Here's a pub quiz question for you. In the last US presidential debate, who said, "My faith affects everything that I do," and "Everything is a gift from the Almighty." Now, who said, "You're equally an American if you choose to worship an Almighty and if you choose not to." You can see it coming, can't you? John Kerry made the first two statements, and George W. the last one.
The United States is adamant about the separation of church and state. You cannot hang a copy of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, or even hold a minute's silence for meditation and prayer in a public school. In Ireland, the State funds schools for Christians and Muslims. Yet it is difficult to imagine a potential candidate for office being challenged about his or her faith, except in a way which would imply that being a person of faith is somehow divisive.
In the US, on the other hand, John Kerry's failure to speak about his faith was losing him votes. In July, one poll showed that 43 per cent of Catholics did not even know he is a Catholic. When some of them found out, it was because he was threatened with being banned from communion because he is in favour of the right to an abortion.
What role should religion play in politics? Neither religious beliefs nor secular beliefs should be accepted uncritically. It is nonsensical, for example, to say that non-belief is automatically more inclusive than belief.
Some people appear to believe that a decision to exclude faith-based interventions from public debate is somehow tolerant, if we allow people to believe what they like in private. Yet, given that for a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, faith is something which permeates the whole of life, it is not tolerant but deeply exclusive to suggest faith has nothing to add to what religious people contribute. It privileges one world view, that of secularism, above other world views. Yet neither secularism nor believers have the automatic right to impose their views on others. Each world view must argue its case, and win or lose on the merits of the argument, not on some kind of claim to moral superiority.
What implications does that have for funding schools? Fintan O'Toole raised the question of the bishops' control of primary schools. In fact, he conflated two separate issues. The first is whether religious schools have a right to protect their ethos by excluding children of other, or no beliefs. The other question is whether there is still a mandate for Catholic education from parents.
These are both important issues, and not just for Catholics. The scenario of a child of atheist parents being refused admission to a Catholic school is highly unlikely at the moment. It may actually be more likely that a current Catholic pupil in a Church of Ireland school may have a sibling refused in favour of a Church of Ireland child. We would probably be much more squeamish about protesting about that, given that the Church of Ireland is a minority community.
Faith-based schools have a right to exist, and to affirm their ethos. Simply offering secular education to all is not a solution, because secularism by its nature excludes the possibility of the public affirmation of faith. It would be intolerant to expect parents who have a faith commitment to swallow the fact that they must submerge important parts of their faith, all in the name of tolerance.
Incidentally, given that hospitality is a central Christian virtue, most Christian schools should have little difficulty in accommodating people with different beliefs. But the pivotal question lies elsewhere as to whether Catholic schools should continue to exist or not.
Is there still a parental mandate for faith-based schools? Muslims will have little difficulty in answering "Yes", for Islamic education. Catholics will have far greater difficulty in establishing that there is still a real demand for Catholic education. We now have two generations educated post-Vatican Two. We have children who have no idea what a nun is, and some who have only the vaguest idea of who Jesus Christ is.
There is a great deal of residual affection for Catholicism. One only has to look at the outrage when religious orders announce plans for withdrawal from a church in a town. There is also a substantial minority of deeply committed Catholic parents. Yet is this enough to justify largely State-funded schools continuing to operate under a Catholic ethos? In countries such as India and Pakistan, Catholic schools operate very successfully that cater almost exclusively for non-Christian students. It would be an exaggeration to say that we are in that situation here, but we certainly have far fewer Catholics than statistics might suggest. Decline in belief is a massive challenge for all churches, but in particular, Catholicism. We cannot continue to fool ourselves, and to trade on past capital.
Unless serious attempts are made to revitalise Catholic communities, and to provide a living experience of faith which makes people want a Catholic education for their children, Fintan O'Toole may well be proven right in the not too distant future, that the day of the Catholic school is gone. To a large extent, it is down to parishes and communities, many of which seem paralysed by inertia.
Here's an interesting question. If Catholics really are a minority, who will vociferously defend the right of a minority of committed Catholics to Catholic education for their children, as vigorously as the rights of other minorities are championed today?