Source: https://atheist.ie/2017/11/ncca-junior-cycle-religious-education/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 05:08:15+00:00

Document:
The second level Religious Education course under the Curriculum has contributed to the undermining of the human rights of parents and their children. Any review of this State Religious Education Course must begin by acknowledging the fact that this State RE course disrespects minorities and undermines their human rights.
The Religious Education course claims that it is suitable for all religions and none. But it is not delivered in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner in any school, and it is delivered through the ethos of the schools. This disrespects the religious or philosophical beliefs of minority faith or atheist families. The course does not meet human rights standards, and therefore is not inclusive and open to all.
By describing the course as a ‘Religious Education’ course, the content is not framed in an inclusive way in accordance with human rights principles. The State curriculum should teach about religions and beliefs, in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner, but it should not teach that any religious or atheistic belief is true.
10. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention represents one of the foundations of a “democratic society” within the meaning of the Convention. It is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it. That freedom entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion (Kokkinakis v. Greece, § 31; Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], § 34).
14. The word “religion” is defined neither by the text of Article 9 nor in the Court’s case-law. This omission is quite logical, because such a definition would have to be both flexible enough to embrace the whole range of religions worldwide (major and minor, old and new, theistic and non-theistic) and specific enough to be applicable to individual cases – an extremely difficult, indeed impossible undertaking. On the one hand, the scope of Article 9 is very wide, as it protects both religious and non-religious opinions and convictions. On the other hand, not all opinions or convictions necessarily fall within the scope of the provision, and the term “practice” as employed in Article 9 § 1 does not cover each act which is motivated or influenced by a religion or belief (Pretty v. the United Kingdom, § 82).
One of the main aims of the course is to contribute to the moral and spiritual development of students through religious education. The State curriculum should teach about ethics separately from teaching about religions or beliefs. The Irish Constitution makes clear that it is the family who has the duty to provide a religious and moral education, and that the State has a duty to ensure the provision of a moral education, but not a religious education.
“Article 42.1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
Therefore, if the State curriculum delivers moral education through Religious Education, and if minority faith or atheist parents exercise their constitutional right to opt their children out of that Religious Education, then the State is failing in its duty to ensure that such children receive a minimum level of moral education.
Another aim is “appreciating the richness” of religious traditions but merely “acknowledging” the non-religious interpretation of life. This phrasing applies a broad brush simplicity to both “the richness of religious traditions” (as some religious traditions are richer than others, and they can each have positive and negative impacts), and “the non-religious interpretation of life” (as there are many non-religious interpretations of life, and again some of them are richer than others, and again they can each have positive and negative impacts).
The NCCA is also not taking into account the right to privacy under the European Convention. In order to take the course, families must reveal their religious or philosophical convictions.
“86. In democratic societies, in which several religions coexist within one and the same population, it may be necessary to place restrictions on freedom of thought, conscience and religion in order to reconcile the interests of the various groups and ensure that everyone’s beliefs are respected (see Kokkinakis, cited above, § 33). The Court has frequently emphasised the State’s role as the neutral and impartial organiser of the exercise of various religions, faiths and beliefs, and stated that this role is conducive to public order, religious harmony and tolerance in a democratic society (see Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 107, ECHR 2005 XI).
“92. The Court takes the view that the provisions of the Ordinance which provide for a mark to be given for “religion/ethics” on school reports cannot, as such, be considered to infringe Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention as long as the mark constitutes neutral information on the fact that a pupil followed one of the optional courses offered at a school. However, a regulation of this kind must also respect the right of pupils not to be compelled, even indirectly, to reveal their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
It is clear from the above that the State Religious Education course leaves a lot to be desired in relation to respecting the rights of minorities.
When developing this course the NCCA were aware that nearly all schools would combine the State course with Catholic Religious Instruction and Worship. In many schools this course is compulsory, and it is hard for us to believe that the NCCA did not realise that this would happen. This is especially so given the obligation under Section 41–3 (d) of the Education Act 1998. The practical result of the introduction of this course is that many schools have made religion compulsory.
This is happening not only in schools under the Patronage of the Catholic Church, but also in State ETB schools. The Minister for Education has recently said that all ETB Schools and Colleges are multi-denominational. Despite this claim, all ETB schools have Catholic Religious Instruction and Worship, and combine this with the State Religious Education course. At the time that this State RE course was developed, the NCCA were aware that would not be enough time in the curriculum for Catholic Religious Instruction and the State Course.
To illustrate this, we attach two sample Religious Education policies, one from a designated community college, and the other from a non-designated community college.
The European Court has already found that differentiated teaching could hardly be considered consonant with the parents’ right to respect for their convictions.
Given the legal framework in Ireland, and the fact that we have direct experience of the existing Religious Education course, we reiterate our request that our right to exempt our children from this course is recognised and guaranteed.
“The state may satisfy this duty of neutrality either by designing a curriculum that is itself sufficiently impartial and balanced, or, in those instances in which the state provides instruction in a particular religion or belief, by granting rights to opt out on the ground of conscientious objection. This right must be realisable in practice, and not a mere theoretical possibility. Moreover, the requisite neutrality would be compromised if pupils were subjected to any disadvantage, discrimination or stigma on account of the exercise of this right to be exempted from such classes, or elements of classes”.
We cannot see how this review will promote respect for our human rights, given the fact that the NCCA has no power to ensure that schools deliver this course in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner and in accordance with the Toledo Guiding Principles and human rights law.
The Catholic Church has rejected the Toledo Guiding Principles and they have control over the ethos (Characteristic Spirit) of the vast majority of schools in the country.
Section 3.—(1) Subject to any statutory provision (other than this Act) or rule of law, every organ of the State shall perform its functions in a manner compatible with the State’s obligations under the Convention provisions.
“Section 3(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 requires an organ of State (defined as a body established by law or through which any of the legislative, executive or judicial powers of the State are exercised) to perform its functions in a manner compatible with the State’s obligation under the Convention provisions.
Organs of the State include Government Departments such as the Department of Education and Skills, the Health Service Executive, the Child and Family Agency and the police force, An Garda Síochána. Therefore, by way of further protection for such a litigant, Section 3(2) of the 2003 Act provides that a person who has suffered injury, loss or damage as a result of a contravention of subsection (1), may, if no other remedy in damages is available, institute proceedings to recover damages in respect of the contravention.
It is clear that as an ‘organ of the state’, the NCCA must uphold the State’s obligations under the European Convention. The NCCA has no option but to recommend the revised Religious Education course be delivered in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner as per Article II of Protocol 1of the European Convention.
The NCCA has no legal power to oblige schools to deliver the revised Religious Education course in a manner compatible with the European Convention. However, the NCCA does have a legal obligation to recognise, acknowledge and make Recommendations on the changes needed to ensure human rights are respected and protected in all our schools.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has a statutory function in relation to public bodies such as the NCCA (see Section 42 – 3,4 Human Rights & Equality Commission Act 2014). The NCCA are obliged under the Act to set out in their strategic plan an assessment of the human rights and equality issues it believes are relevant to the functions and purpose of the body. The NCCA are also obliged to show policies, plans and actions that are to be put in place to address those issues.
We have been unable to locate any policies or plans in relation to how the NCCA will, as an organ of the state address its obligation to uphold human rights.
The practicalities of giving advice to the Minister in relation to the revised new Religious Education course means that the NCCA must ensure that any advice highlights the difficulties in relation to protecting the human rights of all in the education system. The NCCA cannot just ignore the human rights issues in relation to the implementation of the course.
The NCCA must recognise the fact that the statutory body established to uphold human rights in the country, IHREC, has made recommendations in relation to the delivery of the curriculum in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner in order to uphold human rights.
Those recommendations are about amending the Section 15 of the Education Act 1998 and they do not refer to the Inspectorate (Section 13 (1) of the Education Act 1998.
The School Inspectorate cannot ensure that the delivery of the revised Religious Education is delivered in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner.
This issue also arose with the proposed ERB and Ethics course. Why would IHREC have made recommendations to amend the Education Act 1998 to ensure that the ERB and Ethics curriculum was delivered in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner if the School Inspectorate could have guaranteed that this would happen?
This is a fundamental issue that the NCCA must deal with as it relates to human rights and the obligations of the NCCA under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 and the Irish Human Rights & Equality Commission Act 2014.
The only way of ensuring compliance with human rights obligations and the European Convention is to amend the Education Act 1998 as per the Recommendations from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.
The background paper simply refers to these human rights issues, but it does not address how the revised Religious Education course will comply with human rights requirements.
The NCCA background paper for this consultation typically refers to morality by linking it to spirituality.
While religious families may link these two concepts on a personal faith basis, the State should not do so in a universal way for all students. Doing this does not respect the philosophical convictions of atheist or minority faith secular families, particularly when delivered through a Roman Catholic ethos.
Also, the aims of Junior Certificate Religious Education include “appreciating the richness” of religious traditions but merely “acknowledging” the non-religious interpretation of life.
In practical terms, if the specification is going to accommodate the ethos of the Roman Catholic Church, none of the positive universal aspirations will actually happen. If Patron bodies are allowed to teach the curriculum ‘from religion’ with a Roman Catholic ethos accommodated, then the human rights of minority faith and atheist families will continue to be undermined.
We attach two sample RE policies, one from a designated community college, and the other from a non-designated community college.

References: v. 
 § 31
 v. 
 § 34
 § 1
 v. 
 § 82
 § 33
 v. 
 § 107