Category Archives: Secularism

A response to Dick Spicer’s open letter to Atheist Ireland about secular politics

By Atheist Ireland | Published: 4 May, 2013

Michael NugentThis is a response by Atheist Ireland chairperson Michael Nugent to Dick Spicer’s open letter to Atheist Ireland last week, followed by documentary evidence that the HAI does in fact promote the political cause of separation of church and state, contrary to the assertions made by the current HAI Board in order to sign up to the Civil Registration Act.

I respect the contributions that Dick Spicer and the current HAI Board members have made to the advancement of secularism in Ireland, and several of them are my personal friends. But I believe that they have lost perspective on this issue.

I have waited a week to respond, because I wanted to enable others to read Dick’s letter on its own merits, without me shifting the focus by immediately responding. I hope that we can tease out or differences reasonably.

Because Dick’s letter says very little about the Civil Registration Act itself, I have confined myself here to responding to the points that he made in his letter, which are largely about the political philosophies of Atheist Ireland and the HAI. These are important issues to discuss, as they go to the heart of this matter.

Read More »

Posted in Secularism | 6 Comments

An open letter to Atheist Ireland by Dick Spicer

By Atheist Ireland | Published: 26 April, 2013

Dick-Spicer1Dick Spicer is a longtime activist for humanism and separation of church and state in Ireland. He is also a humanist celebrant, and co-author of ‘The Humanist Philosophy with an Irish Guide to Non-Religious Ceremonies’. Here Dick gives his opinions on the reactions among atheists and humanists to the new Civil Registration Act.

Dear Atheist Ireland members,

It has been a great joy to me and other humanists to see the development in Ireland of a determined Atheist group such as yours. I see it as a really healthy sign for Irish society and its development to have secular groups like AI and the HAI in existence pursuing their respective agendas. Indeed this perspective led me to play a modest role in the formation of both groups and decades before that in the Campaign to Separate Church and State (CSCS).

It pains me doubly therefore to see a degree of confusion emerging which might damage the Irish secular movement as a whole. I am referring here to the pattern of the AI leadership taking issue with the HAI approach to gradual reform and the ‘Open Letter to HAI members’  being circulated by Michael Nugent and others. Michael is a talented representative of the Atheist perspective (as I knew he would be when I suggested him as a likely Chairperson) but his approach sits uneasily, clashes even, with the humanist philosophical perspective as I see it.

However, if it did not – then there would be no logical reason for the separate existence of the two groups?

My expectations were that with the public foundation and existence of an atheist group, an outlet would be given to those secularists of a definite atheist outlook who wished to promote atheism intellectually and politically and garner support accordingly. The role of our Irish humanist group with it’s moderate philosophy and provision of services to those non-religious who require them  is obviously somewhat different. A degree of overlap is to be expected of course as humanists look for secular advance in society but the humanist perspective in general could be expected to be a more encompassing less militantly anti-religious one.

The logic of promoting an atheist group is that one can have a more hard- hitting, focused political pressure group alongside the more service orientated humanist group and no one would deny that under Michael’s leadership AI has functioned thus. The HAI over many years, has developed its services to the non-religious community,  (indeed requests for such were the impelling factor in its formation) whilst supporting changes in society which benefit that community.

The damaging confusion I see emerging is that AI seems to be seeking to influence the HAI to become a mirror image of itself – i.e. to become a militant political pressure group. By directly intervening  as chair of the AI and challenging the HAI to change its perspective Michael is destroying the logic of having two separate groups with differing approaches, agendas and philosophies. He is leading others who might have joint membership of both groups in the same direction and I am saddened by the degree of hostility this is engendering and I hereby appeal to Michael (as one committed to ‘dialogue’) to reconsider his intervention before more serious damage is done.

I think this does necessarily raise the issue of the advisability of people having joint membership of both groups as the natural tendency (without implying any malice) of this practice is a drift towards a common program which will alienate many. I appeal to those whose commitment is primarily to AI and its political approach to not pursue their agenda within the HAI on the issue of the reforming of legal solemnisation of marriage (and there will probably in the nature of such things be other issues in the future).

It would be far healthier for both groups continued existence and amity if those with joint membership made their choice of group commitment and wished the others well for the future. That way the non-religious community who both groups exist to serve (from differing perspectives) will continue to have two strings to their bow and draw in support from those who who would balk at the purely AI approach on the one hand or the HAI on the other!

Dick Spicer

Posted in Secularism | 31 Comments

An open letter to fellow members of the Humanist Association of Ireland by Andrew Devine-Rattigan

By Atheist Ireland | Published: 10 April, 2013

Andrew D RattiganDear fellow members of the Humanist Association of Ireland,

I address you all in relation to the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill that came in to law after being passed by the Dail in December 2012. Many of you may feel that on the face of it this is a victory for the Humanist Association as it will allow for non-religious people to have their marriages legally solemnised by a celebrant from the HAI.

Previously, couples seeking a non-religious ceremony would firstly have had to go to a registry office in order to be legally married, and then have had a Humanist ceremony to celebrate their marriage. The new change in the law will now cut out the need for couples to have to attend two ceremonies as the Humanist solemniser now has legal recognition that he or she previously did not have.

Perhaps many of you will think this is a progressive step, but a clear reading of the law itself, and the requirements that the HAI must fulfil, reveals that this law runs contrary to the stated aims of the HAI and conflicts with the core values of humanism itself. The new law prohibits any secular body that might nominate a solemniser from promoting a political cause, as well as a whole list of other exclusions to adhere to, in order to obtain a licence to solemnise marriages. However, religious organisations are not excluded from solemnising marriages according to the same criteria.

The stated aims of the HAI

The reasons that I joined the HAI are best expressed by the stated aims on our website:

“The HAI campaigns for equal treatment by the state of the non-religious with the religious; the abolition of religious privileges; and ultimately the total separation of Church from State. It aspires to a balanced secular society.”

In light of what our stated aims are, how can we in the HAI agree to a law that has a list of exclusions for secular organisations that seek to solemnise marriages, whilst this same list of exclusions doesn’t apply to religious bodies? For us in the HAI to endorse such a law is a clear breach of our purported aim to seek the equal treatment of the non-religious with the religious and the abolition of religious privileges.

In endorsing this legislation, it is clear that the Board of Directors of the HAI are satisfied to allow the HAI to be discriminated against and treated unequally, and thus are acting in contravention of the aims that are outlined on our website.

Just what is it that is motivating the Board to endorse legislation that actually contravenes the very aims of the HAI itself?

The Board seems comfortable to allow the HAI to have to comply with a list of exclusions in the new legislation that religious bodies do not have to adhere to, thus the HAI is complicit in discriminating against the non-religious, the very thing we claim to be against.

However, there is one of the exclusions that the HAI doesn’t comply with, and that is the clause in the Act that prohibits any secular nominating body from promoting a political cause, which the HAI clearly does.

Debate after Sunday’s HAI meeting

After the last meeting of the HAI in Dublin on the 7th April, a debate ensued between several members who are in support of the new law, including a member of the Board of Directors, and several of us who are opposed to it.

Those of us who opposed the law pointed out both the fact that it discriminates against the non-religious and also that legally we wouldn’t even be able to comply with the new law, in that the HAI promotes the political cause of separation of church and state. Those members in favour of the new law argued that the HAI is not involved in promoting any political cause, but rather is engaged in the advancement of various social causes and therefore the granting of the first legal licence to a HAI solemniser is in full accordance with the law, even if it is a discriminatory law (my emphasis).

It is my opinion that these members don’t even believe this themselves and are just using semantics to try and justify supporting a law that discriminates against the aims of the HAI, and allows them to argue that the HAI is complying with a law that it is clearly in breach of.

Besides, all social causes have a political dimension in that to advance a social cause you have to engage with the political process and state institutions, thus also making them political causes. Surely the total separation of the church and state is as explicit a political cause as one can find?

Our website states that one of the activities of the HAI is that it “makes appropriate submissions to government for changes in the Constitution, Legislation and State practices.” By simply stating the aims of the HAI are a social cause in order to comply with a discriminatory piece of legislation doesn’t negate the fact that they are also a political cause.

Orwellian doublethink

All in all to argue that we are not involved in a cause that we clearly are, and to try and argue that the HAI exists primarily to campaign for equality whilst it endorses a law that is grossly unequal and discriminatory, is to engage in an egregious display of Orwellian doublethink which is:

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… to forget any fact that has become inconvenient.”

I believe that we in the HAI in order to be consistent with our declared aims on our website should have stood together with Atheist Ireland in opposing such a blatantly discriminatory piece of legislation.

At the very least we could have made applications to the registrar for licences for solemnisers and then openly declared that we would be in breach of the legislation as we do engage in promoting a political cause. This could have been an opportunity to publicly highlight the continuing discrimination against the non-religious and the special privileges still maintained by religious organisations.

Instead the HAI has endorsed a law that violates its own principals and aims. For the HAI to endorse such a piece of legislation calls in to question the integrity of the HAI as an organisation that purports to seek equality for the non-religious.

Seeking an EGM for members to discuss issue

I believe that the best way to deal with this issue is by way of constructive dialogue between us, the ordinary members, and the Board of Directors, who are of course also members.

In accordance with the Companies Act which governs the activities of the HAI, I along with several other members of the HAI will be seeking to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting to discuss the issues raised in this letter.

We will be writing to the membership of the HAI to garner the ten per cent support required to convene such a meeting.

I appeal to the individual members of the Humanist Association to ask yourself in good conscience if you believe that the HAI should endorse a law that is blatantly and clearly at odds with the principles of equality and non-discrimination, and if supporting such a law furthers the aim of building a more secular state or contributes to perpetuating discrimination of the non-religious?

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Devine-Rattigan

Also posted in Politics | 26 Comments

Atheist Ireland to meet with Irish Government this year

By Atheist Ireland | Published: 9 February, 2013

Atheist Ireland will be meeting with the Irish Government this year for a bilateral meeting under the process of structured dialogue between the State and churches, faith communities and philosophical and other non-confessional bodies.

We first requested this meeting last year, and we requested it again last month after the Irish Government met with the Roman Catholic Church under this process.

The Taoiseach has replied saying that he was not in a position to hold bilateral meetings last year due to pressure of other business, but that he hopes to make progress in this regard this year, notwithstanding continuing business pressures and Ireland’s Presidency of the European Union in the first six months of the year.

We don’t yet have a date for our meeting, but the Taoiseach will be asking officials to arrange a preliminary meeting with us to clarify an agenda.

The items that we wish to raise are:

  • Our policy document, Five Steps to Civil Rights in a Secular Ireland, which covers the need for a secular Constitution, Parliament, Government, Education System and Health Care System.
  • 
Some international cases relevant to our agenda on which we would like the Government to take action.
  • The various submissions that we have made since our last meeting to Government and international monitoring bodies.
  • 
How we should best discuss these issues with the Government on an ongoing basis in the context of policy formulation.

We’ll publish further details of the meeting as we get them.

Also posted in Meetings, Politics | Comments closed

Atheist Ireland requests meeting with government as partner in dialogue process

By Atheist Ireland | Published: 21 January, 2013

Atheist Ireland has written to the Taoiseach requesting to meet him and ministers and officials, under the structured process of dialogue between the Government and churches, faith bodies and non-confessional bodies.

Atheist Ireland is a partner in this dialogue process, having been accepted as such at a meeting with officials of the Taoiseach’s Department in September 2011. We were also witnesses along with religious bodies at the recent hearings of the Health Committee on abortion law.

We first requested this meeting in June 2012, three months before the Catholic Church requested the meeting which the Taoiseach held with them last week.

We have reminded the Taoiseach that he told the Dail last April that he had personally met with representatives of many of the partners in this dialogue to convey directly his interest in the dialogue process, and that he hoped to resume this process formally.

He also told the Dail last April that meetings at official and ministerial level may be sought by either side on the basis of a proposed agenda, and that arrangements in this regard will be made by his Department, which will provide the administrative support for the process.

We have made the following requests:

1. We are requesting a meeting with the Toaiseach personally

As Atheist Ireland is one of the partners that has not met personally with the Taoiseach or his predecessors, we have asked to meet with him personally. In the interests of balance and parity of esteem, we have asked that he meet with us before he next meets again with partners who have already met with him or his predecessors.

2. We are requesting a meeting or meetings at official and ministerial level

This is our proposed agenda.
(a) Our policy document, 5 Steps to Civil Rights in a Secular Ireland.
(b) Some international cases relevant to our agenda on which we would like the Government to take action.
(c) The various submissions that we have made since our last meeting to Government and international monitoring bodies.
(d) How we should best discuss these issues with the Government on an ongoing basis in the context of policy formulation.

3. We are requesting that these be bilateral meetings

While we are obviously happy to also take part in meetings along with other partners, we are requesting that the above meetings take place solely with Atheist Ireland, as has taken place with other partners in the process, as we have a specific non-confessional secular agenda that is different from that of the other partners.

Some information about Atheist Ireland

  • Atheist Ireland is a participant in the Irish Government’s structured dialogue process with the churches, faith bodies and non-confessional bodies in Ireland, and we have met in this capacity with the Taoiseach’s Department to outline our overall agenda for an ethical secular State.
  • Atheist Ireland is a participant in the European Union’s dialogue process with religious and philosophical non-confessional bodies, and we have met in this capacity with the Presidents of the European Union, European Parliament and European Council.
  • Atheist Ireland has participated and spoken at the 2011 and 2012 Human Dimension Implementation meetings of the OSCE in Warsaw on the sessions on freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and hosted a side event on secularism at the 2012 meeting.
  • In the last year Atheist Ireland has made comprehensive written and/or oral submissions to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism; the State Report to the UN under the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the UN under the Universal Periodic Review; the New Human Rights and Equality Commission; the Report from the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism; the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance; the Council of Europe under the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities; the State Report to the UN under the Covenant on Civil & Political Rights; the National Council on Curriculum and Assessment; the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, and the Oireachtas Health Committee hearings on abortion law.
Also posted in Politics | Comments closed

Atheist Ireland will be speaking this morning at the parliamentary hearings on abortion law

By Atheist Ireland | Published: 10 January, 2013

Michael Nugent will be speaking this morning at the parliamentary hearings on abortion law, along with representatives of five Irish churches.

The session runs from 9.30 am to 11.30 am. There will be five-minute opening statements, followed by an hour and a half of questions from TDs and Senators.

It is broadcast live:

These are today’s three sessions:

Session 1: 9.30-11.30

  • Irish Catholic Bishops Conference (Rev. Christopher Jones, Bishop of Elphin; Fr. Timothy Bartlett)
  • Church of Ireland (Most Rev. Dr. Michael Jackson, Archbishop of Dublin; Mr. Samuel Harper)
  • Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Dr. Trevor Morrow, Dr. Roy Patton)
  • Methodist Church of Ireland (Ms. Heidi Good)
  • Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland (Dr. Ali Selim)
  • Atheist Ireland (Mr. Michael Nugent)

Session 2: 11.45- 13.45

  • Pro Life Campaign (Ms. Caroline Simons; Dr. Berry Kiely)
  • Youth Defence (Dr. Eoghan de Faoite; Dr. Sean O’Domhnaill)
  • Family & life (Mr. Patrick Carr, Mr. David Manley)
  • Iona Institute (Ms. Breda O’Brien)

Session 3: 14.45 – 16.45

  • Choice Ireland (Ms. Jacinta Fay; Ms. Denise Ryan)
  • National Womens Council of Ireland (Ms. Orla O’Connor, Director, Ms. Jacqueline Healy)
  • Action on X (Ms. Ailbhe Smyth; Ms. Therese Caherty)
Also posted in Politics | Comments closed

Update: Atheist Ireland invited to parliamentary hearings this week on abortion law

By Atheist Ireland | Published: 6 January, 2013

Update: Atheist Ireland has been invited to take part in this hearing. We would like to thank the Oireachtas Health Committee for its prompt and courteous response to our request.

Atheist Ireland has asked to be invited to parliamentary hearings this week on abortion law. Please let your TDs, and the Health Committee, know that you support this request by emailing them at the addresses below.

The Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children will hold three days of hearings this week to discuss the Government’s decision to legislate and regulate for abortion law in the aftermath of the ABC judgement in the European Court of Human Rights. Appropriately, they will hear from medical and legal bodies, and advocacy groups for and against the choice to have an abortion.

Atheist Ireland has asked to be be invited to take part in the morning session on Thursday 10 January, when the committee is hearing from the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Methodist Church of Ireland, and Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland.

Sadly but predictably, the Health Committee has failed to invite any nonreligious body that promotes secular ethics to this session. Ideally, there should be no need to hear any specifically religious or nonreligious ethical views, but if they are hearing religious ethical views, then they should also hear nonreligious ethical views.

How we want to contribute

Atheist Ireland wishes to outline the case for the Government to approach this issue from an ethical secular perspective, and not on the basis of theological beliefs.

Our policy is that society should address ethical issues based on human rights and compassion, and applying reason to empirical evidence, and not on religious doctrines; and that individual ethical decisions should where possible be made on the basis of personal autonomy and individual conscience, while not infringing on the rights of others.

We wish to discuss with the Committee the implications of such an approach in assisting the Government in the drafting of the Heads of Bill on this issue.

Also, as one example, Roman Catholic Cardinal Sean Brady has recently asked people to tell their public representatives that the right to life is conferred on human beings by ‘the creator’. We want to explain why we believe the Government should not legislate or regulate on the basis of imposing such theological ideas on citizens who do not share them.

Some information on Atheist Ireland

  • Atheist Ireland is a participant in the Irish Government’s structured dialogue process with the churches, faith bodies and non-confessional bodies in Ireland, and we have met in this capacity with the Taoiseach’s Department to outline our overall agenda for an ethical secular State.
  • Atheist Ireland is a participant in the European Union’s dialogue process with religious and philosophical non-confessional bodies, and we have met in this capacity with the Presidents of the European Union, European Parliament and European Council.
  • Atheist Ireland has participated and spoken at the 2011 and 2012 Human Dimension Implementation meetings of the OSCE in Warsaw on the sessions on freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and hosted a side event on secularism at the 2012 meeting.
  • In the last year Atheist Ireland has made comprehensive written and/or oral submissions to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism; the State Report to the UN under the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the UN under the Universal Periodic Review; the New Human Rights and Equality Commission; the Report from the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism; the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance; the Council of Europe under the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities; the State Report to the UN under the Covenant on Civil & Political Rights; the National Council on Curriculum and Assessment; and the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting.

Please email your TDs and the Health Committee

Update: Atheist Ireland has been invited to take part in this hearing. We would like to thank the Oireachtas Health Committee for its prompt and courteous response to our request. Please consider emailing the committee members to thank them for inviting Atheist Ireland.

  • TDs’ email addresses are firstname (dot) surname (at) oireachtas.ie
  • The members of the Health Committee are:
    Jerry.Buttimer@oireachtas.ie, Catherine.Byrne@oireachtas.ie, Michael.Colreavy@oireachtas.ie, Ciara.Conway@oireachtas.ie, Regina.Doherty@oireachtas.ie, Robert.Dowds@oireachtas.ie, Peter.Fitzpatrick@oireachtas.ie, Seamus.Healy@oireachtas.ie, Billy.Kelleher@oireachtas.ie, Eamonn.Maloney@oireachtas.ie, Mary.MitchellOConnor@oireachtas.ie, Mattie.McGrath@oireachtas.ie, Denis.Naughten@oireachtas.ie, Caoimhghin.OCaolain@oireachtas.ie, Robert.Troy@oireachtas.ie, Colm.Burke@oireachtas.ie, John.Crown@oireachtas.ie, John.Gilroy@oireachtas.ie, Imelda.Henry@oireachtas.ie, Marc.MacSharry@oireachtas.ie, Jillian.VanTurnhout@oireachtas.ie
Posted in Secularism | Comments closed

Cardinal Brady promotes political lobbying on abortion, while secular groups who want to solemnise marriage are politically silenced

By Atheist Ireland | Published: 27 December, 2012

The privileged position of the Catholic Church in Irish law was highlighted by the political campaign launched by Cardinal Sean Brady on Christmas Day, seeking to influence the forthcoming law on abortion from an explicitly theological Roman Catholic perspective.

To rub in the discrimination against nonreligious citizens, this overtly political move took place just days after the Dail passed a new law forbidding secular bodies from promoting political causes if they want to legally solemnise marriages.

Cardinal Brady said in his Christmas message that

“I hope that everyone who believes that the right to life is fundamental will make their voice heard in a reasonable, but forthright, way to their representatives, reminding them that the right to life is conferred on human beings not by the powerful ones of this world but by the creator. There is no more important value than upholding the right to life in all circumstances.”

This statement reflects the essence of the problem of church interference in political affairs. In a society where different people have different religious and nonreligious beliefs, decisions on public policy should be made by applying reason to evidence.

When religious authorities throw in inflexible dictates based on supposed revelations from an imagined creator of the universe, that distorts and corrupts the ethical debate that is needed to address political issues collectively.

‘Forming Conscience for Faithful Citizenship’

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has produced a detailed document called ‘Forming Conscience for Faithful Citizenship’ which outlines Catholic teaching on this issue. Among other things, it states that:

9. The Church’s obligation to participate in shaping the moral character of society is a requirement of our faith. It is a basic part of the mission we have received from Jesus Christ, who offers a vision of life revealed to us in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

10. Because we are people of both faith and reason, it is appropriate and necessary for us to bring this essential truth about human life and dignity to the public square.

11. Some question whether it is appropriate for the Church to play a role in political life. However, the obligation to teach about moral values that should shape our lives, including our public lives, is central to the mission given to the Church by Jesus Christ.

13. In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation. This obligation is rooted in our baptismal commitment to follow Jesus Christ and to bear Christian witness in all we do. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, “It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person. . . . As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life” (nos. 1913-1915).

This combination is particularly dangerous. Catholic citizens are not only obliged to participate politically, but must do so according to a conscience that is formed in accordance with the dictates of the Catholic Church. And then it explains how that conscience is formed:

17. The Church equips its members to address political and social questions by helping them to develop a well-formed conscience. Catholics have a serious and lifelong obligation to form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church. Conscience is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere “feeling” about what we should or should not do. Rather, conscience is the voice of God resounding in the human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is evil. Conscience always requires serious attempts to make sound moral judgments based on the truths of our faith. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right” (no. 1778).

18. The formation of conscience includes several elements. First, there is a desire to embrace goodness and truth. For Catholics this begins with a willingness and openness to seek the truth and what is right by studying Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church as contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also important to examine the facts and background information about various choices. Finally, prayerful reflection is essential to discern the will of God. Catholics must also understand that if they fail to form their consciences they can make erroneous judgments.

The discrimination in the Irish marriage registration law

As the most recent law passed by the Irish parliament shows, there is one law for the religious and another for the nonreligious.

Churches, including the Catholic Church, can insist that their members behave politically according to theological dictates, while nonreligious bodies who want to seolemnise marriages on the same basis that churches do must remain silent politically.

The Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill, requires, among various rules for exclusion, that nonreligious nominating bodies can not promote a political cause. But neither this Bill nor the Principal Act applies any of these rules for exclusion to religious nominating bodies.

Furthermore, this particular exclusion seems to be a deliberate choice. The entire wording of the section on exclusions is transcribed, word for word, from the definition of “excluded body” in the Charities Act 2009, with just one difference.

The Charities Act qualifies “(b) a body that promotes a political cause,” by saying “(b) a body that promotes a political cause, unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body.”

There is no good reason why this Bill should have removed that qualification from the definitions that it has transcribed from the Charities Act.

But more fundamentally, any restrictions, along the lines of any of the Charities Act exclusions, should either be applied equally to all nominating bodies, or else not be applied to any.

Also posted in Politics | Comments closed

Humanist Association of Ireland must choose between solemnising marriages now, and politically promoting secularism

By Atheist Ireland | Published: 27 December, 2012

The Humanist Association of Ireland faces a fundamental dilemma in how it responds to the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill.

That dilemma is this: does the Humanist Association stop promoting the political cause of separation of church and state in order to be able to legally solemnise marriages, or does it forego the legal solemnising of marriages until the law is changed to provide equality for all without discrimination on the ground of religion?

This new Bill passed last week was intended to extend to secular bodies the right that religious bodies already have to legally solemnise marriages.

However, the law as passed forbids secular nominating bodies (but not religious ones) from promoting any political cause, and promoting the political cause of secularism has always been central to the work of the HAI.

Our legislators were aware of this problem, as Atheist Ireland raised it in our briefing document for them, and it was explicitly raised in the Dail debate.

Yet, as so often happens in Ireland, everyone pretended that the words were not there, or that they did not matter, or that the law would be ignored in practice, or whatever you are having yourself.

The discrimination in the law

The Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill, requires, among various rules for exclusion, that nonreligious nominating bodies can not promote a political cause. But neither this Bill nor the Principal Act applies any of these rules for exclusion to religious nominating bodies.

Furthermore, this particular exclusion seems to be a deliberate choice. The entire wording of the section on exclusions is transcribed, word for word, from the definition of “excluded body” in the Charities Act 2009, with just one difference.

The Charities Act qualifies “(b) a body that promotes a political cause,” by saying “(b) a body that promotes a political cause, unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body.”

There is no good reason why this Bill should have removed that qualification from the definitions that it has transcribed from the Charities Act.

But more fundamentally, any restrictions, along the lines of any of the Charities Act exclusions, should either be applied equally to all nominating bodies, or else not be applied to any.

The dilemma for the HAI

It is central to the Humanist Association of Ireland that it promotes the political cause of separation of church and state. If it ceases to do so, it will become a very different organisation to the one that so many of its members have put so much work into.

So the Humanist Association of Ireland now faces the fundamental dilemma outlined earlier.

Does it stop promoting separation of church and state, in order to be able to legally solemnise marriages, or does the HAI stand alongside Atheist Ireland in continuing to campaign politically for equality before the law for all without discrimination on the ground of religion or belief?

It is unthinkable that the HAI would choose the only other available option, which is continue to promote the political cause of secularism while pretending for legal purposes that it is not doing so. Indeed, that is the type of Ireland that the Humanist Association was established to help get away from.

Whatever happens, one thing is certain. The Catholic Church will continue to promote its own political cause, built on imagined revelations from an imagined creator of the universe, and the Government will be happy to allow them to continue doing this.

It is now more important than ever before that secular bodies stand together and continue to campaign politically for separation of church and state.

Also posted in Politics | Comments closed

Atheist Ireland asks President to test constitutionality of new marriage registration law

By Atheist Ireland | Published: 21 December, 2012

Atheist Ireland today sent this letter to the President of Ireland:

Dear President,

Yesterday the Dail passed the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill. We are asking you as President to ask your Council of State for advice on whether to send this Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. Our Constitution and laws are not very supportive of freedom of atheists from religious discrimination. However, we are asking you to do so for the following reasons:

  • If the Bill is unconstitutional, it should not be signed into law.
  • If the Bill is constitutional, then it is in the public interest for this to be clarified, because it is indisputable (and indeed not disputed by the Government) that the Bill discriminates against some citizens on the ground of religion or belief. Furthermore, it both discriminates against nonreligious citizens, and between nonreligious citizens
  • Article 40.1 is inconsistent with the principle of non-discrimination, while Article 44.2.3 has to be read subject to the protection of religious interests.
  • We suggest that the discriminations in this Bill should be tested against the case law that religious discrimination must be necessary to safeguard or maintain the right to free practice of religion, and the case law that embraces the promotion of social conditions which are conducive to, though not strictly necessary for, the fostering of religious beliefs.

1. Article 40.1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

Article 40.1 is inconsistent with the principle of non-discrimination, and there have been many recommendations that it should be changed.
In 1995, the Constitutional Review Group Report recommended change on discrimination to bring Ireland in line with international human rights instruments:

“A list of rights to be considered for express inclusion in the Constitution would include, in addition, to the un-enumerated rights already listed, the following which are contained in the international human rights instruments… A general right to non-discrimination on such grounds as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (Articles 2 and 3 CCPR, Article 14 ECHR)… The General Right to non-discrimination should be contained in a revised Article 40.1.”

In 2002, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its Concluding Observations on Ireland, stated that:

“Concern 16. The Committee regrets that the State party has not yet undertaken any measures with regard to the Committee’s 1999 recommendation concerning the inconsistency of article 40.1 of the Constitution on equality before the law with the principle of non-discrimination as set out in articles 2 and 3 of the Covenant.

Recommendation 27. The Committee also recommends that the All-Party Oireachtas Committee urgently consider amending article 40.1 of the Constitution on equality before the law, in the light of the principle of non-discrimination as set out in articles 2.2 and 3 of the Covenant.”

In 2011, the Irish Human Rights Commission, in its Submission to the United Nations under the Universal Periodic Review, recommended that:

“Equality:
11. The IHRC recommends that a referendum be held to amend Article 40.1 of the Irish Constitution to guarantee equality to all and to proscribe discrimination (direct or indirect) in any area of law on non- exhaustive grounds (such as race, sex, language or religion).”

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance have raised the issue of Protocol 12 of the European Convention with the State. In their Third Report on Ireland 2006 they state:

“However, a number of recommendations made in the ECRI’s second report have not been implemented, or have only been partially implemented. Ireland has not yet ratified Protocol No. 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights which contains a general prohibition on discrimination.”

Ireland is under increasing pressure to ratify Protocol 12 and will not be able to do so as long as it discriminates against minorities in this manner.

2. Article 44.2.3 The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

The courts have found that this prohibition have to be read subject to the protection of religious interests, and the tests include (a) if this is necessary to ‘give life and reality’ to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

Professor Gerry Whyte, in a paper on religion and education for the Irish Human Rights Commission, wrote that:

“The constitutional prohibitions on State endowment of religion and State discrimination on grounds of religious profession, belief or status contained in Article 44 are important elements [in the backdrop to constitutional policy on education]. An important feature of the jurisprudence on these principles to date is that in six of the twelve cases in this area, the courts indicated that these prohibitions have to be read subject to the protection of religious interests.

The earlier cases in this series were concerned with religious practices (Observance of the Sabbath) and decisions of ecclesiastical authorities (Decision of the trustees of Maynooth College) but the more recent cases have broadened this category to embrace the promotion of social conditions which are conducive to, though not strictly necessary for, the fostering of religious beliefs (Employment policies discriminating on grounds of religion).”

In 1997, the Supreme Court that it is constitutionally permissible to discriminate on grounds of religious profession, belief or status if this is necessary to ‘give life and reality’ to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

“in Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996 [1997] 2 IR 321 the Supreme Court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of, inter alia, ss 12 and 37(1) of the Employment Equality Bill 1996 which purported to allow certain vocational training bodies and certain employers to discriminate on grounds of religion in order to protect their religious ethos. The Supreme Court upheld both provisions on the ground that it is constitutionally permissible to discriminate on grounds of religious profession, belief or status if this is necessary to ‘give life and reality’ to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.”

In 1975, the High Court and Supreme Court found that the State was not allowed to discriminate between a priest and a lay person, both of whom were secondary school teachers, in the payment of incremental salaries. (Mulloy v Minister for Education, [1975] IR 88)

In the High Court, Butler J said, at pp.92-3:

“It seems to me to be clear beyond argument that the terms of the scheme confining it to lay teachers do create a difference and do distinguish between them and teachers of a different religious status, namely, clerics such as the plaintiff. It is also clear that the ground of such discrimination is the difference in religious status.”

This view was affirmed by the whole Supreme Court. Walsh J cleared out of the way one possible source of misunderstanding:

“[Article 44.2.3] in my opinion, does not refer to “profession” in the sense that somebody is a religious in the religious life as a profession and the Irish text of the Constitution makes quite clear that what comes under the heading of “religious profession” is the particular religious faith which is professed by the person in question.’ [P.96]“

He referred to the principle elaborated in the Quinn’s Supermarket case, and said, at pp.96-7:

‘The present case concerns the disposition of public funds on a basis which, if sustainable, enables a person who is not a religious to obtain greater financial reward than a person who is a religious and is otherwise doing the same work and is of equal status and length of service… If that were constitutionally possible it would enable the State to prefer religious to lay people, or vice versa, in a matter which is in no way concerned with the safeguarding or maintenance of the constitutional right to free practice of religion… In my view, the State is not permitted by the Constitution to do this.

The reference to religious status, in both the Irish text and the English text of the Constitution, relates clearly to the position or rank of a person in terms of religion in relation to others either of the same religion or of another religion or to those of no religion at all.

Thus it ensures that, no matter what is one’s religious profession or belief or status, the State shall not impose any disabilities upon or make any discrimination between persons because one happens to be a clergyman or a nun or a brother or a person holding rank or position in some religion which distinguishes him from other persons, whether or not they hold corresponding ranks in other religions or whether or not they profess any religion or have any religious belief, save where it is necessary to do so to implement the guarantee of freedom of religion and conscience already mentioned.”

3. Discriminations in the Bill

The enclosed document, ‘Legislating for Equality In Marriage Registration,’ outlines in detail the discriminations within this Bill.

Posted in Secularism | Comments closed