The UK Supreme Court ruled on 19 November in favour of what appeared to be a ban on Christian-focused Religious Education (RE) in Northern Ireland’s state-run primary schools.
The ruling has been seen as a huge win by many humanist organisations; juxtaposed by the feeling of loss amongst the four major Christian denominations in NI who fought to keep the current curriculum.
From the start, however, it is important to note that this is not a ban on RE in schools in NI, nor is it a ban on teaching about Christianity. Instead, it is a ruling that the Christian-focused RE taught in primary schools in NI is unlawful under the ECHR Protocol 1 Article 2 provisions for education – even with regards to the ability for parents to opt-out of RE.
It is also worth pointing out that the ruling does not impact secondary schools, as these are already required to have a diverse RE curriculum from KS3 – the first three years of secondary education in England and Wales, covering Year 7, Year 8 and Year 9 for students aged between 11 and 14 – upwards. Nor does it apply to Catholic schools, since they use a different curriculum to state-funded schools.
What the court noted is that Christianity in primary schools in NI is taught as “absolute truth”, rather than objectively. This was key to the case since the father (anonymised as “G”) and the daughter (anonymised as “JR87”) who brought the case to the courts stated that they believed Christianity should be taught in primary schools, but that it should be taught objectively and alongside other religions, not as “absolute truth”.
What is the problem then? Even from a Christian standpoint there is a case to be made for the study of other major world religions – particularly from a perspective of encouraging inter-religious dialogue. And, certainly, if we believe that Christianity is objectively true, as indeed I do, then we can be confident that it can stand up to objective scrutiny provided that the teaching truly is objective (and not anti-Christian).
For example, the historical and factual evidence for the Resurrection has stood up to centuries of historical and critical scrutiny, so why should the same not be true for the teaching of Christianity generally?
Well, simply put, the problem is the precedent that the court's ruling sets.
In the ruling, the court stated that it was not banning Christianity from schools, nor was it promoting secularism, but was instead requiring that RE be taught in an “objective, critical and pluralistic” manner.
However, irrespective of what the court said, its actions do in fact show yet another step in the direction of pluralism and secularisation.
Let’s treat these two things – pluralism and secularisation – separately to demonstrate the point.
Firstly, pluralism – the idea that all religions and philosophies are of equal value and truth. It should be immediately obvious that this is problematic and illogical.
In the first instance, there are some very fringe and radical ideas out there that are dangerous and should not be accepted or tolerated – but true pluralism does not allow for this.
An example I often use is child sacrifice. Should religions that allow for child sacrifice really be considered of equal truth within the broad and ill-defined umbrella of pluralism? I hope not.
Secondly, the idea that all religions can be equally true is non-sensical. Religions make many opposing truth claims, and non-religious philosophies disagree with most of them. There are clearly contradictory ideas both within religions and without.
What about secularisation then? And the idea that religion should not be present in public, or at least, that all religions should be treated completely neutrally. Well, this too holds tremendous, and perhaps more problematic, implications.
There is a saying, “You can’t have the tree without the roots” – but modern secularism in the UK attempts to do precisely this.
A clear example of this was when in 2024 Richard Dawkins claimed to be a “cultural Christian”. He wanted the art, music, architecture, literature, laws, poetry, peace, freedoms, values and traditions of a Christian society … but without Christianity.
The case was made then, as it can be now, that to wish to have the products of a Christian society without Christianity is not only bizarre, but impossible.
If Christians and atheists alike wish to maintain the philosophical foundations of the UK as they are today – ideas of tolerance, the equal worth of each person, the freedom of thought, religion and speech – then maintaining a Christian focus in RE is vital.
Such ideas and laws did not spring up out of nowhere: they came from a Christian foundation.
If you start to chip away at the roots, the tree will die – and such a death is not hard to imagine in a society that has recently passed bills for euthanasia and abortion up to birth.
The precedent set by the ruling of the most powerful court in the UK means that, over time, it will become ever easier to remove the “majority Christian” clauses from the RE curriculum as held in several of the UK’s devolved national education departments.
Christianity, as the current RE curriculum for England says, should be the major focus for state-funded schools. This statement recognises the fundamental importance of Christianity to British law, history and literature.
However, as this is eroded, as children lose knowledge of hymns, prayers and Bible verses, understanding themselves and what it means to be British, are also eroded.
This, I think, is already obviously self-evident at a time when so many are wrestling with what it means to be “British”.
Children in schools have increasingly minimal biblical literacy. Even basic stories such as Adam and Eve, Moses and the life of Jesus are virtually unknown to many of the UK’s children.
As an RE teacher myself, I have first-hand experience of this.
A century ago, ask a child to recite the Lord’s prayer and they could; a few decades ago, and they could probably just about stumble through it; today, most don’t even know what it is.
This has a knock-on effect not just for RE, but for other areas of the curriculum too. How can a child be expected to grasp Shakespeare without a knowledge of the Bible?
How can they be expected to understand our laws about human life – well, laws that held at least until recently – if they don’t understand the imago Dei?
How can they understand our history if they don’t understand the core doctrines of Christianity that were fought over and that built the UK?
The answer is, they can’t.
Perhaps, amongst some who support the court’s ruling, that is the intention. To strip the UK of all of its Christian vestiges and remnants.
But if one of the world’s most famous atheists can say that he wants to keep the Christian culture of the UK intact, then how much more should Christians be willing to fight for the continuation and rebuilding of good, doctrinally sound, Christian-focused RE in our schools?
And so, whilst this particular court ruling may in and of itself not seem like a big deal, the precedent it sets pushes us one step further away from who we are, where we came from, and why we have the relative prosperity, peace and freedom that we enjoy in the UK today.
Photo: A protestor waves a St George's flag in one hand while holding a cross in the other during the 'Unite The Kingdom' rally on Westminster Bridge by the Houses of Parliament in London, England , 13 September 2025 (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)
Thomas Casemore teaches RS and is pursuing a master’s degree in divinity, researching St Bede and early British ecclesiastical history and spirituality
.jpg)
.jpg)
