Judge Rules Atheist Can Teach Catholic Class

A Roman Catholic school in Scotland hired an Atheist to teach math. Seems reasonable. Math is not a subject that requires a particular world view so no Catholic principles were in danger of neglect. Apparently to gain a promotion the math teacher applied for a position teaching a different subject. He was rejected because he was an Atheist. The court ruled in favor of the teacher who the Roman Catholic school must allow to teach the new class which is...pastoral care.

A teacher who lost out on promotion at a Roman Catholic school because he was an atheist has won his claim for religious discrimination.
In a case which could have far-reaching implications for the way denominational schools are run in Scotland, an employment tribunal ruled Glasgow City Council had discriminated against David McNab on the grounds of his religious beliefs by preventing him applying for a promoted post teaching pastoral care.

Under an agreement drawn up between the former Strathclyde region and the church in 1991, non-Catholics are excluded from certain key posts in denominational schools, such as headteacher, assistant head and teacher of religious education, biology or guidance.

One source said the reason Mr McNab won was because the pastoral care post was a new job title which was not specifically mentioned in that agreement.

American courts not the only ones that have judges incapable of common sense. Pastoral care is the kind of subject that should require a Roman Catholic to teach in a Roman Catholic school since the students are likely to be Roman Catholic pastors. The Atheist teacher could only want to teach such a class for bigger paycheck. If he has a desire to teach that subject he should do so at a Universalist school. Unlike math, pastoral care is not a purely academic subject as it has spiritual implications under the Roman Catholic tradition. Clearly a class where the spiritual traditions of the Roman Catholic Church could suffer neglect if not taught by a Roman Catholic.

Clearly the judge in this case has no clue outside of the strict letter of the law.