary Curriculum Framework. Atheist Ireland has prepared the following Submission.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Burke Case and the Campaign case at the Supreme Court
3. The right to respect for our philosophical convictions
4. The Draft Primary Framework Disrespects Parents’ convictions
5. Other issues
6. Appendix: Extract from the Primary School Curriculum
7. Legal Opinion
1. Introduction
The 1999 Primary school Curriculum has undermined the Constitutional and human rights of atheists, humanists and the non-religious in Ireland. It is used as a reference point for Patron bodies, schools and teachers to evangelise minorities into a religious understanding of the world.
Any new Framework Primary School Curriculum should seek to recognise and promote the Constitutional and human rights of atheists, humanists and the nonreligious. Our rights should not be viewed through a religious understanding of the world. The Framework should recognise that we have the same positive constitutional right to freedom of conscience on our own terms and understanding of the world.
The Constitution protects the rights of all parents in relation to the religious and moral education and formation of their children, and not just religious parents. Parents with philosophical convictions have the same Constitutional right to respect in relation to the religious and moral education (Article 42.1) and formation (Article 42.4) of their children that religious parents have.
This means that in drafting a new Framework for the Primary Curriculum the NCCA is administering a Constitutional Right and is going beyond its jurisdiction if it promotes morals through religious education or ERB and ethics if that is against the conscience of parents.
We want the NCCA in the New Framework Primary School Curriculum to recognise and respect the Constitutional rights of atheists, humanists and secularists, in accordance with the Constitution and the related judgements in the Irish courts, and also uphold the NCCA’s Public Sector Duty under Section 42 of the Irish Human Rights and Commission Act 2014.
The specific judgements in the courts that we refer to are the recent Burke v Minister for Education case at the Supreme Court, and the Campaign to Separate Church and State case in 1998. These cases went through the High Court to the Supreme Court, and the Burke case was also heard at the Court of Appeal.
The NCCA cannot continue to undermine the philosophical convictions of the non religious by ignoring the courts in relation to our constitutional and human rights. Under the Draft Framework the right to freedom of conscience and the right to be free from discrimination are viewed through a framework that has been set by those that have influence and control of our education system. Our history shows that religious bodies have had undue influence over the rights of minorities in the education system.
There are substantial philosophical differences between atheism, secularism and religion. The Constitution and human rights law protects our inalienable parental rights as well as our right to be treated with equality and to be free from discrimination. We do not accept an understanding of freedom of religion that is based on any particular religion such as Catholicism; we reject that on the grounds of conscience. The Irish Courts have recognised the right of parents to philosophical convictions the grounds of conscience.
In the High Court in 2011, Justice Hogan stated that:

“35. There is thus no doubt at all but that parents have the constitutional right to raise their children by reference to their own religious and philosophical views.”
“27. Along with the guarantee of free speech in Article 40.6.i, Article 44.2.1 guarantees freedom of conscience and the free practice of religion. Taken together, these constitutional provisions ensure that, subject to limited exceptions, all citizens have complete freedom of philosophical and religious thought, along with the freedom to speak their mind and to say what they please in all such matters….” (AB v Children’s Hospital Temple Street & CD & EF – January 2011)

2. The Burke Case and the Campaign case at the Supreme Court
The recent judgement at the Supreme Court in the Burke v Minister for Education case has upheld the rights of parents in relation to the religious and moral education and formation of their children.
The NCCA have no jurisdiction to decide for parents what is or is not against their conscience in relation to the religious and moral education and formation of their children. The Framework Primary School curriculum cannot legally promote morals through religious education to students from non-religious backgrounds if that is against the conscience of their parents. Nor is it legal to promote a religious understanding of the world to these students if that is against the conscience of their parents, because that disrespects the philosophical convictions of parents.
The Supreme Court stated that:

“4. It is clear that a right inures to the family under Article 42.1 of the Constitution to be the “primary and natural educator of the child” and the State is required to “respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide …. for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children”.
Hence, under Article 42.2, the mother and father of Elijah Burke and Naomi Power were “free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State”. But, while under Article 42.3 the State may require, “as guardian of the common good”’ that “children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social” (physical is not mentioned, and the minimum standard required is currently set at school leaver-standard for a 16 year old), the State cannot “oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State or to any particular type of school designated by the State.”
Article 42.4, in requiring the State to provide for “free primary education”’ also places an endeavour, but only that, before the State “to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate education initiative” and “when the public good requires it” towards “other educational facilities or institutions”.
An overall saver in the constitutional text is that the State, in providing for free primary education and in endeavouring to assist post-primary education in various forms, have “due regard.. for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.” This provision reflects a concern for upholding parental authority, a foundational pillar of the Constitution that accords with Article 41 recognising the family as “the natural primary and fundamental unit group of” Irish society. Hence, society is built around the family.”

The Supreme Court in their judgement in the Burke case made a distinction between policy and the administration of that policy. It concluded:

“45… There is a vast gulf between formulating a policy and implementing it….Any such a scheme must abide by the Constitution. That is the overarching jurisdiction under which every organ of the State must act….
“48… There was no decision of Government which has been demonstrated to show any clear disregard of the Constitution. What has been established is an excess of jurisdiction in the departmental scheme though an inadvertent disregard of the rights of the home-schooled under the Constitution.”

Here are other relevant extracts from the Supreme Court judgment in the Burke case.
Read more…

Calling concerned teachers