The UK Supreme Court has delivered an important judgment on religious education in a Northern Ireland primary school, ruling that the current way religion is taught amounts to ‘indoctrination’, and that the right to withdraw a child from religious education class should not be unduly burdensome on the child. The ruling does allow that religious education class can give a special place to Christianity in view of Northern Ireland’s history, but that religion must be taught in an “objective, critical and pluralistic” manner. This will be tricky to pull off, because done the wrong way, you can easily end up relativising religion, and that would not be “objective, critical and pluralistic” at all. There is really no neutral way to teach religion.
The case in question involved a young girl from Belfast and her father. Both argued that their school’s Christian-centred religious education and daily worship practices failed to respect their non-religious beliefs, breaching their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. These include the right to education that respects a family’s convictions, and the right to freedom of religion or belief.
The school followed Northern Ireland’s “core syllabus”, a statutory curriculum that focuses heavily on Christianity for obvious historical reasons. The RE course was devised by the four main Churches in the North. The parents did not object to learning about religion, but said the teaching was not ‘objective’ or ‘pluralistic’ enough for a publicly funded school.
A key point in this case was the statutory “right to withdraw”. In both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, parents can request that their child be exempted from religious education or worship. But the parents said this right was unworkable in practice. Their daughter would have been the only child to leave the classroom, creating a risk of embarrassment or social isolation. No meaningful alternatives existed, the court said, and the burden fell on the parents to negotiate arrangements with the school. The courts accepted that this made the right more theoretical than real. (Interestingly, no-one ever seems to worry about the embarrassment a child might feel when they are withdrawn from sex education class).
The Supreme Court ultimately found that the school’s approach breached the family’s human rights. It agreed that the teaching was not “objective, critical and pluralistic”, and that the right of withdrawal, although formally available, was practically ineffective. As mentioned, is such a way to teaching religion achievable in practice, or do you automatically end up relativising all religions?
However, the Court was careful not to condemn the entire Northern Irish system. It did not declare that all schools are discriminatory. Instead, it confirmed that in this specific school, for this particular family, the arrangements did not comply with human-rights standards. The warning is gentle but unmistakeable: publicly funded religious education must be educational, not devotional, and withdrawal must be easy and non-stigmatising.
Could this case have been avoided simply by accommodating the family’s right to withdraw? In a narrow sense, yes. If the school had offered a respectful, practical alternative that did not single the child out, the court might well have found no breach. But the ruling also highlights a deeper point: withdrawal alone cannot fix a curriculum that lacks pluralism. Religious education itself must be delivered in a way that respects diverse beliefs, regardless of who opts out.
Although the Supreme Court issued a strong judgment, the reliefs granted remain purely declaratory. This means the Court formally stated that the family’s rights were breached, but it did not strike down any legislation or require the government to change its policies. The responsibility for reform now lies with the Department of Education and school authorities.
In the North, 48,896 Protestant children and only 6,281 Catholics attend these State-funded, State-run schools. Another 25,453 are from other religions (including non-denominational Christianity) or have no religion.
The North’s Education Minister, Paul Givan, has promised to ensure that a Christian ethos in the region’s public schools is maintained. We will see what happens.
The ruling may also resonate south of the border. Irish courts are not bound by UK decisions, but they often regard them as persuasive, especially on shared human-rights principles. As both societies become more religiously diverse, the case is likely to fuel wider conversations about how faith is taught in publicly funded schools.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento