Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AN ATHEIST WHO was discriminated against by the Irish Defence Forces has written to the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence Micheál Martin asking for an apology on behalf of the Department of Defence.
John Hamill, a former officer with Atheist Ireland, felt he was discriminated against after he applied to be a chaplain with the Defence Forces, without being of “monotheistic belief” (ie believing in one god).
He was not considered for the post and said that he wished to ensure that a post of chaplain was not filled in this way again.
He told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that he had written to the Defence Forces several times regarding the appointment of military chaplains and indicated his interest in the role.
In his correspondence, Hamill stated that the Defence Forces employed those of all faiths and none, but that Christianity was being ‘imposed’ on members.
He also noted that the Defence Forces was not a religious body, nor was it under the control of a religious body, so section 37 of the Employment Equality Act did not apply.
During the case, a witness for the Department of Defence argued a humanist chaplain could undo years of liaison work with religious fundamentalists in south Lebanon, including Hezbollah supporters. They attributed not considering Hamill for the position to this reasoning.
However, Hamill told The Journal that a humanist chaplain “made more sense” for non-Christians and atheists in the Defence Forces.
“Chaplains can only be appointed by bishops. I think that’s hugely disrespectful to our non-Christian members,” he said.
The Chaplaincy Service in the Defence Forces says it provides “pastoral care, spiritual support and guidance to all members of the Defence Forces at home and on duty overseas”.
In a ruling published this week, the WRC said Hamill was discriminated against, but he is not due to receive any compensation.
“In respect of redress, this is an access to employment case. Redress is for the effects of discrimination. I decide that an order for compensation is not warranted, in particular as the complainant submitted that his aim in taking the case was to ensure that this did not happen again,” the ruling states.
The WRC did, however, order the Department of Defence to review its chaplaincy appointments process, which currently only recruits from Catholic and Church of Ireland clergy, “to ensure that suitably qualified candidates can apply for military chaplaincy roles in order to reflect and foster the diversity of members of the Defence Forces”.
Hamill told The Journal: “The military say the only people who can be a chaplain in our military can be priests. It’s not an accident.”
He said not only does the regulation mean that non-Christians cannot become chaplains, but women cannot either.
During the WRC hearing, Fr McCay-Morrissey, a chaplain who had deployments in south Lebanon, said he was an ordained minister of a “world religion”, which helped develop relations with local families.
He said that a non-religious chaplain would not be in the same position to build up relationships with local religious leaders in Lebanon. However, he acknowledged the role played by humanist chaplains and said that he was not under an obligation to change people’s minds regarding their religious beliefs.
Fr McCay-Morrissey said he would “absolutely not” give the last rites to a fatally wounded soldier without knowing their beliefs first, nor would he convert them on their deathbed.
“I’m not in the business of trying to convert people to my way of thinking,” Fr McCay-Morrissey said, adding that Hamill was mistaken when he stated that canon law bound him to proselytise.
Hamill has written a letter to the Tánaiste, asking him for an apology and for regulations around military chaplains for atheists and minority religions in the Defence Forces be changed.
Hamill said the best way to imagine it was “with the shoe on the other foot” and added that it would be disrespectful if a Christian were to be asked to speak with an Imam about Allah, instead of a chaplain “of someone like mind”.
“I just don’t think that’s appropriate in a pluralist country… We’re no longer a monotone Catholic country,” Hamill added.
His letter is asking the Tánaiste to apologise to “all members of the Irish Defence Forces for the religious discrimination” within the organisation.
Hamill asked the Tánaiste in his letter to ensure that “Cabinet begins the process” of changing regulations so that military chaplaincy roles are fairly given, regardless of the beliefs of the applicant.
The letter reads: “Will you seek to ensure that no more atheist and minority faith citizens of Ireland are again the victims of such unlawful religious discrimination in the appointment of State-funded positions?
“I have been raising these issues with your Department since 2018, but unfortunately I have yet to receive any meaningful response to literally dozens of letters on the subject,” it continues, adding that during the same period, Roman Catholic bishops “have had no such difficulty in receiving prompt responses from your Department when they have sought to have priests appointed to State-funded military chaplain roles, without advertisement or tender”.
“Now that the behaviour of your Department in this regard has been found to constitute unlawful religious discrimination against me, perhaps it might be possible for you to answer my questions?
“Notwithstanding the refusal of your predecessor to engage with me in any way on this subject, I’m hopeful that you will be able to manage a person reply to a letter from a mere citizen like myself, even if I am not a Roman Catholic bishop.”
Hamill said that regulations must be changed to reflect the pluralist nature of the country today.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It should be you have to be over 100 and accompanied by a parent!!!!!
@BAAB: that’s brilliant!
Fantastic law. Ireland is to greedy for the tax.
Why can we just make it illegal to buy cigarettes for anyone born after 2019?
@Nomad: Thats a very good idea
@Nomad: anyone born after 2001 would be better … but I’m liking this Hawaii idea
@Nomad: Ban the sale of alcohol to anyone under 120
@Simon Carroll: now that is just stupid.
Will just make the price on the black market go up
@shellakybooky: it will, but you can’t make public health policy based on wether the black market is going to do something. As a smoker, I’d love a ban in Ireland.
@Joe Travers: Would you turn to the black market?
The problem with them on the black market is what’s in them and not the loss of revenue.
Because the world has SUCH a great record of successfully banning drugs. It NEVER leads to more dangerous products, it NEVER funnels enormous amounts of money into organised crime, it NEVER leads to insane laws where millions of people are imprisoned for non-violent crimes at a cost of billions, it NEVER leads to a situation where the police get ever more militant leading to situations like where teams that wouldn’t look out of place storming Osama’s hideout storm houses in the suburbs guns blazing just to prevent the risk that some low level dealer might flush his stash.
Yep, this is a great idea that has never failed before.
@The Bob: Yeah, you’re right. We tried stuff in a different situation before and it didn’t work. We should just do nothing.
This is cigarettes we’re talking about – yes, very addictive but you’re never going to get people chasing them the same way as other drugs. The effect of tobacco just isn’t enough crack to warrant it. There would be some residual black market, but the main effect would be to make it entirely socially unacceptable to smoke and make it very difficult for young people to start smoking in the first place.
The government would never introduce such a law. They make great money out of other people’s addiction.
@Tony Murphy: They lose that money as the healthcare costs outweigh the tax intake.
@Robert Conneely: That is very unlikely to be true. In the UK conservative estimates put the monatary revenue gain to the excheuqer at £6billion. https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/
@Robert Conneely: 6million people die each year worldwide from smoking related diseases. 8.2 million die from cancer which 1.7 million is from lung cancer. Basically my point is the whole health care for smokers costing a fortune story is total bullshit and an excuse to keep rising the price of tobacco. I realise they’re bad for you but this whole costing the state a fortune I don’t believe in the slightest.
@Hardly Normal: valid point. Many smokers gave health insurance despite massive tariffs , those who are suing at high rates are most likely from poorer countries with zero access to poor medical care and smoking unregulated tobacco added to all this one has to factor in the cost of care of those in the West ( reducing by the year) that’s offset by those who continue to smoke and do not require full time care from the damage of smoking and have paid massive taxes on their smoking habit
Brilliant ..and rightly so .. the smoking and indeed e-smoking industries creaming billions off people around the globe. The costs to fix and repair people is then mind boggling. This fella has seen it all first hand and knows the consequences for many. Sure it would be tough for some to get off the oul schmokes ..i was a smoker myself for years .. tried and tried eventually did it .. one of the best things i ever did ..suck the life right out of you just like the ciggie companies do
Smoking is bad for your health that’s a fact, I don’t smoke now, but I did once and if people that are adults want to smoke, it’s their own business.
It’s reasonable to provide factual information on the health risks and let them decide for themselves. Just because someone is a doctor, it doesn’t automatically make their opinion the basis for legislation or something that should be accepted in place of personal freedom.
It’s a slippery slope of the removal of the personal rights to eat or drink to excess, skateboard, skydive take part in extreme sport etc.
We all have one shot a life and it if we can’t even have the freedom to make stupid decisions that ultimately effect ourselves, what’s the point and where does the nanny state mentality end?
@David Van-Standen: plenty of dangerous things are illegal or controlled. Driving without a seat belt, walking on motorways, driving without a license, carrying knives, guns, crack cocaine, codeine, morphine, the list goes on. Sometimes laws do need to be made to protect people from themselves, unfortunately having all the information doesn’t always work.
@Niamh Ní Caiside: your freedom to behave recklessly in respect of your own life can impose a huge societal cost e.g rehabilitation of those injured in car accident.
Can you still bring them in to Hawaii from other states or countries?
@GClare: you will be mugged for 20 Major
Brillant idea. We should follow suit. Wean ourselves off cigs and tax over 5 years. In long run we, and particularly children would benefit. Bring it on.
I like to have a choice. I think you got that with abortion. Same here.
Could we get that here?
Once again people cheer as the state steps in to tell us what we can and cannot put into our own bodies….all this is going to do is drive tobacco sales underground and fuel crime. Raising taxes on tobacco products and pumping it into education is always unpopular but it is the best option to stop people smoking not some ridiculous ban.
Can We do the same with Alcohol or is it only one poisonous habit that we can attack?
@Simon Carroll: If you have a problem with either, you can quit and not wait for someone to hold your hand.
Not a bad way around the costly legal issues of an outright ban. It would still take years to wash out the illegal element, but it puts the writing on the wall for the tobacco industry.
Taxation is not a sincere method.
Nor is all the shaming about heatlhcare cost, everybody that doesnt die suddenly carries end of life costs, that is everyone eventually.
I need a fag after reading that
@Colm Walsh: I’d say you’re a howl on a night out!
If we’re going to ban anything it should be alcohol first it’s the most dangerous widely used drug, it costs us a lot more money to our public services the cigarettes
Iv also never heard of any smoking 20 John Player Blue and then acting like an idiot causing fights, killing people, been generally antisocial or been a danger in our roads
Smokers stink of death.
Lol, never happen.
That could do the job our revenue people won’t do:
“Stop the illegal selling of cigarettes and tobacco on Moore Street Dublin”
Millions of revenue lost every week.
The law is an Ass:
Increase the legal age by 1 year every year might be a way to eventually ban it here. Would also cushion the blow of lost revenue. Would take a long time to see the rewards though.
@Stephen Woods: excellent idea my good man. Take a bow!
I’ve been suggesting something similar for years, mine not so drastic but to raise the age by 1 year every year and to issue ‘smokers cards’ to those over the age of 18 who currently smoke and only allow those people to purchase cigarettes until everyone who is allowed smoke is eventually dead in 70 or so years.
@Niamh Ní Caiside: what??? Smokers cards and slowly eradicate the smokers? Please never get involved in politics or any other important decision making process
@Niamh Ní Caiside: sorry Niamh another guy called Steve got a comment in before you about raising the age by one year every year. You didn’t tell him by any chance, did you?
As a smoker It can’t come quick enough here. Horrible habit and strain on the system. But the taxes say it all and the Goverment would never do it. Pity As It should be done.
With all that’s going on in the whole world these days , this is news , give me a break you clowns
have your say