Speaking in the Seanad this Thursday, Senators Jillian van Turnhout and Ivana Bacik both asked Eamon Gilmore, who is Ireland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, to take a strong line in support of Alexander.

Atheist Ireland thanks both Senators for their quick response to this case. We also thank Senator Ivana Bacik for her request in the Seanad on Wednesday for a full debate on the Irish blasphemy law and its national and international impact.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout:

I welcome the Tánaiste’s commitment to Internet freedom through his work as chair of the OSCE. It is on this note that I draw his attention to the recent arrest of a 31 year old Indonesian civil servant, whose name I will supply to the Tánaiste separately, for having questioned the existence of God on his Facebook profile page. He has been charged under Indonesian law prohibiting blasphemy and faces five years imprisonment if found guilty.

The reason I raise this case with the Tánaiste is that Indonesia is one of a number of Islamic states that has cited Irish blasphemy legislation in support and defence of its own. Irish blasphemy law was cited as an authority in support of Indonesia’s constitutional court decision to uphold its law prohibiting blasphemy in 2010.

While I fully support the repeal of this law, I do not believe the intention of the blasphemy legislation introduced by Mr. Dermot Ahern in 2009 was to infringe upon the rights to freedom of expression, religion, belief and conscience in Ireland. Nor do I think it is a desirable consequence that our law is being used to support such infringements, including against Christian religions in Islamic countries anywhere else in the world.

I consider this as much a foreign affairs concern as a domestic concern. I welcome that this law is up for review in the programme for Government.

Senator Ivana Bacik:

I would like to echo Senator van Turnhout in urging the Tánaiste to take a strong line in support of the Indonesian civil servant she mentioned. We need to examine our blasphemy law because it is clearly having a repressive effect in Indonesia, Pakistan and other countries. I know the matter will be reviewed as part of the constitutional convention, but I believe the law should be repealed. Perhaps progress can be made more quickly in this regard.

Here is the Seanad transcript of the above contributions and here is Senator Bacik’s request the previous day for a full debate on the Irish blasphemy law. Atheist Ireland asks everybody who reads this to contact your local politicians, your local Indonesian embassy, and the Indonesian Government to call for the immediate release of Alexander Aan.

Here is Senator Bacik’s contribution on the Seanad Order of Business:

I call for a debate on blasphemy law. There was an excellent briefing yesterday from Professor David Nash of Oxford Brookes University, a leading expert on blasphemy, who spoke about the international impact of the passage of the 2009 Defamation Act in Ireland, particularly section 36, which created a new statutory offence of blasphemy. There was an excellent debate on it in this House, and many colleagues participated in it.

There is an issue as there was an adverse international impact, with certain countries adopting Irish arguments on blasphemy and using this to bolster prejudice against different religions, even Christian religions in Islamic countries. We have also seen that Ireland has gone against the EU norm in adopting a new statutory definition of blasphemy based on a definition of offence.

It is outdated and I am glad it is up for review in the programme for Government. We must move forward by having a debate in the House on how we can ensure incitement to religious hatred laws are strengthened in the Statute Book. We no longer need an offence of blasphemy.

Overview

Atheist Ireland wants a secular Irish State, where we each have the right to our religious or nonreligious philosophical beliefs, and where the State remains neutral on these beliefs. Religious States promote religion, atheist States promote atheism, and secular States promote neither. A secular state is the only way to protect equally the rights of religious and nonreligious people.

Step 1: Secular Constitution

• Remove the requirement for the President, judges and Council of State to swear a religious oath in the presence of Almighty God (Arts 12, 31, 34), and for the President and judges to ask God to direct and sustain them (12, 34), and replace these with a single neutral declaration that does not reveal any information about the person’s religious beliefs.
• Remove the references to all authority coming from the Holy Trinity and our obligations to our divine Lord Jesus Christ (preamble); powers of government deriving under God from the people (6); blasphemy being a crime (40); the homage of public worship being due to Almighty God and the state holding his name in reverence (44); and the glory of God (closing line).
• Amend Article 44, on Religion, to explicitly give equal protection to religious and nonreligious philosophical believers. Examine and amend other Articles that are unduly influenced by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Step 2: Secular Education

• Establish a secular State education system, that makes no distinction between children based on religious beliefs, and ensure that secular primary schools are widely available.
• Ensure that all schools convey all parts of the curriculum, including religious education, in an ‘objective, critical and pluralistic manner’, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights and recommended to the Irish Government by the Irish Human Rights Commission.
• Provide effective remedies for parents to vindicate, in practice and law, their human right to ensure that their children’s education is in conformity with their convictions.

Step 3: Secular Lawmaking

• End the prayer that starts each parliamentary day which asks the Christian God to direct the actions and every word and work of our parliamentarians, through Christ Our Lord.
• Examine all existing and future laws to ensure that there is one law for all, based on human and civil rights and not on religious beliefs.
• Remove the law against blasphemy from the Defamation Act 2009;
• Repeal Section 7 of the Equal Status Act 2000 and Sections 12 and 37 of the Employment Equality Act 1998, which allow schools, teacher training colleges and hospitals to discriminate on religious grounds.
• Amend the Charities Act 2009, which includes the advancement of religion as a charitable purpose, and tax religious organizations on income that is not for genuine charitable purposes.

Step 4: Secular Government

• Ensure that neither the Government, nor any institutions of the State, give preferential treatment or access to any organization on the basis of their religious or nonreligious beliefs.
• Until this ideal is reached, ensure that nonreligious philosophical organizations are given the same treatment and access as are religious organizations.

Step 5: Secular Courts

• Remove the requirement for judges to swear a religious oath, and replace it with a single neutral declaration that does not reveal any information about the judge’s religious beliefs.
• Remove the requirement for defendants, witnesses and jurors to choose between a religious or nonreligious oath, and replace these with a single neutral declaration (or a question asked by the judge) that does not reveal any information about the person’s religious beliefs.

We also welcome that seven in every ten Irish people want religious education to focus on teaching students about different religions rather than promoting one set of religious beliefs, and that less than two in every ten disagree that this should happen.

It is a fundamental test of democracy that the Government stays strictly neutral on questions of religious and nonreligious philosophical beliefs, thus protecting equally the right of every citizen to freedom of conscience.

We The Citizens is calling for a national Citizens’ Assembly to give ordinary Irish people a structured direct say in our political decisions. You can read the full report on the We The Citizens website.

Mary Davis is the first candidate to respond. If you want to help us to establish the other six candidates’ positions on these issues, here are the questions that we have asked them and to the candidates’ postal addresses, email addresses and phone numbers.

Please contact them and remind them to respond to the questions as soon as possible, so that we can make an informed decision when we vote for our next President.

The five questions that we have asked the candidates

1. If elected President, what specifically will you do to ensure that you and the institutions of the State treat atheists and agnostics as equal citizens? What specifically will you do to make atheist and agnostic citizens feel welcome and included under your Presidency?

2. Do you personally agree that, as a President elected by the people, many of whom do not believe in a god, you should be required to publicly ask a god to “direct” you in your work as our President?

3. Are you comfortable with the fact that you are running in an election that excludes many conscientious Irish citizens simply because they do not believe in a god? If elected President, what specifically will you do to try to change this situation?

4. Are you comfortable with the fact that as President your Council of State must exclude many conscientious Irish citizens simply because they do not believe in a god? If elected President, what specifically will you do to try to change this situation?

5. If elected President, will you seek to address the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Nation under Article 13.2 of the Constitution about the following matter of national and public importance: that the Irish State should treat atheist, agnostic and religious citizens and organisations as equal under the law.

How you can remind the candidates to reply

The questions were sent two weeks ago, and were followed up with reminders. The campaigns have each told us that they will reply, but only one has done so to date. In fairness, from the tone of the follow-up contacts, it seems to be because they are busy and not because they are unwilling to reply.

That is why we are now asking other people to remind them, in order to focus their attention on it. Ideally we want to publish the responses together but if there is much more of a delay we will publish those which we have received.

Please ask them to reply either to the postal address on the letter that they received from Atheist Ireland, or by email to chair (at) atheist.ie

You can contact them at:

Sean Gallagher
14 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2
together@seangallagher.com
085-8831155

Michael D Higgins
17 Ely Place, Dublin 2
info@michaeldhiggins.ie
01-6784710

Martin McGuinness
101-102 Capel Street, Dublin 1
admin@thepeoplespresident.ie
01-8740194

Gay Mitchell
Fine Gael, 51 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2
gay.mitchell@europarl.europa.eu
finegael@finegael.com
01-6198444

Senator David Norris
Seanad Éireann, Kildare Street, Dublin 2
david.norris@oireachtas.ie
01-6183104

Dana Rosemary Scallon
c/o Lindsey Holmes Publicity,
The Rere, 6 Cullenwood Park, Dublin 6
lindsey@lhpublicity.ie
01-4970313

Some background information on the questions

In the 2006 census, almost a quarter of a million people either ticked the ‘No Religion’ box or else did not answer the Religion question. In the 2011 census we believe that figure will be considerably higher.

Yet the Irish State discriminates against atheists and agnostics in many ways. This discrimination includes imposing religious declarations on the President, Judges and members of the Council of State; failing to provide a secular education system that respects the right to freedom of conscience of atheist and agnostic citizens; explicitly allowing religious organisations but not nonreligious philosophical organisations to opt out of equality, employment and taxation laws; and passing a blasphemy law that treats religious beliefs with more respect than nonreligious philosophical beliefs.

Two of these matters relate directly to the role of President.

Under Article 12.8 of the Constitution, the President must, in order to take office, take and subscribe publicly a declaration that begins with the words “In the presence of Almighty God…” and that ends with the words “May God direct and sustain me.” This religious oath effectively prevents Irish citizens who are conscientious atheists or agnostics from becoming President. It is the equivalent of requiring a religious citizen to swear an oath that begins with the words “In the absence of Almighty God…” This requirement runs contrary to case law in the European Court of Human Rights. The State should not require a citizen, even indirectly, to reveal information about their religious beliefs in this way.

Under Article 31 of the Constitution, the President is aided by a Council of State, consisting of certain serving and former politicians and judges, and up to seven other persons appointed at the absolute discretion of the President. The members of the Council of State must, at their first meeting, take and subscribe publicly a declaration that begins with the words “In the presence of Almighty God…” This religious oath effectively prevents Irish citizens who are conscientious atheists or agnostics from serving as members of the Council of State, and it prevents the President from appointing such persons as they would be unable to accept the appointment.

The HDIM is a forum where OSCE participating States together with Partners for Co-operation, civil society, OSCE institutions and field operations and other international organizations discuss the implementation of human dimension commitments that were adopted by consensus at prior OSCE Summits or Ministerial Meetings.

Michael Nugent and Jane Donnelly attended the Conference on behalf of Atheist Ireland.

Working sessions are held on each day of the Conference, on subjects relevant to particular OSCE commitments. The particular session that we wanted to attend was on ‘Freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief ’ and this was on Tuesday 27th of September. We intended to take the opportunity to speak on behalf of Atheist Ireland at this meeting.

One of the vital points with regard to these meetings is that NGO’s have an opportunity to address the full conference. Delegations from the Irish Government and the Holy See attended the Conference, among many other OSCE members states.

We had arrived in Warsaw on the Monday morning and took the opportunity in the afternoon to attend a meeting on ‘Freedom of Expression, free media and information’. Here we examined how the system worked as this is a huge conference with delegations from various countries, interpreters and NGO’s. Approximately sixty NGO’s also decided to speak but we were not letting this opportunity pass us by and arrived early on Tuesday morning for registration. The more NGO’s that wish to speak the less time every organisation gets with the result that speakers must constantly reduce their speech. The first lot of speakers usually gets more time to speak but this reduces as the hours pass. We were second in line to speak and the following is the spoken contribution by Michael Nugent, chairperson of Atheist Ireland, to the OSCE Human Dimension conference.

“There is an interesting phrase on the OSCE website, in which the OSCE pledges to combat “all forms of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination, including anti-Semitism and discrimination against Christians and Muslims.” But why are these three religions given this special emphasis? Surely it is members of smaller religions and atheists who are most subject to religious discrimination and intolerance?

The Holy See delegate said yesterday, and I agree with him, that we should respect the dignity of the human person. This comes from an organisation whose Cardinal Murphy OʼConnor has told the BBC that atheists are not fully human. Can you imagine the outcry if an atheist was to say that about members of any religious organisation?

In Ireland, we have a new government that has inherited a system which discriminates seriously against atheists. We are starting a presidential election campaign in which atheists cannot run, because you have to swear a religious oath to take office. The same applies to becoming a judge in Ireland. Ireland became the first country in the 21st century to pass a blasphemy law a couple of years ago. Our education system is controlled 90% at primary level by the Roman Catholic Church, which uses a system of permeating a Roman Catholic ethos throughout the entire curriculum. I am hopeful, or certainly more optimistic, that under our new government these issues can be tackled, but they are urgent and they need to be resolved as soon as possible.

At an international level, a conference in Dublin earlier this year launched a newly restructured group called atheist Alliance International, which will be advocating for atheism and secularism on an international level. We have passed a declaration called the Dublin Declaration on Secularism, which is available on the OSCE website, under Atheist Ireland’s submission, and I urge all delegates to read that and to support it.

I will end by saying that religious States promote religion. Atheist States promote atheism. We want a secular State, that promotes neither, that respects everybody’s rights and that is neutral on the issue of religion. A secular state is the only way to protect equally the rights of religious and nonreligious people. Thank you very much.”

You will find at this link the longer written submission from Atheist Ireland to the Conference.

The delegation from the Irish Government had a right of reply to our comments but they did not take up this opportunity.

Side meetings also take place during the lunch break and in the evening after the main session ends. We attended two of these meetings.

The first one was held by The Foreign & Commonwealth Office, United Kingdom. The title of the meeting was: Developing a Strategy for securing Freedom of Religion or Belief in the OSCE region. The purpose of this side event was to discuss how Member States can promote and defend freedom of religion or belief and the OSCE’s role in helping them do so. There were guest speakers and we again had an opportunity to make ourselves heard.

The second meeting was held by the European Humanist Federation. The title of the meeting was: How can Freedom of Religion and Belief be reconciled with Equality and Non-Discrimination in Democratic Societies? We succeeded in having more than a passing input into this event.

We also took the opportunity to circulate and discuss the issues with various organisations and delegates. We made a lot of contacts and got information or various organisations. It was a very worthwhile experience and the only downside was that there was not much of an opportunity to eat and consequently we both arrived back a little thinner.

Why the Irish state should pay judges, policemen and soldiers to attend catholic mass in this day and age is beyond me. But I was not surprised when I recalled the religious worship forced onto me and colleagues in a previous occupation…that being a member of the Defence Forces.

In the autumn of 1989 I joined the Irish Army Air Corps as an apprentice aircraft mechanic. Initial training comprised of basic infantry training to 2 star private standards, a further 18 months academic technical training was followed by two years on the job training in aircraft hangars or workshops. This was in turn followed by some more military training to pass out as 3 Star Private with a technical grade. There were 50 of us in the 53rd Apprentice Class, disparagingly known as the “50 turds”.

Our first full day in the Air Corps saw an introduction by the camp chaplain. He set about drawing an overview of the Defence Forces rank structure on a blackboard from top generals all the way down to the very lowest ranked apprentices. He pointed out with great glee to a classroom full of eager 16 and 17 year olds that we were the lowest of the low and I got the feeling that he considered us the dregs of the Air Corps.

We were told as apprentices that chaplains had equivalent rank to Commandants and as such this put them in the officer rank structure, way above us men. This particular chaplain appeared to relish his “rank” and his ego let it show, this was in your face Catholicism whether you liked it or not.

After our initial 4 months of military training we were sent to the apprentice school in January 1990 to study such subjects as airframes, propulsion, electrics, hydraulics and other subjects such as religion. Not only were we “trained killers” learning how to fix airplanes, but the Department of Defence also saw fit to instruct us in catholic faith and morality. So our last class from 1530 to 1630 every Friday was religious instruction and you could not be excused.

Also during the year there was a religious “celebration” called the mission. The mission was a retreat over 3 days with long masses every day I think it was a devotion to “our lady” or something like that because the Defence Forces is a big fan of hers. Again there was no opt out you had to go to mass. I remember being caught falling asleep in one of the masses by a young 2nd Lt who took me aside and snarled at me that “the mission was not an excuse to have a honk”.

During the two years of academic training we had to live in the barracks in the style of a boarding school, only let out every Wednesday to socialise until the 2359 curfew or every first weekend to go home to family. Other weekends would find enforced study periods and “dirty details” such as litter detail, raking grass or cleaning sheds. Once Lt. “Shep” Mc Cormack ordered 50 of us to rake a rugby pitch free of grass because the officers were due to have a match. Our orders were we weren’t going anywhere until the pitch was raked, no home to mammy, no out to see girlfriends etc. There was only one snag, there were no rakes only 2 sweeping brushes. So 48 of us got down on our hunkers and walked backwards through the field raking the grass with our fingers.

Sunday mornings on the other hand meant we were ordered onto parade in our best nip & tucker for mass. Once we were marched to the church going inside was optional and sometimes depending on the NCO or officer in charge we who opted out could go back to bed or go to breakfast. On other occasions those non-religious were ordered to stand outside the church until mass was over, sometimes in the rain.
Once we left the apprentice school and stopped living in we were assigned to particular units “up camp” either in technical workshops or aircraft squadrons. But once a month, I think on the first Friday, there was a mass parade whereby every member of the Air Corps in Baldonnel had to fall in on the square in their No. 1 uniform and over 1,000 of us were marched up to the church. This time entry was optional but I remember on many occasions the Regimental Sargent Major ordering lower ranks to attend and if some outlined their lack of faith they were ordered to stand outside the church in whatever weather until mass was over. I subsequently found out that if the resident priest was away the substitute priest was paid by the number of attendees at the mass, so everything makes sense in hindsight when you follow the money trail.

Another big pomp and ceremony religious occasion was the annual blessing of the airplanes and the odd tool box, spanner or multimeter. The first airplane blessing I attended was I think in 1990 and an airplane fatally crashed the next day, without so much as a refund from the priest. One aircraft blessing ceremony I remember took place in BFTS hangar with a couple of airplanes washed & polished and organised around a makeshift altar. Again all personnel were forced to attend the blessing but the “padre” announced that those who did not wish to stay for mass were free to leave.

We all fell out of ranks to make towards the exit but it was blocked by the Regimental Sergeant Major who ordered everyone back to mass. I remember one particular corporal (or maybe sergeant) who would not go back to the mass and he was promptly arrested and placed in detention under armed guard, this being 1995 not 1895.

I became an atheist around the age of 17 or shortly after I joined the Air Corps although on my entry application I had put my religion down as RC. It was interesting to note that my application needed to be accompanied by a parental “Form of Consent” because we were technically child soldiers. This “Form of Consent” noted that I lived in the “parish” of Ashbourne, not a town. I had to get my father to sign this form because it stated “Where the applicant’s father is alive and both parents reside together, the father must sign this form” it then had to be witnessed by either a commissioned officer serving in the defence forces, a member of the Garda Siochana not below rank of Sergeant or a clergyman.

In my later years of service I attempted to officially change my religion from RC to none but when I tried I was ridiculed in the orderly room and my request was dismissed. A day or two later I was phoned by a recently promoted corporal and notified that I was being detailed to present gifts to the altar at the annual airplane blessing ceremony. I thought this was a wind up related to my attempt to officially change my religion and promptly told him to “fuck off”. I found myself very quickly having to apologise to said corporal but point out that I didn’t believe in any god and definitely was not presenting gifts at a religious ceremony. I subsequently found myself washing dishes for a month in the cookhouse and believed I was being religiously persecuted only to find out weeks later I was in fact being punished for some other simultaneous misdemeanour.

In my later years in the Air Corps the chaplain that served was a nice humble chap but he still spend his day pushing religion and attempting to evangelise the flock. If you ever bumped into him he was always offering prayer books or invitations to mass. This was repeated in every barracks up and down the country, there was a priest on “commandant” salary of up to €68k with fuck all else to do but preach to personnel going about their jobs as soldiers, sailors or airmen. Mass was held in every barracks every day and you were free to leave your work to attend.

Some of the chaplains I am sure were bored out of their tree but some very much got into the drinking and socialising that was army life. Some chaplains even did unusual things like paratrooper courses and commando type courses, indeed the chaplain of Gormanston barracks lost his sight in one eye and fractured his skull jumping off a bridge into Blessington lake. It wouldn’t surprise me one little bit if there is an Irish Chaplain out there that is a trained sniper.

It is interesting to note that I signed up to the Air Corps at age 17 for a 9 year contract and if you wanted to leave the Defence Forces before the 9 years were up you had to pay up to £5,000 to buy out your service. There was one provision in the regulations however, if you wanted to leave the Air Corps to join the priesthood the £5,000 was waived. So to be useful somewhere else cost £5,000 but to be a professional charlatan was free.

Overall I spent 9 happy years in the Air Corps and enjoyed them greatly, learnt a lot and made some great friends and on some occasions I even did some work, it is just a pity that religion had to impinge on your working day to a level you just couldn’t imagine in civvy street.

The number serving in the Defence Forces now stands around the 10,000 mark and, for this number, the State sees fit to “employ” 17 Catholic chaplains on salaries of between €58,000 and €68,000 per annum with an unearned military rank equivalent to Commandant.

The question must be asked, why do the Defence Forces employ priests? Why is more than €1m handed over by the State to the Catholic Church to pay chaplains? While private citizens have done much to free their lives of Catholic Church influence, the state institutions are still held firmly in its grasp.

The Mater Dei Institute is at it again.

Link to the pdf of their Submission to the Forum on Education

In their Submission to the Forum on Education they again recommend the Toledo Guiding Principles but state that this education cannot be adequately described by the use of the terms such as “objective”.

These people even quote from the Toledo Guiding Principles but conveniently leave out Page 68 – State neutrality and opt out rights.

“Under International Standards, states have considerable latitude with respect to providing religious education but may not seek to indoctrinate pupils in a particular worldview through the educational system against the wishes of the pupils’ parents. The European Court of human Rights has made clear that:-

The State, in fulfilling the functions assumed by it in regard to education and teaching, must take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. The state is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might not be considered as not respecting parents’ religious and philosophical convictions. This is the limit that must not be exceeded.

The State may satisfy this duty of neutrality either by designing a curriculum that is itself sufficiently impartial and balanced or, in those instances in which the state provides instruction in a particular religion or belief, by granting rights to opt out on the ground of conscientious objection. This right must be realizable in practice, and not a mere theoretical possibility. Moreover, the requisite neutrality would be compromised if pupils were subjected to any disadvantage discrimination or stigma on account of the exercise of this right to be exempted from such classes, or elements of classes.”

What do they not understand about the words ‘objective’ and this is the limit that must not be exceeded. This is something that we must be very careful about as Atheist Ireland supports the Toledo Guiding Principles. We need to ensure that if the Toledo Guiding Principles are introduced it is not the Toledo Guiding Principles according to the Mater Dei Institute which is a foundation of the Archdiocese of Dublin.

One father, whose young child has been shunned by his local community, had this to say:

“People seem to think that I was motivated by wanting to cause trouble, but they have no idea of the lengths I went to to try to solve the problem before going public with it. They don’t know the full story, and they don’t seem to want to find out. It’s very strange that over a difference in opinion, a child gets punished. I’m very surprised by that. I thought we could all just agree to differ and move on, but apparently not.”

Read the whole article here.

Parents interested in finding out more about this issue and their rights can do so by emailing us here, joining our forums or finding us on Facebook.