One of the most amazing twenty seconds in English football has been captured on video by fans, bringing to life the euphoria that sport at its best can bring.

In last week’s Championship Play Off Semi Final, Leicester City were awarded a penalty kick in the final minute of stoppage time against Watford. If they scored, they would win 3-2 on aggregate. If they missed, the tie would go to extra time.

It looked like an injustice that would be talked about for years, as Leicester City’s Anthony Knockaert seemed to have dived to win the penalty.

But Watford’s goalkeeper Manuel Almunia saved Knockaert’s penalty, and blocked a rebound attempt. Then Watford defenders cleared the ball upfield, leading to a winning goal from Troy Deeney just before the final whistle.

This is how television viewers saw that incredible twenty seconds.

However, with the proliferation of Internet videos, we can now experience that moment from the perspective of fans at the game. Here are four videos that show why I love football and love the Internet.

As a bonus, here is the reaction of Sky Sports commentator Johnny Phillips.

Jane Donnelly and I wrote a chapter on secular education and human rights for the book ‘Towards Mutual Ground – Pluralism, Religious Education and Diversity in Irish Schools’ edited by Gareth Byrne and Patricia Kieran and published last week by Columba Press.

Other contributors to the book include Dermot Lane, Patricia Kieran, Robert Jackson, Terence Merrigan, Suzanne Dillon, Andrew McGrady, Marie Parker-Jenkins, Gavin D’Costa, Anne Looney, Elizabeth Osewska, Gareth Byrne, Niall Coll, Anne Hession, Jones Irwin, Rik Von Nieuwenhove and Michael Hayes.

Here is an extract from the chapter by Jane and me.

Only Secular Schools Respect Every Person’s Human Rights Equally

There is one fundamental question that informs all debate about pluralism and patronage in education. That question is posed here as an option:

1. Do you wish to bring about an education system that satisfies the desires of a majority of parents and children, (perhaps to satisfy the desires of those who happen to share your own personal religious beliefs) regardless of the wishes of minority groups?

2. Alternatively do you wish to bring about an education system that respects equally the human rights of all parents and all children, without sacrificing the human rights of a minority in order to satisfy the desires of a majority?

The manner in which a person answers these foundational questions determines what conclusions they arrive at.

It is understandable that many parents, and representatives of particular religions, have as their priority an education system that satisfies their own desires, and the desires of those who think like them. However the role of the state should be to counteract this self-centred approach, and to ensure that the education system respects equally the human rights of all parents and all children. In practice, the only way to ensure this is for the state to establish a secular education system.

A secular education system would be neutral on the question of religion and non-religion, and it would allow further educational options to develop as a supplement and not a replacement to that secular system. Religious schools or atheist schools should be an added extra for parents who want to avail of them, if they can afford them. However having religious schools as the foundation of the educational system creates only the illusion of choice.

Secular Schools

This chapter argues that society should be pluralist and not the state. Indeed, the only way to protect the rights of everybody in a pluralist society is for the state to be secular. The state has a positive obligation to ensure fairness for everybody. The State should not be a partisan player that focuses on the desires of the majority ahead of everybody’s rights. Furthermore, contrary to the belief of many people in Ireland, there is no human right to have the state fund a religious education for every family in the country.

In advance of outlining why secular schools must be the foundation of an equality-based education system, it is important to explain that a secular school is not identical to an atheist school. If a religious school would teach that a god exists and an atheist school would teach that no gods exist, then a secular school would be neutral on the question of religion. Secular schools do not teach that gods either do or do not exist. Instead, a secular school teaches children in a critical, objective and pluralistic way about the different beliefs that different people have about gods, and leaves it up to parents and churches to teach specific religious beliefs outside of school hours.

There are good philosophical reasons for establishing secular schools that are neutral on the question of religion. It is good for society that all children can be educated together. The recent history of Northern Ireland illustrates how segregated schooling contributed to the difficulty children experienced in understanding and respecting each other across religious divides. Secular schools bring children together. They teach children subjects that have a basis in scientific fact, such as mathematics and languages and history and critical thinking. Secular schools teach children common ethical values such as fairness, tolerance, compassion, justice and civic cooperation. They teach them about different religious beliefs and help them to understand other beliefs and respect other people. Therefore, outside of school hours, the children’s parents and churches can teach them more about their own specific beliefs about the nature of reality and personal morality.

Secular Education and Human Rights

In practical terms, the establishment of secular schools is the only way to ensure that everybody has their human rights respected with regard to education. The education policy of Atheist Ireland is based on the human right to be educated without being indoctrinated with religion and to be free from proselytism. Atheist Ireland is equally opposed to children being indoctrinated with atheism.

This policy is based on international human rights legislation. In considering the demand for diversity, the human right to respect the religious and philosophical convictions of all parents, and not just those of a majority, should not only be considered but guaranteed without discrimination in the Irish educational system. By ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights and various other United Nations Conventions, the Irish State has already agreed to guarantee to respect all parents’ religious and philosophical convictions in the Irish education system, and not just those of a majority.

In theory, it could be possible to respect everybody’s rights by having different schools for parents and pupils of every religion, in addition to schools for parents and pupils of no religion, and to have enough of each of these schools built and operating in every part of Ireland to make it possible to vindicate every parent’s rights in practice. However, in reality, this is financially and logistically impossible. In a pluralist society, the only way for an education system to vindicate everybody’s rights to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and to respect the convictions of all parents as opposed to the majority, is to establish a state secular education system that is neutral on the question of religion. For it is simply not feasible for the State to support financially the funding of various types of secular or religious schools in every area. Delivering the education system through private bodies where the state funds education on the basis of a particular majority in a given area instead of protecting the human rights of individuals, only results in segregation, discrimination and the denial of basic human rights.

Plurality of patronage will never achieve pluralism in education as no state can guarantee provision of education in accordance with the religious or nonreligious affiliation of every child’s parents. Therefore the patronage system cannot safeguard the preservation of the ‘democratic society’ as conceived by the European Convention. The European Court of Human Rights has stated that the ‘travaux prèparatoires’ of Article II of Protocol 1 (the Right to Education) of the European Convention aims at safeguarding the possibility of pluralism in education which possibility is essential for the preservation of a ‘democratic society’ as conceived by the Convention.

It must also be stressed that the patronage system cannot achieve respect for the religious and philosophical convictions of all parents, because human rights are guaranteed to individuals and not to the religious majority in a given area. The current Irish situation of education represents an abuse of a dominant position. The patronage system in Ireland reinforces the identification of members of society on religious grounds and the provision of services according to religious affiliation. This patronage system coerces parents into identifying with various religious groups in society, with whom they have no real affinity (especially in situations where their children might be refused access to the local school in the event of a shortage of places) simply to access the educational system. In effect parents are being forced to uphold a school’s religious ethos through the act of procuring an education for their children.

Remainder of chapter

The remainder of this chapter covers the United Nations and Ireland’s education system and the impact of the Irish education system on non-religious parents.

The book is published by Columba Press and arose from two conferences held on pluralism in Irish education, in Mater Dei Institute of Education in Dublin in 2011 and in Mary Immaculate College in Limerick in 2012.

This is a response 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.

1. Response to Dick Spicer’s open letter to Atheist Ireland

Dick Spicer: 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).

I agree with Dick that it is healthy for Irish society and its development to have Atheist Ireland and the HAI promoting our respective agendas. And I think Dick is modestly understating the role that he has personally played in advancing secularism in Ireland over the decades. We should all remember that we are friends and colleagues, discussing differences of strategy in trying to bring about broadly the same goals over lifetimes of voluntary campaigning.

Dick Spicer: It pains me doubly therefore to see a degree of confusion emerging which might damage the Irish secular movement as a whole.

This is a useful starting point around which we can unite. Dick’s reference to ‘the Irish secular movement as a whole’ only makes sense if both groups are promoting secularism, which is both a social and political cause. Any confusion about this is emerging from the current board of the HAI, and not from Atheist Ireland or from the general membership of the HAI.

The position of Atheist Ireland is crystal clear: we promote the political cause of separation of church and state. We want a secular Irish constitution, a secular Irish parliament, secular Irish government, a secular Irish education system and a secular Irish healthcare system. We promote this by a combination of public awareness campaigns and political lobbying.

The position of the HAI has up to recently been similarly clear. Indeed, the HAI website is explicit about this. It says: “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.”

Some of us as HAI members want the HAI to continue to promote the political cause of the total separation of church and state. However, most but not all of the current HAI board want to change this position, without debate among the members, to a position of the HAI not promoting a political cause.

They want to do this in order to satisfy the requirements of the Civil Registration Act, so that humanist celebrants can also solemnise marriages, despite the fact that the Act discriminates both against nonreligious citizens and between nonreligious citizens, and that the HAI will no longer be able to legally promote the political cause of secularism.

Dick Spicer: 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.

Atheist Ireland is not taking issue with the HAI approach to gradual reform. It is entirely up the members of the HAI what approach the HAI takes. But this issue is not merely about ‘gradual reform’ versus immediate reform. It is also about the HAI having to sign up to a declaration that it does not promote a political cause at all. This prevents the HAI from pursuing even the ‘gradual reform’ that Dick mentions.

Also, the open letter that Dick refers to is not from Atheist Ireland to the HAI. It is from one HAI member, Andrew Rattigan, to his fellow HAI members. The reason that Atheist Ireland published this letter is because the current HAI board had refused to convene a HAI members meeting to discuss the issue, and had refused to allow the issues to be discussed at the scheduled monthly meetings.

Atheist Ireland will continue to facilitate reasoned respectful debate on secular issues, including by publishing letters such as Andrew’s and Dick’s and this. As atheists and humanists and freethinkers and secularists, we should encourage reasonable debate among our members rather than try to close it down.

Dick Spicer: 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.

I appreciate and reciprocate Dick’s compliment. And I accept that my approach may well clash with ‘the humanist perspective as Dick sees it’. But another way of phrasing that would be that Dick’s approach may well clash with ‘the humanist perspective as I see it’. There is no objective ‘humanist perspective’ against which we must all measure our approaches.

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

In my opinion, the strongest reason for the separate existence of the two groups is that some people prefer to self-identify primarily as atheists, and some people prefer to self-identify primarily as humanists. Having two groups allows more people to get involved at whatever level of self-identification they feel most comfortable.

Dick Spicer: 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.

That is all fine as Dick’s personal expectations, but it was not the reason that either Atheist Ireland or the HAI were founded. Atheist Ireland is not ‘militantly’ anti-religious. That is a phrase popularised by religious opponents of secularism, and we should not be encouraging its use. Atheist Ireland promotes atheism, reason and ethical secularism.

There is nothing inherent in either atheism or humanism that would make one group necessarily more or less assertive or moderate, or more or less political or non-political. Many countries have distinct atheist, humanist, freethinking, secular and other groups, each of which has an ethos that derives from the wishes of its members, and not from anything inherent in the name.

Dick Spicer: 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.

Again, that is all fine as Dick’s personal preference, but it is not the reason that Atheist Ireland was founded. Committee members of Atheist Ireland and the HAI have met several times to discuss the relationship between the two groups. We have repeatedly agreed the following broad areas of overlap and distinctions:

• Atheist Ireland and the HAI both promote the political cause of separation of church and state.
• Atheist Ireland also promotes atheism and challenges the harm caused by religion.
• The HAI also provides services such as wedding, funeral and baby-naming ceremonies.
• Both groups will encourage members of the public to consider joining either or both of the groups, depending on which suits their personal preferences.

But there is nothing in that scenario that suggests that Atheist Ireland is a purely political pressure group, or that the HAI is a purely service-driven group. For example, Atheist Ireland is also involved in promoting social diversity and inclusiveness, and we raise money for charitable activities including lending to third world businesses through Kiva. And the HAI is directly involved in political lobbying on a range of issues.

Dick Spicer: 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.

The confusion is coming from the current board of the HAI, and not from Atheist Ireland. And the confusion is added to by the use of the loaded phrase ‘militant’ to describe Atheist Ireland. It is the current HAI board that is trying to change the HAI’s political position, without debate among the members, to a position of the HAI not promoting a political cause, in order to facilitate the requirements of the Civil Registration Act.

Dick Spicer: 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.

None of this is accurate. In fact, the opposite is the case. I have on many occasions chosen not to voice my opinion, as a member of the HAI, on issues where I had a valid opinion, specifically because I am also chairperson of Atheist Ireland. I am not leading others who have joint membership in any direction. Please have more respect for the independent thinking of the members of our organisations.

The statements that Atheist Ireland has made on this issue relate to the legal implications of the Civil Registration Act for everybody in Ireland, how it discriminates both against nonreligious citizens and between nonreligious citizens, and the options that are now open to the HAI as a result of the law being passed.

To oversimplify, those options are

• to not solomnise marriages now, and to continue to promote the political cause of separation of church and state;
• to solemnise marriages now, and to cease to promote the political cause of separation of church and state; or
• to sign up to the requirements of the Act by making a false declaration, and supporting that with false documentary evidence .

But whichever option the HAI chooses, this is not a dispute between Atheist Ireland and the HAI. It is an internal policy difference within the HAI, that has leaked into the public arena because the current HAI board has refused to allow internal debate on the issue.

Dick Spicer: 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).

There are two assumptions in this paragraph which are factually inaccurate.

Firstly, and to repeat, the HAI does in fact promote the political cause of separation of church and state. Indeed, the HAI website describes its aim as complete separation of church and state. I have included below some further documentation showing that the HAI does promote this political cause.

Secondly, most of the HAI members who are seeking an EGM are not in fact active in Atheist Ireland. They include a current HAI board member, senior activists in the Cork and Galway Humanists, and some former Board members who have a long and proud record of contribution to the HAI.

Dick Spicer: 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

There is no reason to ask people to choose between being members of Atheist Ireland and the HAI. One of the positive aspects of secular philosophy over theology is the recognition that there are nuances and overlaps in life and that we all have multiple layers of self-identity. We are reasonable people. We can work this out together.

2. Does the HAI promote a political cause?

The core of understanding this issue is recognising that the starting point is that the HAI does in fact promote the political cause of separation of church and state.

The current HAI Board and Dick’s letter create the impression that this is not the case. They imply that the HAI has not been involved in promoting a political cause, and that those seeking the EGM are trying the change the status quo.

In fact, the opposite is the case. It is most of the current HAI Board that is trying to change the status quo, without debate among the members, and by instead sending a letter to the members seeking support on the basis of an appeal to authority.

Here are several examples of the HAI promoting the political cause of separation of church and state.

2.1 Examples of the HAI promoting separation of church and state

• About the HAI – as published on HAI website
• Campaigns – as published on HAI website
• Political policy document on Equality for the Non-Religious
• Engaging in dialogue process with Irish Government
• Seeking meetings with opposition political parties
• Making sure organs of the state hear what the nonreligious want
• Supporting legislation to permit and regulate abortion
• Lobbying Taoiseach and Minister for Justice
• Appealing to the electorate to vote for secular candidates
• Working internationally on state and church relationships
• Assessing the dialogue process with the Government
• Campaigning for this law was itself promoting a political cause

2.2 About the HAI – as published on HAI website

The HAI website, as relaunched in April 2013, on its ‘About Us’ page, says the following.

What we do: The HAI provides a forum for Humanists and other non-religious people to meet and share experiences and develop their personal ideals in an informal, friendly environment. More formally, 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. Specifically, the HAI [list follows of things that the HAI does, including] … makes appropriate submissions to Government for changes in the Constitution, Legislation and State practices.

2.3 Campaigns – as published on HAI website

The HAI website, as relaunched in April 2013, on its ‘Campaigns’ page, says the following.

The HAI is working towards a secular state and the equal treatment of people of no religion in the Constitution, in legislation and other practices of the State and its agencies by campaigning on behalf of the non-religious in Ireland in a number of areas. On an ongoing basis, the HAI seeks to have a secular Constitution and has identified the need for change in the following areas:

The Constitution itself by deleting:
the religious preamble
the requirement for religious oaths/declarations for judges and holders of high office
its concept of blasphemy

Changes in State practices relating to:
ceremonies
Oireachtas prayers
religious oaths for jurors and witnesses
the use of State property for religious purposes
primary and secondary education (including primary teacher training, school chaplains and the religious curriculum)
medical care
religious symbols in public places
the national Census
the use of State employees for religious purposes
These and other topics are more fully described in the HAI publication ‘Equality for the Non-Religious’

2.4 Political policy document on Equality for the Non-Religious

The HAI has published a policy document titled ‘Equality for the Non-Religious: The treatment of people of no religion in the Constitution, in legislation and by other practices of the State and its agencies.’  The introduction to this policy document states:

In its relationship with the State the HAI seeks to ensure that State institutions are not biased towards any particular belief group, that differences of belief or philosophy are fully and equitably respected in policy and accommodated in practice by public authorities and that the Constitution, laws and practices of the State reflect this approach.

The document then details the following areas where the HAI is campaigning for political change:

1 THE CONSTITUTION
1.1  Preamble
1.2  Derivation of Powers
1.3  Religious Oaths
1.4  Blasphemy
1.5  State Endorsement of Religion

2 LEGISLATION
2.1  Equal Status Act 2000
2.2  Employment Equality Act 1998
2.3  Civil Registration Act 2004
2.4  Charities Act 2009
2.5  Tax Exemption Arising from Charitable Status
2.6  Electoral Act
2.7  Defamation Act 1961
2.8  Other Legislation

3 STATE PRACTICES
3.1  State Ceremonies
3.2  Dáil and Senate Prayers
3.3  Court Service – Oaths
3.4  Polling Stations
3.5  Use of State Property for Religious Purposes
3.5a  State Broadcasting Company
3.5b  Burial Rights
3.6  Choice of Primary School
3.7  Choice of Secondary School
3.8  Rights of Minorities in Schools
3.9  Primary Teacher Training
3.10  State Support of School Chaplains
3.11  Religious Education Curriculum
3.12  Provision of and Support for Hospitals
3.13  Rights of Non-Religious Hospital Patients
3.14  Ethics in Denominational Hospitals
3.15  Symbols in Hospitals
3.16  Overseas Development Assistance
3.17  Census of Population
3.18  Prison Chaplains
3.19  Use of State Employees for Religious Purposes
3.20  State Observance of Religious Festivals
3.21  Other State Practices

2.5 Engaging in dialogue process with Irish Government

The HAI is a partner in the structured dialogue process between the Irish Government and religious and nonreligious philosophical bodies. The relevant Minister for State at the Department of the Taoiseach has described this process in the Dail as being intended to assist the Government in developing policies into the future:

I make these comments at a time when the State is undertaking an important process of church-State dialogue, an institutional dialogue not just with the Christian churches, Catholic, Protestant and eastern Orthodox churches, but also the Islamic community, Buddhists and the Humanist Association of Ireland among others. This dialogue which is being established by the Taoiseach’s Department will take place between the State on the one hand and church and faith based communities and non-confessional organisations on the other. This is a healthy, progressive and even historic development, reflecting the Ireland of today which, as we all know, is a multi-ethnic and multicultural society. I have no doubt that these organisations, churches and individuals with their wealth of experience and knowledge will assist us greatly in developing our policies into the future.

2.6 Seeking meetings with opposition political parties

The HAI in its July/August 2012 newsletter, in ‘Board News’, wrote:

The Board also decided that, in addition to meeting with the Taoiseach and other departments and ministers under the stalled ‘dialogue process’, the HAI will try to meet with opposition parties, to present our case on state legislation and practice to make these more secular.

2.7 Making sure organs of the state hear what the nonreligious want

The HAI in its May/June 2012 newsletter, in ‘Board News’, wrote:

Non-religious people need organisations like the HAI to make sure that organs of the state hear what people without religion want. So there is more work to do in communicating with the government and their departments and agencies, and in preparing our submissions and responses.

2.8 Supporting legislation to permit and regulate abortion

The HAI in its May/June 2012 newsletter, in ‘Board News’, wrote:

The Board decided unanimously to support the enactment and implementation of legislation to permit and to regulate therapeutic abortion to the full extent that the Constitution permits, as the Supreme Court decided in the X case in 1982.

2.9 Lobbying Taoiseach and Minister for Justice

The Irish Times wrote on 4 June 2011:

A FEW WEEKS ago Brian Whiteside of the Humanist Association of Ireland addressed a gathering that included Taoiseach Enda Kenny, Minister for Justice Alan Shatter as well as various religious leaders. He used the opportunity to raise the issue of our religious presidential oath, which he says is just one example of State discrimination against the growing godless community.

The oath, the wording of which is enshrined in the Constitution, is taken in “the presence of Almighty God” and is a non-negotiable promise that must be given by whoever is elected president. It concludes, “May God direct and sustain me.”

“I talked about how embarrassing it would be for this country if a successful candidate decided that in all conscience they couldn’t give that oath because they didn’t believe in God,” says Whiteside. He was gratified to observe Kenny requesting that Shatter make a note of this potentially awkward eventuality…

A referendum would be required to remove these religious references from the Constitution, which Whiteside believes “are not appropriate in a 21st-century modern democratic republic”…

He adds that while their strategy may differ from Atheist Ireland’s, the “endgame” of a more secular country is the same.

2.10 Appealing to the electorate to vote for secular candidates

At the 2011 Irish General Election, Atheist Ireland and the Humanist Association of Ireland jointly asked voters to vote for candidates who support secular policies. We collectively said:

We realise that most people will vote based on economic policies or party allegiance. In such cases we are asking people that, if several candidates share your views on these wider issues, to please choose the candidate that most supports a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.

2.11 Working internationally on state and church relationships

HAI Secretary Ann James wrote in the Irish Times on 23 July 2010:

As Secretary to the Humanist Association of Ireland (HAI) since it was formed from what was the Association of Irish Humanists in 2003, I have also been HAI delegate to many European Humanist Federation and International Humanist and Ethical Union meetings where the different models of the state and church relationships are often discussed… The HAI has no wish to end the teaching about religion or discussion of it in schools. But neither do we see a place in this day and age for religious instruction/faith formation paid for by taxpayers in State-funded national schools.

2.12 Assessing the dialogue process with the Government

HAI chairman Dick Spicer wrote in the Irish Times on 5 April 2010:

EQUALITY AND parity of esteem for the non-religious community is being achieved – but at a pace so slow it can sometimes evoke justifiable impatience… That said, however, the State and its institutions have made significant beginnings in areas requiring reform. Those registering progress are education, health and law reform. Of these, the key problematic area in our State has long been securing the rights of children in primary education.

In the area of health, one has to give credit to the Health Service Executive for developing and launching a best-practice guide outlining the requirements when dealing with non-religious clientele and other minorities. Again, implementation will take time if it is to be effective, but it is a pointer to how State bodies could set about addressing the achievement of parity of esteem for all.

The Humanist Association of Ireland has been included in relevant seminars and workshops over the past couple of years. In our quest as part of the dialogue process with the Government we submitted a document entitled Equality for the Non-Religious, which laid out our areas of concern. A full consideration of the issues in that document reveals that much has yet to be addressed.

2.13 Campaigning for this law was itself promoting a political cause

The HAI website, on its ‘Campaigns‘ section, says:

A successful HAI campaign, spearheaded by our Director of Ceremonies, Brian Whiteside, came to fruition with the passage of the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill to give legal status to Humanist marriage through the Dáil and Seanad in late 2012. At the time of writing (April 2013) the HAI  are in touch with the General Register Office and working through the process of having HAI celebrants approved as marriage solemnisers.

The Irish Times wrote on 1 May 2012:

Brian Whiteside of the HAI said that, in the past, it had been “left out in the cold” but persisted in its efforts to obtain the right to solemnise marriages and have “parity of esteem” with religious bodies. There had been “no real progress” until the change of government last year, when Ms Bacik agreed to take up their cause. “As the law stands presently a couple cannot have a legally binding, nonreligious marriage ceremony on a Saturday, as the State registrars work only Monday to Friday,” he added.

This dilemma was explicitly raised in the Dail by Aengus O Snodaigh TD:

The Humanist Association of Ireland will be one of the main beneficiaries of the provisions in this Bill, which is welcome, but a quick perusal of its website suggests that even this organisation might not satisfy the definition of “secular body” as contained in section 3, with specific reference to the exclusion of any body promoting a political cause.

Its home page, for example, has a campaigns section, one of which is aimed at lobbying politicians to amend the principal Act. Ironically, that very activity could be seen to exclude the organisation under the definition set out in section 3 of the Bill. The content of the website is inherently political, including, for instance, a cheap shot at politicians in respect of holiday entitlements. There is also an inference that Fianna Fáil is bad and the Labour Party good. In fact, Senator Ivana Bacik is described as the perfect combination of lawyer, Senator and atheist. It is fine to express such views but they are undoubtedly political…

Summary

The HAI has a record of promoting the political cause of secularism that we should be proud of. Some of us, as HAI members, want the HAI to continue to promote the political cause of the total separation of church and state. However, most but not all of the current HAI board want to change this position, without debate among the members, to a position of the HAI not promoting a political cause.

They want to do this in order to satisfy the requirements of the Civil Registration Act, so that humanist celebrants can also solemnise marriages, despite the fact that the Act discriminates both against nonreligious citizens and between nonreligious citizens, and that the HAI will not be able to legally promote the political cause that would be necessary to change even this Act in the future.

And the HAI Board is trying to take this significant step unilaterally, without allowing any debate among the members. That approach will not work. The Board should reconsider it.

This is my RTE Radio 1 Late Debate yesterday on the right to life and Marie Fleming’s Supreme Court ruling, with palliative care doctor Regina McQuillan, hosted by Audrey Carville.

The Supreme Court has today upheld the High Court ruling that Marie Fleming does not have a constitutional right to be assisted to die by her partner Tom Curran. See full judgment here.

But the Supreme Court has also said that it is open to the State, through the Oireachtas, to legislate to deal with a case such as Marie’s.

So two things will now happen.

Firstly, and most importantly, Marie and Tom and their family will consider their own personal situation in the light of this disappointing ruling. They will continue to live together as a loving couple and family, and they will continue to cope with Marie’s illness as it progresses.

When or if Marie decides that she no longer wants to live, Tom will fulfill his promise to her to help her in whatever she wants to do. As Tom said to the media outside the Supreme Court today, the Court has ruled, as they see it, on Marie’s future, and at some stage they may also have to rule on his future.

Secondly, Right To Die Ireland will continue to campaign to legalise assisted peaceful dying for Marie and other rational terminally or seriously ill people in Ireland. Marie and Tom will consider whether or not to pursue an appeal to the European Courts. They will have to take into account their personal emotional and financial resources.

But whatever about a European appeal, we will now focus our attention on lobbying politicians to change the law to end the suffering of people such as Marie. No doubt that will take time, but we are optimistic that the change will eventually come, and Marie’s inspiration and courage will have made a vital difference.

Ultimately, this is an issue where the law will have to catch up with reality. The law can not control what terminally ill people will choose to do, because terminally ill people have their own ethical priorities and their own autonomy. But neither Marie and Tom, nor anybody else in their situation, should have to face that pressure.

We in Right To Die Ireland support the right of terminally or seriously ill people, who want to live as long as they can, to get the best possible medical resources to enable them to do this. Nobody should be forced to die earlier than they want to, and the law should have safeguards to deal with this concern.

We equally support the right of of rational terminally or seriously ill people, who want to die peacefully at a time of their choosing, to be supported in carrying out this wish. Nobody should be forced to endure unnecessary suffering, particularly when it is a question not of whether they will die but of how and when.

Please join with us in asking your public representatives to protect the right to live, respect the right to die, and legalise assisted peaceful dying for rational terminally or seriously ill people in Ireland.

The Irish Supreme Court is to rule today on Marie Fleming’s appeal to allow her to be assisted in dying peacefully, instead of being forced to live through the final stages of multiple sclerosis.

She is appealing against a High Court decision that upheld the current ban on assisted suicide, because the legal right to assisted dying might be abused.

Last year, Marie’s partner Tom and I and civil rights activist Mairin de Burca established a lobby group to seek legislative change in Ireland on this issue. We have launched a website today to promote legalised assisted peaceful dying for rational terminally or seriously ill people in Ireland.

You can find details of Right to Die Ireland at http://rtdireland.com

High Court judgment

Marie was looking for the right to be assisted to die on two constitutional grounds. Under Article 40.3.2, the State must vindicate the personal autonomy of every citizen. And under Article 40.1, she has the right to equality, but able-bodied people can legally commit suicide without assistance, while she requires assistance to do so because of her illness, and assisting suicide is a crime.

The High Court accepted that the ban interferes with her rights, but found that the interference is not disproportionate. It found that the risks of liberalization is that it would be impossible to ensure that there would not be abuse by other people of vulnerable people.

Supreme Court appeal

Marie’s legal team argued at the Supreme Court that the possibility of abuse could not mean a right as fundamental as hers could be restricted, and that the State’s interest in the sanctity of her life could not prevent her bringing about the kind of death she seeks.

They argued that the High Court was mistaken to use as a legal test that there was a “substantial consensus” in western countries that an absolute ban was the “best approach” to protecting life and vulnerable people.

Instead, they said, the correct test should be whether such a ban impaired rights as little as possible and did not impose a disproportionate burden on one group.

And the Irish Human Rights Commission told the Court it believes Marie has a right, subject to strict conditions, to be assisted in taking her own life.

Life and death after the case

Whatever the outcome of today’s Supreme Court appeal ruling, the human situation will remain the same for Marie and her parter Tom Curran. Tom is prepared to go to prison if Marie decides to die and he helps her because they love each other.

The High Court did say that it felt sure that the Director of Public Prosecutions, in this of all cases, would exercise her discretion in a humane and sensitive fashion. But that is no basis on which to reassure or give peace of mind to Marie and Tom.

Ultimately, this is an issue where the Courts and the legislators have to catch up with reality. The courts are not in control of what terminally ill people will choose to do, because terminally ill people have their own ethical priorities and their own autonomy. But neither Tom nor Marie, nor anybody else in their situation, should have to face that pressure.

Right to Die Ireland

The right to die is not just about the act of dying. It is also about the peace of mind and quality of life that terminally ill people can enjoy, while they are still alive, by knowing that they have the option to choose not to undergo further suffering.

Please join us and help to respect the dignity, and reduce the suffering, of Marie and others in her situation.

You can find more details on the Right to Die Ireland website and the Right to Die Ireland Facebook page

Some international protests scheduled for today, April 25th, to defend Bangladesh’s atheist bloggers and activists are going ahead as planned, and some have been rescheduled for next Thursday, May 2nd, due to the national day of mourning in Bangladesh today after the Savar building collapse.

• Here are the details of the protests that are going ahead today, in conjunction with remembering the victims of the Savar factory disaster.
• There is also a Facebook Page where you can record your support.
• Here are the details of the protests that have been rescheduled for May 2nd.

Atheist Ireland had already sent an appeal to all TDs and Senators to contact the Bangladeshi government today regarding the atheist bloggers who have been attacked and arrested. We are now asking them to follow up on that request before next Thursday, May 2nd.

I and Jen Keane (zenbuffy on Twitter) discussed teaching religion in Irish schools on 98FM, in light of Richard Dawkins comment that teaching children religion as fact is a form of child abuse. The host is Muireann O’Connell and the show is the Joan Lee show on Monday 22 April 2013.

Secularism protects freedom of conscience, and advances equal rights for women. And, whether you are a woman or a man, you can help to shape the future of secular activism and women’s rights around the world by coming to Dublin on the weekend of 29-30 June 2013.

You will hear and meet and socialise with inspiring speakers and panelists and conference participants from around the world. You will help to shape strategies for positive change, and vote on an international Declaration on Empowering Women Through Secularism.

We will discuss how religion and religiously-influenced laws discriminate against women in areas from healthcare, sexuality and reproductive rights to education, careers and social policy, as well as how to combat violence against women and the history and future of women in atheist and secular activism.

The conference is hosted by Atheist Ireland, in the O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel where we hosted the sell-out World Atheist Convention in June 2011. The Atheist Alliance International AGM will take place in conjunction with the event.

Here are some things you can do now:

Get more details at the Conference Website

Like the Conference Facebook Page

Follow the Conference Twitter Account

Buy early price tickets for just €100

The postman has just delivered The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading by Ian Rowland, which I ordered after Richard Saunders recommended it at last week’s Dublin Skeptics in the Pub event.

So within weeks I will be able to tell you everything about yourself, including that you are considerate and kind yet sometimes understandably put your own interests first, that you know somebody who has passed to the other side, either expectedly or possibly suddenly, with some connection to a chest pain or perhaps an accident, and that you will in the near future hear from somebody who has not been in contact with you for some time, who will give you information that is very important to your career, or perhaps to your personal life, although you may not understand the significance of the message until something else unexpected happens some time after that.

That will be fifty euro, thank you kindly, and please tell your friends to feel free to come and see me. Cha-Ching!