The ethos of Education and Training Board schools at primary and second level does not respect equally the philosophical beliefs of atheists and secularists.
ETB schools and colleges are presented by the Department of Education as the alternative to denominational schools. But they are not a suitable alternative for us, as they fail to respect equally our philosophical beliefs and comply with human rights law.
The recent UK Supreme Court case shows clearly what States must do to respect parents and their children in the education system. As a result, the Department of Education in Northern Ireland has put in place
- terms of reference to amend the religious education course to ensure that it is objective, critical and pluralistic, and
- guidelines to ensure non discriminatory exemptions in order to comply with Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention.
The Department of Education in Northern Ireland also intend to ensure that the law is amended so that School Inspectors will examine schools to ensure that the above is actually happening.
Education and Training Board schools
At primary level, the ETBs have decided for parents that their Goodness Me, Goodness You course, that reflects their ethos, is suitable for children from all backgrounds. There are no non-discriminatory exemptions in place that comply with human rights law.
At second level, the ETBI have informed us in writing that the state Religious Education course reflects their multi-denominational ethos and is therefore suitable for students from all backgrounds. But there are no non-discriminatory exemptions in place, and children who manage to exercise their right to not attend are left sitting in the religion class.
In both cases, we have the Department of Education and the ETBs deciding for parents what is or is not suitable for their conscience. But they have no legal authority to decide this for parents. They have never taken on board our concerns regarding this.
Also, under the Good Friday Agreement, there should be comparable human rights on both sides of the border. In the Republic, we do not enjoy the right to respect for our philosophical beliefs that has been ruled on in Northern Ireland, and there are no non-discriminatory exemptions in ETBs at primary and second level.
Community National Schools and the GMGY course
Atheist Ireland recently wrote the following letter to ETBI, following communication in relation to the GMGY course in Community National schools. We are awaiting a response.
Here are some thoughts on our questions that you have responded to:
1. Teaching about religions and beliefs equally
2. The right to not reveal your beliefs
3. The right to non-discriminatory exemptionsCan we start by saying there are a lot of positive elements in the GMGY curriculum compared to what is taught in some other schools. However, it does not meet the human rights standards that we campaign to bring about in the Irish education system.
1. Teaching about religions and beliefs equally
We asked if non-religious philosophies are recognised as equal to religious beliefs in Community National Schools, and why are they not taught alongside the five world religious beliefs.
You clarified that the ETBI Patrons’ Framework on Ethos uses the word ‘beliefs’ to mean nonreligious worldviews in accordance with the Toledo Guiding principles.
That is also how we use the word ‘belief’. We also use the collective phrase ‘religion or belief’ when referring to the overall human right, and use the component words ‘religion’ or ‘belief’ when talking specifically about one but not the other.
You said that children are facilitated to learn about atheism, secularism, and humanism equally alongside major world religions. This is done, but it is not done equally.
The ‘Beliefs, Religions and GMGY Support Materials’ document says ‘Children learn about religion and beliefs’ and ‘this increases a child’s religious literacy’. It does not say ‘this increases a child’s literacy about religions and beliefs’.
It says ‘Children also learn from religion’ but it does not say they ‘learn from atheism’ or ‘learn from nonreligious beliefs’. We don’t believe they should learn ‘from’ any religion or belief, as that is not objective, critical and pluralistic, and the imbalance adds to the problem.
Various ETB school websites refer to ‘the five major world religions’ but not to any major nonreligious beliefs. Typical wording is ‘Strive to be equitable in teaching about the five major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism) and also be equally respectful of all other belief systems.’
The ‘Non-religious Philosophies of Life Support Materials’ document cites Peter Boghossian as saying the term ‘atheism’ is contentious. It then says ‘Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.’
This itself is a contentious description of atheism, not shared by Atheist Ireland or by all atheists.
We believe atheism is a positive affirmative belief about the nature of reality and morality, and that it does answer some other important questions about what a person believes.
Our position is consistent with international human rights law, and with the European Court of Human Rights recognising atheism as a belief in the context of being a coherent worldview that is that is cogent, serious, important, and worthy of respect in a democratic society. This is much more than ‘simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.’
The European Court in the Folgero v Norway case in 2007 raised the negative and positive obligations on the state to respect atheism as a conviction (in this context synonymous with nonreligious belief), and also elaborated on what the word conviction means:
‘The verb “respect” means more than “acknowledge” or “take into account”. In addition to a primarily negative undertaking, it implies some positive obligation on the part of the State. The term “conviction”, taken on its own, is not synonymous with the words “opinions” and “ideas”. It denotes views that attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance (see Valsamis, cited above, pp. 2323-24, §§ 25 and 27, and Campbell and Cosans, cited above, pp. 16-17, §§ 36-37).’
UN General Comment on Article 18 (the right to Freedom of religion and belief) says:
‘Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms “belief” and “religion” are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility on the part of a predominant religious community.’
We also do not share the document’s analysis of strong and weak atheism or agnosticism, though we recognise it was compiled sincerely. This is a nuanced issue, and we would be happy to discuss it with you in more detail. We broadly agree with the analysis of secularism, though we would emphasise more strongly that a secular state should also not promote atheism.
2. The right to not reveal your beliefs
We asked why must parents reveal their religious or philosophical beliefs in order for their children to access the GMGY course.
You clarified that Community National Schools do not oblige parents or guardians to disclose their religion or belief for their children to access this curriculum.
Firstly, we acknowledge that the word ‘access’ is ambiguous, and we apologise for that.
- We do not mean that parents or guardians must directly reveal their beliefs in order for their children to be able to be placed in the course.
- We mean that they (through their children) must directly or indirectly reveal their beliefs in order for their children to fully take part in the course.
The ‘Beliefs, Religions and GMGY Support Materials’ document asks teachers to reflect; ‘Am I knowledgeable about the religious backgrounds and non-religious life philosophies of the children in my class?’. To do this, the teacher must be aware of the beliefs of the children or their families.
It also asks teachers to reflect ‘Do I avoid soliciting information about the religions or beliefs of my students if they are uncomfortable speaking about them?’ But teachers have to seek to solicit such information in order to uncover whether the child is uncomfortable. In practice, that already breaches the right to not disclose such beliefs. And their beliefs (or something about their beliefs) can be implied from that discomfort.
The document also says that part of the course is that ‘Children have an opportunity to express their beliefs in the Family Project aspect of each lesson.’ How can they do that without revealing their beliefs and those of their family? And how can parents or guardians decline to take part in these family projects without at least implying something about their beliefs?
The European Court in the Grzelak v Poland case in 2010 found:
‘87. The Court reiterates that freedom to manifest one’s religious beliefs comprises also a negative aspect, namely the right of individuals not to be required to reveal their faith or religious beliefs and not to be compelled to assume a stance from which it may be inferred whether or not they have such beliefs (see, Alexandridis v.Greece, no. 19516/06, § 38, ECHR 2008…, and, mutatis mutandis, Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, no. 1448/04, § 76 in fine, ECHR 2007XI).
The Court has accepted, as noted above, that Article 9 is also a precious asset for non-believers like the third applicant in the present case. It necessarily follows that there will be an interference with the negative aspect of this provision when the State brings about a situation in which individuals are obliged – directly or indirectly – to reveal that they are non-believers. This is all the more important when such obligation occurs in the context of the provision of an important public service such as education.’
3. The right to non-discriminatory exemptions
We asked are there any non-discriminatory exemptions provided for this module of the GMGY course. You asked us to clarify what we mean by this.
This issue overlaps with the previous issue, the right to not reveal your beliefs. The recent UK Supreme Court judgement on the teaching of religion in schools in Northern Ireland vindicates arguments that we have been making for years about schools in Ireland.
The UK Supreme Court found:
‘44. Thirdly, JR87’s parents stated that exercising the right to withdraw her from religious education and collective worship was capable of placing an undue burden on them by:
(a) the risk of exposing their philosophical but non-religious beliefs to the School and to the wider School community;
(b) the potential for conflict with the School in relation to alternative arrangements for JR87 if she were to be excused from attendance; and
(c) the risk of the School viewing them as “difficult or awkward parents.”
They considered that these matters not only placed an undue burden on them but also had a deterrent effect.
- The parents of JR87 acknowledge that there was no legal requirement for them to reveal their philosophical but non-religious beliefs and that the School did not expressly ask them to do so. They also acknowledge that in their letter dated 30 May 2019 they chose to reveal their beliefs to the School.
However, they contend that:
(a) they felt compelled to do so; and
(b) inevitably, in practice, they would have been required to do so in the discussions as to alternative arrangements for JR87 which the School stipulated should take place “prior” to her withdrawal from religious education and collective worship.
- Fourthly, JR87’s parents also considered that where, as here, the statutory scheme does not provide any alternative educational provision, an undue burden was placed on them in conjunction with the School to devise alternative arrangements for JR87 “prior” to her withdrawal. JR87’s parents considered that devising alternative arrangements in conjunction with the School not only placed an undue burden on them but also had a deterrent effect.’
The UK Supreme Court found in favour of the parents, based on the European Convention on Human Rights that also applies in Ireland, concluding:
‘In relation to JR87’s rights, the judge was correct to be guided by the finding of a breach of G’s rights under the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol 1 and was correct to find a breach of Article 2 of Protocol 1 read with article 9 of the European Convention (the right to education) in relation to both JR87 and G.’
Summary
The ethos of Education and Training Board schools at primary and second level does not respect the philosophical beliefs of atheists and secularists.
ETBs schools and colleges are presented by the Department of Education as the alternative to denominational schools. But they are not a suitable alternative for us, as they fail to respect our philosophical beliefs and comply with human rights law.
The recent UK Supreme Court case shows clearly what States must do to respect parents and their children in the education system.
Atheist Ireland recently wrote to ETBI, following communication in relation to the GMGY course in Community National schools. We are awaiting a response.