Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:“(2) Section 15(2) of the Act of 1998 is amended by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (g):

“(h) in performing the functions conferred on it, and notwithstanding subsection (2)(b), a board shall uphold equal respect and dignity for all pupils, regardless of religion, ethnicity or family background, and uphold their constitutional rights under Articles 44.2.3 and 44.2.4, specifically by ensuring no religious instruction or faith formation take place during class time.”.”.

The amendment seeks to remove religious instruction and faith formation from class hours and allow for it to take place after class hours. This is in line with our view that in an education system which is publicly funded - even private schools are publicly funded - there should be a curriculum taught which is inclusive of everybody and does not have a bias in favour of or prefer a particular religious ethos or does not seek to impose a particular moral or religious view of the world. I do not see how it is the job of a publicly funded education system and the curriculum that goes with it to teach people about particular religious preferences. I do not see how they two go together. Do not get me wrong - people are entitled to their religious views. I would fight to defend people's right to freedom of religious expression and association, but that is a separate matter from education. I am not saying people cannot privately make the decision to fund a religious education, although to me it is just about teaching a particular world view. I do not accept the idea that in an education system which is supposed to be in place to deliver a curriculum for everybody part of the day should be about teaching a particular moral world view is legitimate.

I know the historical reasons it happened and they have got the country into a terrible mess. We outsourced education largely to the Catholic Church and there was a quid pro quowhich for people like Archbishop McQuaid was, "We will run the schools, but we get to indoctrinate the kids". That is what it came down to. I do not think that is acceptable. Religious instruction should be removed from normal school hours, but that is not to say I do not think we should not have as part of the curriculum the study of different belief systems, taught in an objective, fair an even-handed way because I absolutely think we should. We should have classes in philosophy - call it what one likes - in which different religious and non-religious world views or philosophies are taught to people as education about the world. Catholicism and any other religious view would be part of it, but it should not be prioritised in a school setting over and above other world views.

To my mind, it is a very simple position. No matter what stipulations are included about schools having to make alternative arrangements for children who do not have religious views or have minority religious views, in effect, they mark them out. It means that the State is supporting creating a certain religious and moral atmosphere which is imposed on children who may not share that view or whose parents may not share it. That is not right. That is my view and the purpose of the amendment. It is in line with a general view that we need to separate church and State in all areas and recognise that they are different. The jobs of the State and the particular religious institutions are different. In this state they have become intertwined and entangled in a way that has been toxic and unhealthy. The adoption scandal that erupted in the past few days, about which the people concerned have been campaigning for years, is of relevance to the issue of education because what happened and what potentially could happen is that the particular ethos and interest of a religious institution cut across what might have been the best interests of a child or service user who was in the care of a particular religious institution with its particular moral view. That is exactly what happened in the case of the adoption scandal because the Catholic Church had certain attitudes about parents who were not married. They were mothers who were not married and the Church had certain attitudes. That impacted on its ability to deliver what should have been just a welfare service for mothers and children. There is the same potential as long as there is an intertwining between church and State of particular religious and moral views and the delivery of what should be an education system which is equal and fair to everybody. That is my view. It is on that basis that I have moved the amendment which I will be pressing to a vote.

See this speech in context