Showing posts with label Michael Nugent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Nugent. Show all posts
Atheist IrelandTen years ago this week, French magazine Charlie Hebdo interviewed Michael Nugent about religion in Ireland. 


Reading it back now is like opening a time capsule from a country on the cusp of a major change. In the decade since then, Ireland has liberalised dramatically as a society, but more slowly as a State.

We have made great progress on social issues. The constitutional bans on blasphemy, abortion, and same-sex marriage have been removed by referendum, and the laws have been changed to reflect that. Church-led restrictions on contraception and prejudice against same-sex relationships were already crumbling, and both are now widely accepted as ordinary parts of life.

But two institutional issues remain unresolved. The Catholic Church still runs 90% of our primary schools, with exemptions in our equality laws that allow them to discriminate on the ground of religion. There has been no real progress towards providing an objective, critical, and pluralistic education, and Atheist Ireland is preparing a court challenge on this issue.

Also, the president, judges, and members of the Council of State (including the Taoiseach) must swear a religious oath, meaning conscientious atheists cannot hold these offices. This breaches the human right to freedom of religion and belief. It would simply not be tolerated if religious office-holders had to swear there is no God.

Here’s what Michael told Charlie Hebdo in June 2016, along with updates on what has changed since. Forgive the clumsiness of some of the phrases: it’s Michael’s English translated to French for the magazine, then translated back to English for this article.

CH 2016: Is the Catholic Church still as influential in Ireland?

MN 2016: Ireland is a country of Catholic tradition in which the Church has long controlled the population. Today, mentalities have changed, and the Church no longer has the same influence. However, the laws put in place at that time are still there and it retains practical power. It still governs 90% of schools and teaching colleges, we have an offence against blasphemy written into the Constitution, and our president, our judges and the prime minister take an oath on the Bible.”

Today: This trend continues. We’re definitely no longer a Catholic country. We’re now a pluralist country that is gradually removing the legacy of Catholic laws. But some of those legacy laws remain significant. Atheist Ireland continues to campaign for an ethical, secular State that gives no privilege to either religion or atheism.

Progress on blasphemy, abortion, marriage equality, and condoms

CH 2016: The Irish government adopted a law against blasphemy in 2009?

MN 2016: A new government was elected after the adoption of this law and, until now, it has not been applied. But it is still on the books. That raises two questions. The first concerns self-censorship, which affects the media. Although no one has yet been prosecuted for blasphemy, they refuse to publish material that could put them in conflict with the law. Often, before a radio or TV programme, I am asked to watch what I am going to say.

The other problem comes from the fact that this law, passed in a modern, liberal Western democracy, is being used as an example by Muslim countries within the United Nations, which use it to support the argument for a ban on any criticism of Islam. When Pakistan cites you as an example of best practice on blasphemy laws, you know you are doing something wrong.”

Today: This is one of the biggest advances we have made. After a decade of campaigning by Atheist Ireland at home and at the UN, a referendum in 2018 removed the ban on blasphemy from the Constitution. The law against blasphemy was subsequently removed. There are still dangers of so-called ‘hate speech’ laws becoming blasphemy laws by the back door.

The WRC recently ruled against a man who was banned from a yoga class for criticising Christmas. That was not a blasphemy case, but it shows the continuing risk that criticism of religious ideas can be treated in the same way. Atheist Ireland continues to campaign for laws that protect people from harm and not ideas from criticism.

CH 2016: Abortion is a sensitive issue?

MN 2016: Abortion is still unconstitutional, except in very specific cases, especially when the mother’s life is in danger. Not her health, but her life. A few years ago, a young woman died in hospital because a hospital refused her an abortion on the pretext that her life was not at stake. Women have to travel abroad for abortions, mostly in England or the Netherlands. This adds to their stress, and also forbids this operation to the poorest and to those who are too fragile, as well as to refugees, who fear that once they have left Ireland, they will not be able to return. It is estimated that about ten women leave the country every day for an abortion.”

Today: After thirty-five years of campaigning by many groups, a referendum in 2018 finally removed the ban on abortion from the Constitution. The law was subsequently changed to allow abortion in defined circumstances. The procedure is provided free of charge if you have a PPS number. Some outstanding issues include a mandatory 3-day waiting period, criminalisation of healthcare providers, and the need to expand access in cases of fatal foetal anomalies.

CH 2016: And homosexuality?

MN 2016: Homosexuality was illegal in Ireland until the 1990s. In 1982, a gay man was beaten to death in a Dublin park by a group of teenagers who were ‘gay-bashing’. Arrested and brought to justice, they were given a suspended sentence and celebrated this by a march back to the park. However, last year (2015), Ireland became the first country in the world to legalise marriage for all by referendum. The population no longer accepts that someone should suffer discrimination because of their sexual orientation, even though the Church continues to do so.”

Today: This is another area of major progress. In 2016, we had just passed the referendum that removed the ban on same-sex marriage. Ten years on, same-sex relationships are accepted as a normal part of adult life. Irish equality law explicitly outlaws discrimination in the workplace, housing, and access to services based on sexual orientation. There are still legal and bureaucratic problems with some issues, like reciprocal IVF and adoption rights.

CH 2016: What about the use of condoms, which the Church opposed?

MN 2016: People simply ignore the Church’s positions on this question, but that was not the case for past situations. In the 1970s, for example, the IRA use condoms to protect the mechanisms of their bombs, but some refused to use condoms for moral reasons. At the beginning of the 1990s, the Virgin Megastore in Dublin was condemned by the courts for selling condoms, and at the time you could get them only by medical prescription, and if you were married.”

Today: Thankfully, we’ve moved beyond this silliness. Condoms are now accepted as a normal part of adult life. Also, women and girls aged between 17 and 35 can get free contraception including doctor consultations. It is extraordinary to think that, in our lifetime, church and State combined to restrict access to contraceptives as strongly and effectively as they did.

Limited progress on secular education and none on religious oaths

CH 2016: What is the situation in schools?

MN 2016: When you want to enrol a child in school, the only option you have is usually the Catholic school around the corner. If there are too many applications, priority will be given to baptised children. Then, religion will interfere in all school subjects, even if you decide to exempt your child from religious education classes. In science, they will be told that God created the trees and animals; in music, they will sing hymns; and during art classes, they will draw portraits of Jesus. The government claims to be remedying this situation by creating non-denominational schools, but we are talking about only a handful of institutions among about 3,400 denominational schools.”

Today: There has been some fine-tuning of the way schools can legally discriminate on the ground of religion, but no substantive change. State-funded primary schools can no longer prioritise children of Catholic parents, but second level schools still can. Religion still permeates the entire school curriculum, and it is often impossible for parents to exercise their constitutional right for their child to not attend religious instruction. Typically, such children are left sitting in the religion class anyway, instead of being given an alternative subject.

Also, the government has dropped even its nominal claim to want non-denominational schools. It is now only considering denominational, interdenominational, and multi-denominational schools. All of these are variations of a religious ethos. Atheism is not a denomination. Atheist Ireland continues to campaign for an objective, critical, and pluralistic education system that treats everyone equally.

CH 2016: You also talk about officials having to swear a religious oath?

MN: The president, judges and members of the Council of State (including prime minister, presidents of the Dáil and Senate, and attorney general) must swear an oath on the Bible. It is in the Constitution. It begins, in the preamble, with recognition of the authority of the Holy Trinity, and then states that ‘the State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God.’ That is not merely to say that Catholics have the right to pray to their God, but that the God must be worshipped. God’s rights are therefore written into the Constitution, as if the Creator needed the protection of the Irish Parliament.”

Today: There has been no change in any of this. These religious oaths remain a breach of the human right to freedom of conscience and belief. In 2021, five Irish citizens took a European Court challenge to these religious oaths. They lost, not because of the substance of the arguments, but because they could not show that they were directly affected by the law because they were not taking up any of the offices.

Barry Ward TD currently has a private members bill seeking to remove the religious oath for judges, but it is unlikely to succeed. Atheist Ireland continues to campaign for one oath for all high offices, that reveals nothing of the religious or nonreligious beliefs of the office-holder, and to remove other constitutional articles that privilege religion.

Conclusion

CH 2016: How does society react to all this?

MN 2016: Most people have come out of that era of bigotry, when the Church controlled people’s thoughts and, very particularly, the youngest, who do not live like that at all anymore. A study carried out in 2012 showed that 75% of Irish Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation, that 50% doubt the existence of hell, 15% don’t think that Jesus is the son of God, and 8% of Catholics say they do not believe in God. Before, Ireland was a Catholic country for a Catholic population; today, it is still a country of Catholic laws, but for people who no longer are.”

Today: Ireland is an increasingly pluralist and secular society. In the most recent census, in 2022, one in five Irish people either said they have no religion (14%) or declined to answer (7%). That’s double the number from a decade ago, when the 2016 census showed one in ten people not identifying with any religion. Also, people aged 25 to 29 now have the highest no religion figure (26%) and are most likely to become parents in the next 5 to 10 years.

There has also been a culture shift in Irish marriages. A third of Irish marriages are now secular, only three in ten are Christian, and a quarter are some variation of spiritualist. A decade ago in 2016, those figures were just over half Christian, about a third secular, and about one in ten other religious including spiritualist. Back at the start of the century, 85% of marriages were Christian, the vast majority Catholic.

This is yet more evidence that Ireland is no longer a Catholic country in any meaningful social sense. We are now a pluralist country, gradually removing Catholic laws, but still living with many Catholic-influenced structures. Atheist Ireland will continue to play our part in reinforcing this trend, and bringing closer an ethical, secular State that does not privilege either religion or atheism.

⏩ Follow Atheist Ireland on Twitter @atheistie

An Increasingly Secular Ireland 🪶 Ten Years On From Interview In Charlie Hebdo

Michael Nugent In the five years since 2016, the percentage of religious marriages in Ireland has dropped from 67.4% to 56.7%, Roman Catholic marriages have dropped from 56.3% to 39%, and nonreligious marriages have risen from 32.6% to 43.3%.

1-May-2022

This shows the need for the State to remove the privilege it gives to the Catholic Church in running Irish schools and hospitals, and to Christianity generally in the religious oaths in our Constitution and in our charities and civil registration laws.

Ireland is no longer a Catholic country. We are now a pluralist country gradually dismantling Catholic privilege in our laws.

The marriage trend was exaggerated in 2020 when fewer people got married because of the Covid pandemic, and is now moving back towards the steady declines and rises from 2016 to 2019.

The marriage figures for 2021 are:

39% Roman Catholic
34.8% Civil Registry
8.6% Other Religions
8.5% Humanist Association
8% Spiritualist Union
1.1% Church of Ireland

Looking at the five-year trends from 2016 to 2021:

Religious marriages have dropped from 67.4% to 56.7%
Of these, four of every five is Roman Catholic
Roman Catholic marriages have dropped from 56.3% to 39%
Church of Ireland marriages have dropped from 1.7% to 1.1%
Marriages by other religions have risen from 5% to 8.6%
Spiritualist Union marriages have risen from 4.5% to 8%

Nonreligious marriages have risen from 32.6% to 43.3%
Of these, four of every five is Civil Registry and the other is Humanist
Civil Registry marriages have risen from 25.9% to 34.8%
And Humanist marriages have risen from 6.7% to 8.5%

See also this follow-up post, the 5-year drop in religious marriages, which addresses the actual numbers of marriages as opposed to the percentages.

Michael Nugent is Chair
of Atheist Ireland 

The 5-Year Rise In Nonreligious Marriages

Michael Nugent The fable of the blind men and the elephant is often used to show how humans cannot understand god. Here’s a version with a different ending.



A wise man met six scholars
who were having quite a fight
deciphering an elephant
without the gift of sight
Each described what they had felt
and claimed the beast must be
like a fan or wall or rope
or snake or spear or tree
♜ ♞ 
The wise man told the scholars
that as they all were blind
they could not see the elephant
with all its parts combined
They’d touched the ear or side or tail
or trunk or tusk or knee
of the great beast which misled each
because they could not see
♜ ♞ 
The wise man brought the scholars back
to where they met the beast
so he could show them how their
partial knowledge could increase
They reached the spot and the wise man
was mystified to see
a fan and wall and rope and snake
and spear and old pine tree

Michael Nugent is Chair
of Atheist Ireland 

The Elephant Fable With A Twist

Michael Nugent ✒ 23 March is international Atheist Day. 


By coincidence, on this day ten years ago, Jane Donnelly and I were at a conference in Ireland at which two Catholic theologians said that atheists are not fully human.

Prof Gavin D’Costa, a Catholic theologian from the University of Bristol, said religious revelation tells us what being fully human is, and atheists are not fully formed.

Dr Rik Van Nieuwenhove used an analogy of atheists seeing a photograph in two dimensions and Catholics seeing the same photograph in three dimensions.

This nonsense flows from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reads: “Man is by nature and vocation a religious being. Coming from God, going toward God, man lives a fully human life only if he freely lives by his bond with God.”

Most of the time they phrase it subtly, by saying that you require religious faith to be fully human, and sometimes they let the mask slip and explicitly say we are not fully human. For example, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor told BBC Radio 4 that atheists are not fully human because we leave out of our philosophy the search for what he calls God.

Progress in Ireland since 2012

Ironically, the conference Jane and I attended ten years ago was titled “Towards Mutual Ground: Religious Pluralism in Educational Practice in Irish Schools”. It was organised by the Mater Dei Irish Centre for Religious Education, the PDST, and hosts Mary Immaculate College.

Since then, Atheist Ireland has evolved into an established advocacy group. We raise secular issues within Ireland and at the United Nations and other human rights oversight bodies. We have led a successful campaign to remove the Irish blasphemy law.

Mary Immaculate College now takes a more inclusive position on learning about atheism. Jane and I have twice spoken about atheism and secularism to teacher training students at the college, and we are due to speak at a related event next month.

However, the Irish education system still treats atheists as second-class citizens, the state plans to give control of our new National Maternity Hospital to a Catholic religious order, and the constitution still requires the President, judges, and Taoiseach to swear a religious oath in order to take office.

Persecution in other countries

While we continue to fight this discrimination, atheists in other parts of the world face persecution. Humanists International annual Freedom of Thought Report says that:

  • At least 16 countries punish apostasy, 11 with death (Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Maldives, Qatar, Somalia, UAE, and Yemen), and 5 with prison (Bahrain, Comoros, Gambia, Kuwait, and Oman).
  • At least 83 countries punish blasphemy, 6 with death (Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Mauritania), 56 with a prison sentence, and 21 with a fine.

We must work together as atheists around the world to challenge these abuses of human rights. We should also work on this issue with members of minority religious faiths who are also persecuted in many countries.

For example, Atheist Ireland attended the United Nations Human Rights Committee when it was questioning Pakistan. We went with the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland, both of whose members are also persecuted in Pakistan.

Are atheists fully human yet?

Obviously we are, and we always have been. But we are not always treated as such. We are still discriminated against in Western countries and persecuted in many other countries.

But the world is becoming more secular, according to the World Values Survey, a long-term project run by a team of interdisciplinary social scientists.

As people move away from survival values and towards self-expression values, societies move away from traditional religious values and towards secular rational values. The world is moving in this direction, at different speeds in different regions.

Atheist Ireland will continue to campaign for an ethical, secular, world where States treat everybody equally regardless of our religious or nonreligious beliefs.

Michael Nugent is Chair
of Atheist Ireland 

Are Atheists Fully Human Yet?

Michael NugentThe religious oaths in the Irish Constitution for President and members of the Council of State still contravene human rights law, and today’s ruling by the European Court of Human Rights has not found otherwise.


Indeed, the European Court has previously found in the cases of Dimitras and Others v. Greece and Grzelak v Poland, that being forced to reveal your beliefs in order to avoid taking a religious oath, or being compelled to assume a stance from which it may be inferred whether or not you you have religious beliefs, is contrary to the human right of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.


All that the European Court has ruled is that the five specific people who took the legal challenge could not show that they personally were likely to be elected President of Ireland, or invited onto the Council of State, and that they personally had therefore not been victimised.

This means that a legal challenge against the oaths would probably require someone to be elected as President or be invited onto the Council of State, then refuse to swear the religious oath and takes a legal case to the European Court.

Atheist Ireland continues to campaign on this as a political issue. We run a One Oath for All Campaign. We want holders of public office to make a declaration to uphold the Constitution, with no reference to their personal religious or nonreligious beliefs.

This remains an important political campaign, as the Taoiseach and Tanaiste have to swear a religious oath, as they are member of the Council of State. When Eamon Gilmore was Tanaiste his legal advice was that he had to swear the oath in order to remain Tanaiste.

It is disgraceful that the Irish Government argued at the European Court that these religious oaths are “necessary in a democratic society.” Is this how the Government of a Republic politically treats citizens who are conscientious atheists or secularists?

Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have made clear that the State must respect the right to freedom of conscience and religious belief, in law and in practice, on a non-discriminatory basis.

Atheist Ireland raised this issue with the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2014, and the Human Rights Committee concluded that:

The State Party should take concrete steps to amend articles 12, 31 and 34 of the Constitution that require religious oaths to take up senior public office positions, taking into account the Committee’s general comment No. 22 (1993) concerning the right not to be compelled to reveal one’s thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief in public.

As recently as last October, the UN Human Rights Committee told Ireland:

Please report on the measures taken to ensure that the right to freedom of conscience and religious belief is fully respected, in law and in practice, on a non-discriminatory basis… Please indicate whether there have been any changes to the constitutional provisions requiring persons who take up certain senior public positions to take religious oaths.

The European Court of Human Rights has consistently found that the right to freedom of religion and belief is one of the foundations of a democratic society. The Court has also held that the right to manifest your religion or belief has a negative aspect.

This means that the State cannot oblige you to disclose your religion or beliefs. Nor can it oblige you to act in such a way that it is possible to conclude that you hold, or do not hold, religious beliefs. That is intervening in the sphere of your freedom of conscience.

We have removed the law against blasphemy. That is one step towards a secular State that respects equally everybody’s right to freedom of conscience. Removing these anachronistic religious oaths from our Constitution is the next step.

Michael Nugent is Chair
of Atheist Ireland 

European Court Case On Religious Oaths

Michael NugentEight years ago David Amess MP and I were on opposing sides at a debate in the Oxford Union. I argued that religion harms society, and David defended religion from his perspective as a Catholic. We disagreed fundamentally, but we did so peacefully and respectfully.


After the debate, Jane Donnelly and I had a friendly discussion with David about religion, society, and politics. He was a likeable, decent, and honourable man, who supported animal welfare and energy conservation as well as opposing abortion.
 

In the weeks before he was murdered at his constituency clinic, David supported the Alzheimer’s Society ‘Cure the Care’ campaign at the Conservative Party conference, and he called in Westminster for a debate on ending cruelty to animals.

His savage murder is primarily a personal tragedy for his family, friends, and colleagues. A good person, who dedicated his career to helping others, has had his life ended unjustly in horrific circumstances.

Like the murder five years ago of Jo Cox MP, this is also an attack on democracy. When violent extremists target public representatives, they do so to undermine the bonds of democracy that enable us to shape our future together with mutual respect.

These two murders should remind us that nonviolent democrats, from anywhere on the political spectrum, have more in common with each other than we have with violent authoritarians from anywhere on the political spectrum.

Michael Nugent is Chair
of Atheist Ireland 

The Murder Of David Amess MP

Michael Nugent In a democratic republic, the State should own and directly run the national maternity hospital. 


It should not cede control over this essential public service to any private body, never mind to a charity associated with the Catholic church, which has an appalling record of human rights abuses and an ethos that opposes reproductive rights for women.


Atheist Ireland campaigns for a secular healthcare system based on compassion, human rights and the medical needs of patients. No religious values should be imposed on patients who do not share those religious beliefs. The State should remove, not reinforce, the traditional privileges that religious bodies have in our healthcare provision.

Atheist Ireland also lobbies politicians of all parties for a secular education system. They all assure us that, if they were starting from scratch, they would not have given the Catholic church the influence that it has over our education system. So why are they actively doing the same thing while spending €800 million on our national maternity hospital?

If the government accepts a 99-year lease on the land that the hospital is built on, they would be knowingly passing this problem down to future generations. The politicians of the next century could then assure their constituents that, if they were starting from scratch, they would not have given the Catholic church this influence over the maternity hospital.

Scandalously, the government is spending €800 million of public money on a project that requires the Sisters of Charity to obtain permission from the Vatican to agree to it. The Vatican is the headquarters of a global religion that poses as a quasi-State when it suits its purposes. Its primary aim is not to provide healthcare, but to evangelise people into Catholicism.

The Vatican has Guidelines for the Administration of Assets in Institutes of Consecrated Life which state that:

The field of economics is a means of missionary activity for the church… [These assets] are ecclesiastical assets… Through financial transactions, vital choices are made which should reflect the evangelical witness… The ultimate responsibility for administrative, economic, or financial decisions can never be handed over to members of the laity or to those of other Institutes.

The Vatican has a Charter for Healthcare Workers, which states that:

Healthcare workers should be given a solid ethico-religious formation, which promotes in them an appreciation of human and Christian values and refines their moral conscience. There is need to develop in them an authentic faith and a true sense of morality, in a sincere search for a religious relationship with God, in whom all ideals of goodness and truth are based.

Recent referendums on marriage equality, abortion, and blasphemy, have shown a consistent majority in favour of secular government. Our politicians should heed this message, and the government should own and directly run the national maternity hospital.

Michael Nugent is Chair
of Atheist Ireland


The National Maternity Hospital

Atheist Ireland has made the following submission about Freedom of Thought to Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Mr Shaheed had called for inputs to a report he is compiling for the UN General Assembly on the topic.

Jane Donnelly & Michael Nugent

Contents

Internal — Freedom of Thought
External — Manifestation of Thought
Conflict of Rights when Manifesting Thought
Analysis of the Situation in Practice
4.1 The Right to Freedom of Thought
4.2 The Right to Not Reveal Your Thoughts
4.3 The Right to Not Be Penalised for Your Thoughts
4.4 The Right to Receive Information
4.5 The Right to Nonreligious Philosophical Convictions
4.6 The Situation in Ireland
4.7 The Irish Education System

1. Internal — Freedom of Thought


Freedom of opinion and belief are particular examples of freedom of thought. A thought is any idea that occurs in your mind. Two examples of thoughts are:

  • An opinion, which is a view or judgment about something, and
  • A belief, which is an acceptance that something is true or corresponds with reality.

In human rights terms, the words “religion and belief” refer to two subsets of all beliefs — religious beliefs and nonreligious philosophical convictions about life that amount to a coherent worldview and can shape a person’s conscience.


2. External — Manifestation of Thought

Freedom of expression, speech, behaviour, culture, and association are particular examples of the manifestation of freedom of thought.

  • You have the choice to keep your thoughts private or to manifest them by making them clear to others.
  • You can choose to manifest your thoughts by expressing them. This can include speech, behaviour, culture, and association.

Choosing whether or how to manifest your thoughts also has a correlation with freedom of conscience.


3. Conflict of Rights when Manifesting Thought

  • Each person’s internal Freedom of Thought is inviolable.
  • Each person’s external Manifestation of Thought is limited by the requirement to not violate the rights of others.

This can create conflicts of rights when different people manifest their thoughts through expression, speech, behaviour, culture, or association. The conflict can be made more difficult when the manifestation of thoughts contravene a person’s conscience.

4. Analysis of the Situation in Practice

4.1 The Right to Freedom of Thought

The right to Freedom of Thought is part of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It is an absolute right which cannot be interfered with in any circumstances.

4.2 The Right to Not Reveal Your Thoughts

Many States do not recognise the right to not reveal your thoughts, particularly when it comes to religious beliefs or nonreligious philosophical convictions.

This includes the right to not be forced to behave publicly in a manner that others can infer, even indirectly, what your religious beliefs or nonreligious philosophical convictions are.

  • This can happen where the State forces people to take religious oaths, or to publicly choose between taking a religious oath and a secular declaration, in order to take up public office or in any interaction with the State.
  • It can happen where the State is carrying out its obligation to provide education by delegating the running of schools to religious bodies that are allowed to run the schools in accordance with their religious ethos.
  • It can happen where technological advances enable the State and/or private corporations to indirectly monitor people’s thoughts, by tracking their online behaviour including their social media and web browsing history (as well as more directly through monitoring their online search history, where most people would have an expectation of privacy).
  • It may happen on a more serious level in the future, as further technological advances may enable neuroscience to decode what you are thinking from your brain activity.
It is important that the right to not reveal your thoughts is protected under the right to freedom of thought, which is absolute, and not merely under the right to privacy, which has to be balanced against other rights.

4.3 The Right to Not Be Penalised for Your Thoughts

Laws against what some people describe as ‘hate crimes’ must be based on human rights standards. We cannot change how people think and feel by making it illegal. We should tackle prejudice against groups through education and community leadership, and tackle prejudice-motivated crime through the law, where the prejudice is an aggravating factor as a motive for an existing crime.

Laws should be accurate, understandable, and enforceable. Their words and definitions should be coherent, universal and inclusive, with clear and justified boundaries, and free from ideological assumptions. A person should be able to know whether or not they are breaking it. Laws based on ambiguous or emotive words such as ‘hate’ cannot do this.

Social media means that many young people express their thoughts publicly. Years later they can be shamed for the expression of that thought even though they were immature when they expressed it. In some case people have been suspended and made apologise publicly for expressing a thought when they were young. There is a lack of understanding of the fact that most people change their thoughts as they grow and mature.

People can also be disproportionally penalised on social media or in their places of employment for expressing their current thoughts, where those thoughts are not illegal, but where other people find them offensive or deem them to be thoughts that should not be expressed. People can be pressured or shamed into not expressing their thoughts and beliefs, or into expressing thoughts and beliefs that they do not share, in their social media postings and bios.

4.4 The Right to Receive Information

The right to freedom of thought implies to right to seek and receive information that can inform the development of your thoughts.

This is recognised by resolution 59 of the UN General Assembly adopted in 1946, as well as by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

This is part of the problem with censorship and blasphemy laws. Not only do they interfere with the right to express information, but they also interfere with the right to seek and receive information.

It is also part of the problem with laws, or social media regulations, that prevent open reasonable debate on issues where rights come into conflict, such as the balance between freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and contentious social issues.

4.5 The Right to Nonreligious Philosophical Convictions

There is an established internationally recognised human right to be atheist, agnostic, secular, humanist, or in any other way free from religion. This human right is part of the fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. It applies equally to all persons, including persons with non-theistic and atheistic beliefs and supporters of secularism.

In 2019 the International Commission of Jurists, composed of 60 judges and lawyers from all regions of the world, published a Primer on International Human Rights Law and Standards on the Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion or Belief. Its opening paragraph unambiguously states that this is a wide-ranging right:

encompassing the right to freedom of thought and personal convictions in all matters, and protecting the profession and practice of different kinds of beliefs, whether theistic, non-theistic or atheistic, and the freedom not to disclose one’s religion or belief. International law also guarantees and protects the right not to have a religious confession.

Authoritarian theocrats frequently breach this right in practice. Islamist States enforce religious dogma and persecute atheists, dissident Muslims, and religious minorities. The Vatican claims to be a State when it suits, then evades human rights obligations by switching to claim to be a religion with its own rules.

These theocrats also deny that this human right exists, citing Catholic Canon Law or the Sharia-based Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. But the primacy of universal rights is enshrined in the key international human rights Treaties and associated Court judgments and must be upheld.

4.6 The Situation in Ireland

The Irish Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of thought. However, it does explicitly protect freedom of expression, conscience and religion, and those freedoms flow from and imply the right of freedom of thought.

In a 2011 High Court decision on blood transfusion for a baby, Mr Justice Hogan read into these provisions an implicit protection of freedom of thought, which covers both philosophical and religious thinking. He said:

Along with the guarantee of free speech in Article 40.6.1, Article 44.2.1 guarantees freedom of conscience and the free practice of religion. Taken together, these constitutional provisions ensure that, subject to limited exceptions, all citizens have complete freedom of philosophical and religious thought, along with the freedom to speak their mind and to say what they please in all such matters.

Articles 12, 31 and 34 of the constitution include obligatory religious oaths for the President, judges, and members of the Council of State which includes the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister), Chief Justice, President of the High Court, chairs of the Dail and Seanad, and Attorney General. These oaths effectively preclude conscientious atheists and agnostics from holding these important positions.

In 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Committee told Ireland: Ireland should amend articles 12, 31 and 34 of the Constitution that require religious oaths to take up senior public office positions, taking into account the Committee’s general comment No. 22 (1993) concerning the right not to be compelled to reveal one’s thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief in public.

In 2020, the Irish Government decided to remove the requirement to swear a religious oath or ask to make a secular affirmation when making affidavits for court cases. This requirement remains for witnesses and jurors who are present at court cases, thus both breaching their human right to freedom of conscience and potentially biasing jurors for or against them.

In 2012 the Civil Registration Act was amended to allow secular bodies to nominate solemnisers for civil marriage ceremonies. This Act overtly discriminates between religious and secular bodies on a number of grounds.

Atheist ex-Muslims in the Irish asylum process face two particular problems. One, the state sometimes insists that they are still Muslims who are safe to be sent back to states where they would be in danger. Two, the lack of privacy in Asylum Centres puts them in a perilous position as they must hide their beliefs from some Muslim asylum seekers.

4.7 The Irish Education System

The Irish State carries out its obligation to provide education by delegating the running of schools to religious bodies that are allowed to run the schools in accordance with their religious ethos. These schools have exemptions from the Irish employment and equality laws that allow them to discriminate on the ground of religion against students, parents, and teachers.

The Irish education system cedes control of most publicly-funded schools to patron bodies, almost all religious. Nearly 90% of state-funded public primary schools are run solely by the Catholic Church. Most of the remaining primary schools are run by minority faith churches, or by a nonreligious patron body called Educate Together.

Nearly half of all state-funded public second-level schools are run by the Catholic Church. Most of the rest are run by state Education & Training Boards and are described as multi-denominational, but many of these are run in partnership with the Catholic Church or the Church of Ireland. There are currently no fully secular or non-denominational schools in Ireland.

These patron bodies are allowed to determine the ethos of the school, which in most cases is Catholic, and that ethos permeates throughout the whole school day. Even many schools directly run by the state, under Education & Training Boards, have a Catholic ethos and engage in “faith formation”. The Oireachtas (parliament) Education Committee has concluded that multiple patronage and ethos as a basis for policy can lead to segregation and inequality, and that the objectives of admission policy should be equality and integration.

In most Irish schools, children are encouraged to publicly express their beliefs, and the beliefs of their families, in an atmosphere which promotes a particular religious view, which in most schools is that of the religious majority Catholic Church. Children are also taught to respect beliefs (not merely to respect the right to hold beliefs, but to respect the actual content of the beliefs). No consideration is given to the right to not reveal their or their families’ beliefs. Some children from minority belief families will not want to feel different, so they are susceptible to revealing their beliefs even if they don’t want to.

The ethos of schools permits sex education to be delivered through the lens of the patron body, which in most cases is the Catholic Church. In 2019 the Oireachtas Education Committee recommended, as Atheist Ireland had asked it to do, that the law be changed to remove the role of ethos as a barrier to the objective and factual delivery of sex education curricula. This is the first time that an Oireachtas Committee has recognised that students have a right to an objective education for the State curriculum, even in denominational schools, outside of the patron’s religion or values programmes. The change has not yet been legislated for.

In 2020, Atheist Ireland obtained a legal opinion that the Constitutional right to not attend religious instruction in schools extends to the right to be supervised or given a different subject. This right is not vindicated in Irish schools.

One consequence of the legal opinion obtained by Atheist Ireland is that a teacher is placed in a legal conflict involving their own conscience, with regard to adherence to Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act versus respecting the constitutional rights of the child under Article 44.2.4 to not attend religious instruction, the inalienable rights of parents to respect for their convictions under Article 42.1 and the rights of atheists, humanists, and secularists to freedom of conscience under Article 44.2.1 and personal rights under 40.3.1.

Atheist Ireland ➖ Promoting Atheism, Reason And An Ethical Secular State.

The Right To Freedom Of Thought