UK Supreme Court Brands Northern Ireland Christian Teaching ‘Indoctrination’

.

ER Editor: This case goes back to 2022, when non-religious Northern Irish parents noticed their child praying before meals at home. They took their case before the courts, arguing that their child’s religious education should be objective and pluralistic. The court agreed with them back then. There has been back and forth with this case since that time, with finally the UK Supreme Court affirming the original ruling, essentially agreeing with the parents. So is Christian-focused religious education in Northern Ireland now unlawful? And does the curriculum for RE (religious education) have to be broadened? This is likely the case going forward.

We agree that it does indeed pit spiritual faith – the original one for that country and culture – against secularism, hiding under the trendy buzzwords ‘inclusion’ and ‘objectivity’.

Here’s some further BBC reporting on the case, in addition to that linked to below. 

We invite readers to listen to anything former Lt. Col. Riccardo Bosi has to say on the quality of the moral values taught by Christianity, irrespective of whether you believe in something spiritual or not. 

********

In the name of objectivity and pluralism, religious education must introduce the beliefs of Islam and other religions as well, the Court says.

ZOLTA GYORI

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Christian-focused model of religious education (RE) in Northern Ireland’s schools is unlawful, concluding that the current system fails to meet the requirement that teaching be “objective, critical and pluralistic.”

The judgment follows a legal challenge brought by an unnamed father and his daughter, who attended a state-controlled primary school in Belfast. The girl had received Christian religious education and participated in Christian worship, but her non-religious parents objected to her being taught about Christian faith, despite having an option to withdraw their child at any time from RE.

CompleteJoy, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

.

According to the ruling, RE in Northern Ireland “amounts to pursuing the aim of indoctrination.” The court stressed that the decision does not abolish RE but instead forces schools to “widen” the range of faiths introduced to students. In effect, this means that, along with teaching about Christianity, primary school students should also hear about Judaism and Islam as part of their religious education. The court also ordered RE teachers and guest speakers from other religious backgrounds to be invited as well.

Stormont’s education committee chair, Nick Mathison, urged Education Minister Paul Givan to issue guidance. He argued that the issue is not about “pitting faith against secularism,” but about “ensuring schools are inclusive spaces that recognise and respect all value systems—both religious and non-religious.” The ruling, he said, will “not mean the removal of religious education from schools, but does mean there will have to be some change to ensure a more objective, critical, and pluralistic approach which respects the rights of families of all faiths and none.”

Darragh Mackin of Phoenix Law, who represented the family involved in the case, called the ruling “probably the single most important legal decision for education certainly in the last century.” He described it as a significant moment for human rights protections in Northern Ireland. The ruling, he said, highlights an “important distinction” between “teaching about a certain religion as opposed to teaching them to be a certain religion.”

Ulster Unionist Party education spokesperson Jon Burrows called for the Department of Education to clarify the ruling’s full implications. While agreeing that “no child should ever be stigmatised” if their parents opt out of RE, he added that “many people will not agree with the suggestion that current provision amounts to indoctrination.” He said the department must now determine how to comply with the law while “continuing a system that has worked well for generations.”

Traditional Unionist Voice MP Jim Allister sharply criticized the decision, saying he was “deeply disturbed” by the ruling. In his view, “the inflammatory term ‘indoctrination’ is an affront not only to teachers and parents but to the Christian foundations upon which our education system has long rested.” He “reject[s] entirely the suggestion that Christian teaching in our schools amounts to indoctrination,” arguing that the term has been “weaponised to belittle the sincere Christian ethos that shaped our society, our laws and our moral compass.” He called the ruling “another insidious elevation of rights of non-Christian parents over those of Christian parents” and framed it as a challenge to the education minister to “protect Christian values in our schools.”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.