Atheist Ireland writes to new Minister for Education about non-denominational schools

Atheist Ireland has written the following letter to Helen McEntee TD, the new Minister for Education, about the commitment to non-denominational education in Programme for Government.

Dear Minister McEntee,

Congratulations on your new role and we wish you well. You are the ninth Minister for Education we have dealt with, and we hope our interactions with you will be positive and constructive.

Secular education is a key part of our agenda as an advocacy group with UN special consultative status, and as members of the Dialogue process between the Irish government and religious and non confessional groups under Article 17 of the Lisbon Treaty.

We are seeking a meeting with you to discuss this commitment in the Programme for Government:

“Seek to increase choice for parents by ensuring that families can access both Multi/non-denominational and faith-based education.”

We welcome that there is a decision to ensure families have access to non-denominational education. This was included in the second-to-last programme for government, but was dropped in the last programme for government.

The UN under the Convention on the Rights of the Child recommended this in 2023:

“UN Recommendations on Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

21. The Committee urges the State party to guarantee the right of all children to practice freely their religion or belief, including by:

(a) Amending the Education (Admission to Schools) Act 2018 and the Equal Status Acts to remove any exceptions to ensuring a child’s right to education in all primary and secondary schools based on religious or “ethos” grounds and to establish statutory guidelines to ensure children’s right not to attend religious classes;

(b) Developing a time-bound strategy, with adequate resources, for meeting its targets for increasing the availability of multi-denominational schools by 2030, and setting a target with a time-bound strategy and adequate resources for increasing the availability of non- denominational schools”.

Issues we are requesting to discuss

1. Respect for our philosophical convictions
2. Non-Denominational Schools
3. Circular Letters 0013/2018 and 0062/2018
4. Constitution and Human Rights law

1. Respect for our philosophical convictions

In providing for the education of children from atheist and secular backgrounds the state ‘provides for’ (Article 42.4) their education in denominational, multi-denominational and interdenominational schools.

Given our history the Catholic Church has influence over education and in particular the religious education of all children. That influence has not confined itself to denominational schools but extends to schools under the patronage of the VECs (now ETBs).

There are no non-denominational schools registered with the Department of Education in Ireland. Multi-denominational schools are just that, multi-religious. Atheism and secularism are not denominations. Interdenominational schools are Christian schools.

The state has accepted the ideological position of the Catholic Church in relation to the religious education of all children in schools. That ideological position is at odds with the Constitution and human rights law as it does not constitute respect for our philosophical convictions under Article 42 of the Constitution and Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention.

Both atheism and secularism are recognised by the European Court and the United Nations as philosophical beliefs/convictions. We have exactly the same right to respect for our convictions as religious parents have under Article 42 of the Constitution.

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)

The European Court has found that:

“c)  Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 does not permit a distinction to be drawn between religious instruction and other subjects. It enjoins the State to respect parents’ convictions, be they religious or philosophical, throughout the entire State education programme (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen, cited above, p. 25, §51). That duty is broad in its extent as it applies not only to the content of education and the manner of its provision but also to the performance of all the “functions” assumed by the State.”

The vast majority of the ETBs can be described as Catholic in nature. The Supreme Court referred to ETB Community and Comprehensive schools as denominational. They are not the alternative to denominational schools.

In a WRC case in 2017 the WRC found that non-designated Community Colleges could have a Christian ethos if that was their tradition.

The Supreme Court in the Campaign to Separate Church and State case in 1998 has already found that a religious ethos does influence children in the general atmosphere of the school. A Christian ethos in schools is not a passive environment, given Section 15 of the Education Act 1998 it was never meant to be. There are no non-denominational schools with a secular ethos in Ireland.

We object on the grounds of conscience to our children having to attend denominational, interdenominational and multi-denominational schools. There are no schools with a secular ethos, and schools are not legally obliged to ensure that any education and teaching is objective, critical, and pluralistic and in accordance with Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention.

In 1995 the Constitutional Review Group Report stated that if Article 44.2.4 did not provide safeguards the state might well be in breach of its international obligations, if this were to occur it would mean that the state was in breach of Article 42.3.1.

Article 42.3.1 must have some meaning, we simply can’t be left on a take it or leave it basis with schools that fail to respect our convictions and where our children are influenced into a religious understanding of the world.

At present we are left in a position where we leave our Constitutional and human rights at the school gate.

2. Non-Denominational Schools

At one stage Vocational schools at second level were referred to by the State as non-denominational. In 2007 the State informed the Council of Europe under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities that Vocational Schools and Community colleges were non-denominational.

In addition the Constitutional Review Group Report in 1995 recognised these schools as non-denominational. In the last thirty years they have changed their designation from non-denominational to multi-denominational with no recognition for the rights of atheists and secularists.

Circular Letters 73/74 and 7/79 issued by the Department of Education permit these schools to have religious instruction and worship. The introduction of Religious instruction and worship into non-denominational schools impacted on our constitutionally protected rights.

Under Article 44.2.4 our children have a constitutional right to not attend religious instruction and also respect for our convictions (Art 42.1). Under Article 42.4 the state is obliged when funding schools to have ‘due regard’ for the rights of parents especially in the matter of religious and moral formation. That never happened and our children were not and are not supervised outside the religion class or offered another subject.

Those Circular letters have not been revoked and are still in place. Curriculum Religious Education was introduced in 2003 and it is now taught in most ETB schools and colleges, it is not an objective course about religions and beliefs. Again our children are left sitting in the religion class and no other subject is offered.

Under the Deeds of Trust for Community and Comprehensive schools and the Model Agreement for designated Community Colleges there is religious instruction and worship. The state also funds a Chaplain to assist parents with the religious formation of their children outside of the religious instruction class (Campaign case – Supreme Court 1998).

3. Circular Letters 0013/2018 and 0062/2018

In 2018 the Department of Education issued two more Circular letters 0013 and 0062. Both these Circulars interfere in our constitutionally protected rights as they redefine the meaning of religious instruction under Article 44.2.4. The Department of Education has no authority to do this.

Circular Letter 0013 refers specifically to Article 44.2.4 and Section 30.2(e) of the Education Act 1998.

“Religious instruction and worship in certain second level schools in the context of Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution of Ireland and Section 30 of the Education Act 1998” (Circular 0013/2018)

Section 30.2.(e) of the Education Act 1998 states that:

“The Minister:

shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent of the student or in the case of a student who has reached the age of 18 years, the student.”

Micheal Martin when he was Minister for Education stated in 1999 just before Section 30 of the Education Act was enacted that the purpose of Section 30-2(e) of the Education Act 1998 is to reflect Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution. He stated that this is supported by Article 42 and also other statutory provision namely S.7 Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act 1878.

Section 7 of the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act 1878 states that:

“The Board shall not make any payment to the managers of any school unless it be shown to the satisfaction of the Board that no pupil attending such school is permitted to remain in attendance during the time of any religious instruction which the parents or guardians of such pupil shall not have sanctioned, and that the time for giving such religious instruction is so fixed that no pupil not remaining in attendance is excluded directly or indirectly from the advantages of the secular education given in the school.”

In short, Section 7 of the Act makes religious instruction opt-in, rather than opt-out, as a condition of state funding of schools, and recognises that our children should have access to the advantages of the secular education in schools outside of the religious instruction class.

In its Circular Letters 0013/2018 and 0062/2018 the Department of Education has interpreted religious instruction under Article 44.2.4 as instruction according to the rites of a particular religion. It decided curriculum Religious Education was suitable for students from all backgrounds and therefore the need to withdraw did not arise.

The Department has no legal authority to do this as the Oireachtas has already interpreted religious instruction under Article 44.2.4 and put legislation in place to reflect this (S.30.2 (e) Education Act 1998). The role of the Department is to administer this right, not amend it as

“administration assumes that there is already in existence a principle and that all the administrator has to do is to establish the facts and circumstances and then to apply the principle”.

The Principle in Section 30-2(e) of the Education Act is that the Minister is obliged to ensure that students do not attend any instruction that is against the conscience of their parents.” (see Justice Charleton in the Burke case on administration – page 5).

Given Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution it is not up to the Department of Education to interpret a Constitutional and legal right. Their duty it to administer it.

Justice Costello stated in the High Court in O’Callaghan v Meath Vocational Education Committee in 1990 that:

“It is a remarkable feature of the Irish system of education that its administration by the Department of Education is largely uncontrolled by statute or statutory instruments and that many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rules and regulations, memoranda, circulars and decisions are issued and made by the Department and the Minister (dealing sometimes with the most important aspects of educational policy) not under any statutory power but merely as administrative measures. These measures are not, of course, illegal. But they have no statutory force, and the sanction which ensures compliance with them is not a legal one but the undeclared understanding that the Department will withhold financial assistance in the event of non-compliance.”

The right to not attend instruction in any subject that is against the conscience of the parent is controlled by statute, Section 30.2. (e) Education Act 1998. In addition the Oireachtas amended Section 5.4 of the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act 1878 which forbade exams in religious instruction in order to introduce exams in curriculum religious education (see Section 35 Education Act 1998).

Why would the Oireachtas have needed to remove Section 5.4 of the Act if curriculum Religious Education was not Religious Instruction under Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution?

If you take a look at Admission Policies at second level they nearly all state that curriculum Religious Education is not Religious Instruction, consequently all children are just enrolled in the course. This course seeks to develop values in students to enable them to see the relevance of religion to their lives and relationships. We object on the grounds of conscience to our children having to attend this course.

This is a result of the ‘administration’ of the Department of Education and their interference in our constitutionally protected rights in relation to the religious and moral education of our children. If our children do manage to exercise their right to not attend they are left sitting in the religion class and no other subject is offered. In many of these schools religion is not confined to the religion class because they have a religious ethos and have a tradition of having one.

Parents cannot be expected to understand the legal standing of Circular Letters. They are just told by schools that the Department of Education and the NCCA say curriculum Religious Education is suitable for their child and it is not religious instruction, therefore the need to withdraw does not arise.

Article 44.2.3 protects the non-religious from religious discrimination as does Article 40.1. The fact that our children are not offered another subject if they exercise a Constitutional and legal right is religious discrimination forbidden by the Constitution. Our children are punished for exercising their constitutionally protected right.

We ask that you remove these Circular Letters as they are interfering with our Constitutionally protected freedom in relation to the education of our children. We also ask that our children are offered another subject if they exercise their constitutionally protect right to not attend religious instruction.

4. Constitution and Human Rights law

Justice Whelan in the Burke case at the Court of Appeal in 2022 stated that:

“38. The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 provides:
“2. (1) In interpreting and applying any statutory provision or rule of law, a court shall, in so far as possible, subject to the rules of law relating to such interpretation and application, do so in a manner compatible with the State’s obligations under the Convention provisions.”
Thus in interpreting the obligations of the Board pursuant to the Education Act of 1998 (as
amended) regard must be had to the terms of the Convention.”

The European Court has found in relation to Article 2 of Protocol 1 (the right to education) that:

“h) The second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 implies on the other hand that the State, in fulfilling the functions assumed by it in regard to education and teaching, must take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. The State is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents’ religious and philosophical convictions. That is the limit that must not be exceeded (ibid.).”

There is not a Board of Management in the country that gives any consideration to the European Convention. Under Section 15 of the Education Act they are obliged to uphold the ethos (Characteristic Spirit) of the Patron. Because of Section 15 of the Education Act, the Department of Education has no control over the ethos of schools and consequently we do not have access to an objective, critical and pluralistic education in accordance with the obligations of the State under Article 2 of Protocol 1.

The European Court found in the Louise O’Keeffe case that the state could not absolve itself from Convention obligations. We do not have any other educational options; the ETBs are presented as the alternative to denominational schools.

We recognise that under the Constitution parents do not have a right to a particular type of education for their children. However, we cannot be obliged to send our children to denominational, interdenominational and multi-denominational schools on a take it or leave it basis where our children are indoctrinated into a religious understanding of the world, and Article 44.2.4 is given no practical application on the ground.

There are no schools that say that part of their ethos is that any information or knowledge will be delivered in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner as per Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention.

None of the Patron’s programmes in schools and the state curriculum in Religious Education are. We object on the grounds of conscience to these courses and therefore the right of our children to not attend any subject that is against the conscience of their parents is engaged.

The European Court has also found that:

“The Court would point out that the education of children is the whole process whereby, in any society, adults endeavour to transmit their beliefs, culture and other values to the young, whereas teaching or instruction refers in particular to the transmission of knowledge and to intellectual development.”

All of the Patrons’ courses and the state course in Religious Education go beyond imparting knowledge because the Catholic Church objects to only knowledge based courses on religion and beliefs.

According to the Catholic Church, “These approaches require teachers to adopt and promote a pluralist approach to religion. This is an approach to religion that goes against the philosophical basis of Catholic religious education”, (see Submission to NCCA – Commission for Education and Formation of the Irish Episcopal Conference).

The fact of the matter is that our children do not have access to an education that is objective, critical and pluralistic. The state ‘provides for’ the education of our children in denominational, multi-denominational and interdenominational schools on a take it or leave it basis. Under Section 15 of the Education Act 1998 schools can deliver the curriculum according to their ethos, the atmosphere of the schools promotes denominational, interdenominational and multi-denominational values that are based on a religious understanding of the world.

Justice Barrington in the Campaign case at the Supreme Court in 1998 stated that:

“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 recognised or established by the State”.

In other words the Constitution contemplates children receiving religious education in schools recognised 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:….”

Justice Barrington went on to say that if parents ‘choose’ to send their children to Community & Comprehensive schools they can expect their children to be influenced by the religious ethos of the school in the general atmosphere of the school outside of the religious instruction class. The Supreme Court recognises that an ‘ethos’ will influence children and that schools are not obliged to change their general atmosphere just to accommodate students that choose to attend the school. But many of us do not have a choice. We have to attend these schools on a take it or leave it basis.

It is not just a matter of non-discriminatory exemptions from religious instruction; we cannot access objective education because of the ethos of denominational, multi-denominational and interdenominational schools.

Justice O’Donnell in the Burke case at the Supreme Court in 2022 stated that:

“Parents may firmly believe that a thorough knowledge of Thomistic philosophy and an aptitude for the harpsichord will equip a young person for life better than the book-based learning of traditional subjects still favoured by the Leaving Certificate, and if so, so long as such parents provide the minimum standard of formal education required, they are free to educate their children in such disciplines and skills”.

We do not have to accept the ‘Characteristic Spirit’ of any school, or accept the Patron’s courses or curriculum Religious Education if that is against our conscience. This is our right under Article 42 and Article44.2.4, it is not up to the Department of Education or the NCCA to decide for parents what is or is not suitable religious education for their children.

In their ethos statement the ETBs state that:

“All members of the school community, including students, parents/guardians, staff and BoM are informed of the ethos and are aware of their responsibility to uphold and promote it.”

That statement by the ETBs shows a complete lack of understanding of the rights of parents and their children under the Constitution and human rights law. Nowhere in this ethos statement does it refer to the right to an objective, critical, and pluralistic education and the right of parents to ensure that their children do not attend instruction in any subject that is against their conscience. That includes curriculum Religious Education and the Patron’s Programme. The terms denominational, multi-denominational, and interdenominational are not inclusive of atheists and secularists.

When we try to exercise the right of our children to not attend religious instruction under Article 44.2.4 our children are left sitting in the religion class and no other subject is offered. At second level schools inform parents that curriculum Religious Education is not Religious Instruction and is therefore suitable for all. If parents do manage to exercise the right their children are left sitting in the religion class and no other subject is offered. They get fewer points in their Junior and Leaving Certificate.

The European court has stated that:

“87.  The Court considers that the current system of exemption of children from the religious education course is capable of placing an undue burden on parents with a risk of exposure of sensitive aspects of their private life and that the potential for conflict is likely to deter them from making such a request, especially if they live in a small and religiously compact society, as is the case with the islands of Sifnos and Milos, where the risk of stigmatisation is much higher than in big cities.

The applicant parents asserted that they were actually deterred from making such a request not only for fear of revealing that they were not Orthodox Christians in an environment in which the great majority of the population owe allegiance to one particular religion (see Grzelak v. Poland, no. 7710/02, § 95, 15 June 2010), but also because, as they pointed out, there was no other course offered to exempted students and they were made to lose school hours just for their declared beliefs.”

Also, our right to respect for our convictions under Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention, “cannot be overridden by the alleged necessity of striking a balance between the conflicting views involved” (European Court – Cambell & Cosans v UK 1982).

We hope you agree that these breaches of our constitutional, legal, and human rights cannot continue. We request a meeting to discuss the situation with you and look forward to hearing from you.