The chairman of a national school being
sued over the teaching of religion by parents of a former pupil at
the school has described the actions of the couple as “unreasonable”.

The couple, who are being assisted in their case by Senator Ivana Bacik (pictured) have claimed that the school
did not exclude their child from Catholic religion class, as agreed,
but Fr James Hamill, chairman of the board of management of Annacurra
National School in Aughrim, Co. Wicklow, said the school made a
series of efforts to accommodate the parents wishes.

Ken Kiernan and his partner Alma
Carey-Zuniga withdrew their now seven-year-old son from the school
two years ago. They plan to take a constitutional challenge against
the school and the Department of Education.

However Fr Hamill, chairman of the
board of management, said the school had made attempts to cater for
the boy by moving religious instruction to the end of the day so he
could be picked up early.

The couple’s demands would have
excluded the saying of grace before meals, prayers before or after
class, nativity plays and carol singing because their child could not
be left unsupervised, he said.

“They wanted to upend our normal
structures to suit them and we couldn’t do this. You couldn’t
guarantee that in a normal atmosphere in a Catholic school,” he
said.

The child is now in the Wicklow town
Educate Together national school, 30km away.

The child was enrolled in junior
infants in September 2008, but was withdrawn in December.

Though he was exempted from formal
religious instruction, which was held from 12pm to 12.25pm daily, the
parents maintain religion was so integral to the school it was
impossible to avoid informal instruction in Catholic doctrine.

In June 2009 the board of management
formally adopted a policy that described it as a Catholic school
providing instruction within the “doctrines, practices and
tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.”

It also stated those who wished their
children to opt out of formal religious instruction must agree to
make “alternative arrangements to supervise their children”.

The case, which may also be taken
against the Bishop of Ferns in whose diocese the school is located,
and the Attorney General, will cite Article 40.3.1 and Article 42 of
the Constitution, in addition to Protocol 1, Article 2 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 40.3.1 says that the State
guarantees in its laws to “respect . . . and defend and vindicate
the personal rights of the citizen”..

Article 42 acknowledges that parents
are “the primary and natural educator of the child” and
that the State “shall not oblige parents in violation of their
conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools
established by the State, or to any particular type of school
designated by the State”.

Protocol 1, Article 2 of the European
Convention says, inter alia, that “the State shall respect the
right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity
with their own religions and philosophical convictions”.

The couple want the Department of
Education to set out guidelines and procedures to deal with the sort
of situation they faced.

They say they do not want to take away
from Catholic and other denominational schools the right to display
religious symbols or to say prayers during the school day.

Ms Carey-Zuniga said: “Catholic
schools should be Catholic. This means a right to say prayers during
the school day. I want the State to protect my right to send my child
to a school that doesn’t include de facto Catholic education.”