Table of Contents
The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster has been dismayed by the Supreme Court ruling that Religious Education in Northern Ireland schools has apparently breached the human rights of the young child known as JR87, and her father. This is another case where the reach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has gone far beyond what it was originally envisaged to do. The ECHR, adopted in 1950 and enforced in 1953, has become outdated—particularly because of its “living instrument” interpretation, which leads to judicial overreach by creating new rights and interfering with domestic law.
đź“ś The Central Importance of Christian Morality
The teaching of Christian morality is at the very heart of our civilization. The principles of the Word of God have long been the basis of a functioning and just society. When those principles are abandoned, the results are inevitable: lawlessness, moral confusion, and cultural decay.
🕍 The Churches’ Historic Role Undermined
Previously, the Church of Ireland, Presbyterian Church, Catholic Church, and Methodist Church enjoyed a formal role in drafting and overseeing RE content through departmental collaboration. That collaborative arrangement has now been judicially deemed incompatible with the new so‑called “impartial” education requirements. The churches’ historic position as moral custodians of the Northern Irish school system is therefore legally undermined.
Unless the churches act strategically, this precedent could cascade into:
- England, Wales, and Scotland, where faith schools already face pressure to “diversify” RE.
- The removal of direct church representation from curriculum design committees.
- A gradual nationalisation of what was once denominationally grounded moral instruction.
⚖️ Judicial Overreach Beyond Constitutional Duty
The judiciary’s constitutional duty is to interpret law, not to rewrite the philosophical frameworks of national institutions. Yet in this ruling, the Supreme Court went far beyond mere interpretation of Article 2 of Protocol 1 (ECHR) — which simply states that “the State shall respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions in education” — and instead imposed a new ideological test:
Religious education must now be “objective, critical, and pluralistic.”
That phrase appears nowhere in UK statutory law. It originates from European Human Rights case law — notably Folgerø v Norway and Osmanoğlu & Kocabaş v Switzerland. By declaring Northern Ireland’s Christian RE “indoctrinatory,” the Court has effectively legislated cultural policy from the bench — something Parliament never intended, nor authorized.
🏫 The Historical Compact Between Church and State
Almost every school building, teacher-training college, and grammar tradition in Northern Ireland was founded or funded by the churches. When these institutions moved into the “controlled” sector, it was under a covenant guaranteeing ongoing religious participation in governance and curriculum — ratified by Acts of Parliament, not by judges.
By nullifying that covenant through reinterpretation of ECHR standards, the Supreme Court has trespassed upon a political and historical compact — a matter properly belonging to the legislature or the devolved Assembly, not the judiciary.
⚠️ The Constitutional Problem of Scope
The question of judicial legitimacy is not whether a decision feels “just,” but whether it is within scope. The Court’s true role is to determine breaches of law—not to dictate moral or philosophical doctrine.
In this decision, the Court:
- Dictated educational content (“objective, critical, and pluralistic” RE).
- Invalidated long-standing religious agreements between Church and State.
- Recast parental rights, redefining “respect” in Article 2 as system‑wide pluralism rather than the freedom to withdraw from undesired content.
This final act inverts liberty: parents now have less influence over their children’s moral education, while the state wields more.
🧠The Consequence of Judicial Activism
This marks the logical endpoint of judicial activism under the banner of “human rights.” Courts no longer merely protect individuals from state abuse — they now compel ideological conformity.
The paradox is striking:
- To prevent “indoctrination,” the Court imposes an official ideology of secular relativism.
- To assure “pluralism,” it erases distinctive beliefs, flattening faith traditions into state‑sanctioned sameness.
That is not neutrality; it is policy‑making — an unelected power grab from Church, Parliament, and parent alike.
đź•Š The Proper Domain of Moral Formation
Religious and moral education belongs within civil society, not judicial fiat. The constitutional order presumes:
- Parliament sets policy.
- The Education Department administers.
- Courts arbitrate legality, not ideology.
When courts dictate worldview content, they cease to be referees and become architects of culture — an undeclared spiritual ministry usurping democratic authority.
🛡 Steps Churches and Parents Can Take
Churches and parents can respond by:
- Calling on Parliament to reassert legislative sovereignty over education policy and restore democratic consultation in RE design.
- Pressing for a “Human Rights Restoration Act” that redefines proportionality limits on judicial reinterpretation of constitutional settlements.
- Establishing parallel independent RE councils under ecclesiastical governance, bypassing state reinterpretation while technically compliant with “pluralism” requirements.
✝️ Independent Christian Schools: The Last Bastion of Faithful Education
Independent Christian Schools in Northern Ireland now stand as bastions of educational freedom—preserving the right of parents and churches to shape young minds according to faith, conscience, and truth rather than state-imposed ideology. Free from legislative overreach and bureaucratic dictates masquerading as “pluralism,” these schools nurture moral clarity, academic excellence, and spiritual literacy. Their teachers form character, not compliance; their curricula reflect conviction, not cultural relativism. When courts and politicians seek to standardize thought, Independent Christian Schools remain vibrant sanctuaries of authentic, faith-rooted learning—where the Gospel, not government, defines truth.
🙏 The Myth of “Religious Neutrality” in Education
It is a myth to claim that any school can be neutral regarding religion or Christianity. Consider the question of God’s existence:
A “neutral” school claims to take no position, letting children decide for themselves. Yet that neutrality itself teaches that God’s existence does not matter — a falsehood that undermines the conscience’s awareness of its Creator.
Similarly, no school can be neutral on morality. If it teaches that stealing or lying are wrong, it has already assumed a moral law — one that finds its source in God whether acknowledged or not.
Therefore, neutrality is impossible. “All religions and philosophies are not equal. There is one that is true,” and as Jesus declared:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” — John 14:6
🏛 Calling for Legislative Reversal
This ruling is yet another example of ECHR overreach. Lawmakers must act now to reassert national sovereignty, reject judicial social engineering, and restore the rightful place of Christian truth within education and public life.
