No, this ruling isn’t ‘secular indoctrination’ — it’s human rights | Andrew Copson

Author: Andrew Copson

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Religious Education and collective worship in Northern Ireland has understandably ruffled feathers among those accustomed to the privileges of Christianity in public life, but Melanie McDonagh’s reaction in Monday’s Thunderer in The Times (24 November) suggests a profound misunderstanding of what education – and freedom of religion or belief – actually means.

She asks if we should be offended by a child saying grace. In doing so she misses the point entirely. The question is not whether a child prays, but whether the state should use the classroom to tell a child they must pray, or that a specific god exists and requires their gratitude. The Supreme Court has not declared it ‘illegal’ to teach about Christianity. It has ruled that the state cannot present Christian theology as objective, unquestionable fact in a manner that amounts to indoctrination.

It’s claimed this ruling replaces Christian indoctrination with ‘humanist indoctrination’. This is simply not true. There is a world of difference between teaching children that humanism exists alongside Christianity, Islam, and other religions, and telling them that humanism is true. The former is education in the form of an ‘objective, critical, and pluralistic’ curriculum; the latter is indoctrination that we would not want to see. Thankfully the Supreme Court has come out in favour of the former.

This does not mean teaching that ‘God probably doesn’t exist.’ It means teaching children that some people believe in God, others do not, and that all these perspectives are part of the rich tapestry of human history and culture. It means equipping young people to navigate a diverse world, rather than putting blinders on them.

It’s also suggested that parents should simply withdraw their children if they object to collective worship of a ‘broadly Christian character’. But the Court rightly recognised that withdrawal is a badge of othering – a stigmatising exit pass required only because the state has failed to make the classroom inclusive. Why should a child have to walk out of their own classroom to avoid religious instruction that shouldn’t be forced on them in the first place?

And finally, in response to ‘Is there anyone other than Richard Dawkins who finds this objectionable?’ The answer, according to the highest court in the land, is yes: anyone who values human rights. The core syllabus cited – requiring teachers to foster an acceptance of God’s existence as fact – is confessional instruction. That belongs in a church, Sunday school, or the home, not in a state-funded school system meant to provide all children, regardless of their religion or belief, with a broad and balanced education. 

Far from ‘secular indoctrination,’ this ruling makes sure that schools should be places of true freedom, where children can learn about the beliefs of their neighbours without being coerced into adopting them. That isn’t an attack on Christianity; it is a defence of the freedom of conscience for us all.