Atheist Ireland Forum

Hi all.

This is my first post on these boards, so I just thought I'd share an article I got published in the Cork Online Law Review this year. COLR follows in the tradition of peer reviewed university law reviews, but I believe it was the first in Ireland to make its publications available online. This is the first year a hard copy version was also published.

Anyway, I submitted this article about 6 months into my law degree and luckily it was accepted for publication. It essentially discusses the basic religious elements of our Constitution and suggests what changes should be made. The foreward for this edition is by the Attorney General, and the Chief State Solicitor launched the edition at UCC. I hope a read of it can be helpful/enjoyable to some of you and I'd be grateful to hear what you thought of it.

The title is: "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity: Religious Anachronisms and the Need for a Secular Constitution" and it begins on p56 of this pdf file: http://www.ucclawsociety.com/colr/editions/2010/FULL%20EDITION%20COLR%202010.pdf

It runs to just over 13 pages and, since we've had no referenda since, is still up to date.

Thanks for posting the Article. Sometimes I find these types of Articles difficult to read as they are not written in plain English but yours was easy.

Over the years in trying to understand exactly why my family could be treated with such discrimination I read everything I could find on these various issues. The only conclusion I came to was that it is not my Constitution but a Constitution for the Catholic majority. What Equality means under the Constitution really is the main issue and it is something I do not have because I do not have a religion.

“The Court has also held that "although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of a majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position"
European Court of Human Rights.

As the views of the majority always prevail in this country am I living in a religious state instead of a republic?

Even if people like me had the funds to take a case to the Supreme Court we would fail as the Constitution for the Catholic Majority does not regard the non-religious as equal.

Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights reads:-
“Right to an effective remedy
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

How can the non-religious have an effective remedy when the Constitution does not regard them as equal before the law?

The solution to this problem seems that the majority must change the Constitution or have they changed it already? Is there any hope in the Charter of Fundamental Rights under the Lisbon Treaty:-

Article 20
Equality before the law
Everyone is equal before the law.

Article 21
Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic
features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority,
property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Within the scope of application of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of the
Treaty on European Union, and without prejudice to the special provisions of those Treaties, any
discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

Thank you for your reply!

I'm glad you found it an easy read. The main aim was to gather together a fairly comprehensive report on religion in the Constitution that would be understood by the layman; as I hadn't found one before I wrote it.

I honestly think that these problems will be solved slowly and by the majority. It is unlikely that an ECHR or ECJ ruling will force a Constitutional change. Firstly the ECHR is below the Constitution in Irish law, and the ECJ is unlikely to do something so radacal.

For example; We now have a Civil Partnership Act. This has not ended the debate, and the next step is to change the Constitution to allow for Gay marriage. While not strictly a religion issue, I'm sure you'll agree it's related, or at least analogous.

In the end, as I conclude in my article, it will be up to the religious majority to vote to enshrine the rights of the irreligious minority. I believe this will indeed happen before the irreligious are in the majority.

Well I suppose I should take comfort from the fact that there is equality in death as I’ll be long dead before the religious majority get around to changing the Irish Constitution.

I see the ECJ, the UN and the European Court of human rights as a means of putting pressure on the Irish State. It is a long term view but what else can we do. There really is no doubt that there are aspects of the Irish Constitution that are incompatible with International Human Rights Law.

The only strategy I can think of is to concentrate on human rights and to use the procedures at UN etc as a tool to raise awareness of what is happening on the ground and to put pressure on the Irish State. Nothing will happen inside Ireland as politicians depend on the religious majority to get elected and I don’t see any of this lot sticking their necks out to try and achieve human rights for the non-religious. Religious discrimination is so much part of who we are that the majority of the population just regard this behaviour as normal.

I await the day an atheist is nominated to a given office and refuses to take the Constitutional oath. I, myself, set in the distant future the goal of being judge material. I wonder what will happen when someone like me is chosen to be a judge, but cannot bring themselves to falsely taking an oath!

It is so offensive to the non-religious to even have this requirement in our constitution. It will not have any consequences for the majority of us but having this requirement in the constitution informs us that we are second class citizens.

The issue that has consequences for the majority of the non-religious is our education system. If what you say is correct and I believe it is, Article 44.2 is interpreted in accordance with Catholic Church doctrine on what constitutes freedom of conscience. That leaves the non-religious in a very difficult position because any school that has Catholic religious formation can interpret and most certainly will be obliged to interpret the Constitution according to Catholic Church teaching. The New Vec Community schools come to mind.

“It would seem, then, that the provisions of article 44.1 have marred the otherwise balanced provisions to be found in article 44.2. Dr. Doyle notes that ‗[i]f article 44.2 existed on its own, the balance therein between freedoms of religion and freedoms from religion would, I suggest, require state neutrality as between religions and pointedly non-religious world views.‘55 This neutrality can only be achieved through the deletion of article 44.1, since currently, as Doyle concludes, the courts ‗are probably constitutionally required to privilege the rights of the religious.‘56”

It took me a long time to understand that it was the Constitution that was the issue and this is why your article is so important as it explains simply this point.

I simply could not understand how the VEC at second level could be patron of schools that operated a Catholic religious ethos. Nor could I understand how the Dept of Education could be patron of these 9 Model Schools at primary level and run them as Religious schools. It only makes sense if the courts are constitutionally required to privilege the rights of the religious.

I was hoping that with the Charter of Fundamental Rights that maybe the courts would be obliged to interpret Article 44.2 in a manner consistent with human rights law but you are no doubt correct and Article 44.1 will cause problems and must be removed first.

I see raising awareness of this inequality as the best step to take. That's one of the main reasons I wrote the article. It will take time, everything in law does, but the results (I believe) will emerge. Look at David Norris! 20 years ago he was a criminal under the laws of the State, and now he's tipped to be the next President. At least atheists aren't criminals! Alas, they still can't be President.

Many thanks for posting that article - I found it very informative and quite a compelling read!

I'm glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for the positive feedback!