European and Danish Religious Education: Human Rights, the Secular State, and Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality

This article was downloaded by: [University of Iowa Libraries]On: 05 October 2014, At: 02:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Religion & EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urel20

European and Danish Religious Education: HumanRights, the Secular State, and Rethinking ReligiousEducation and PluralityTim JensenPublished online: 11 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Tim Jensen (2005) European and Danish Religious Education: Human Rights, the Secular State, andRethinking Religious Education and Plurality , Religion & Education, 32:1, 60-78, DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2005.10012351

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2005.10012351

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urel20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15507394.2005.10012351

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2005.10012351

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European and Danish Religious Education:Human Rights, the Secular State, andRethinking Religious Education and Plurality1

Tim Jensen

My modest contribution to our discussions about religious education(RE) in the USA and Europe, and Robert Jackson’s Rethinking ReligiousEducation and Plurality,2 takes the form of a critical survey of religiouseducation in Europe and in Denmark, and an outline of my ideal kind ofreligious education: a religious education that can and ought to be acompulsory subject in public schools, elementary as well as upper-secondary, in all of Europe and in the US; and a school subject, consequently,that does not conflict with various secular constitutions or Human Rightdeclarations and conventions. This is a religious education which, on thecontrary, befits a truly secular state3, promotes the ideals of Human Rights,and meets the needs of a pluralistic world and society, including the needsof future citizens who, one way or the other, have to cope with what Jacksoncalls traditional as well as modern plurality (e.g. the fact that religions,truths, and gods are many, and not just many versions of the same one andonly religion, truth or god). Actually, I think it ought to be a must for asecular state to make such a religious education (which differs from whatJackson recommends) a compulsory school subject in line with all othersubjects, be it history, mathematics or languages.

Consequently, I do not pretend to be impartial. My kind of religiouseducation is based upon a certain point of view in regard to religion, religiouseducation and the obligations and interests of the state in regard to theeducation of its citizens. The descriptive part of the paper, then, isaccompanied by a normative part, the latter connected to personal as wellas professional opinions on religion and education, the well-being of thestate, the positive value of scientifically based knowledge, and theimportance of religious education as one of many instruments available toprovide for knowledge and intercultural understanding.

I am not an educationalist well-versed in pedagogy. The transformationof my ‘ideal-type’ of religious education into classroom practice at thevarious levels of schooling is a task for the teachers. I know, however, frommy own experience of more than 15 years as a religious education teacherin an upper-secondary school that it is possible. I am an historian of

Religion & Education, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring 2005)Copyright © 2005 by the University of Northern Iowa

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4

European and Danish Religious Education 61

comparative religions, and one point of departure for me in the academicstudy of religions is that religion and religions are part and parcel of thehistory of mankind, and that religions matter. Religions matter in the livesof individual citizens, and in international as well as domestic politics. Inorder to be and become a well-educated and well-integrated citizen of amodern nation state as well as of the world, one simply has to knowsomething about religions. Not only about one’s own or one’s parent’sreligion, but about other religions as well.

My point of departure includes a non-religious (or secular4) approachto religion. I consider religion an historical and human variable, a socialand cultural system and discourse distinguishing itself from other suchsystems and discourses primarily by way of including a reference to apostulated transempirical, transhistorical, and transhuman agency whichcannot be either falsified or verified.

I shall not relate in an explicit manner to the American discussions ofreligious education, religious education and the Constitution, The FirstAmendment, and its Establishment clause5. Neither shall I explicitly referto all of the important discussions and suggestions in Rethinking ReligiousEducation and Plurality. I do, however, want to be explicit about one thing:Jackson’s is a very fine and useful book! Jackson manages to take the readerthrough a broad spectrum of past and present discussions and issues, relevantfar beyond the borders of Great Britain and Europe. And he does so withelegance and grace, practicing the ideal he puts forward for the pedagogiesof religious education: combining a pool of knowledge, critical skills andanalyses with a methodological openness and tolerance in such a way thata fruitful dialogue between the writer, the reader and the subject matter iscreated, and so that the reader as well as the writer is moved to reflect upontheir positions.

Human Rights and Religious Education

Not to get lost in the specifics of different constitutions, legal systemsetc., and in order to locate a discussion about the possibility and centralaims of a compulsory, secular religious education in some kind of relevanttransnational legal as well as ideological system, I take the 1948 UniversalDeclaration on Human Rights6 and later conventions as a starting point.

In addition to Article 18 (on the right to freedom of thought, conscienceand religion, etc.) Article 26 is of special interest because it deals with theright to education. Having stated everyone’s right to education, and thateducation shall be free and compulsory at the elementary level, the notionof ‘education’ is qualified: “Education shall be directed to the full

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4

62 Religion & Education

development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respectfor human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding,tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, andshall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance ofpeace.” In paragraph 3, it limits the role of the state, and, in my view, therange of implementation of the abovementioned aims: “Parents have a priorright to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

This possible conflict between, on the one hand, the interests/rights ofthe state and the UN in promoting “understanding, tolerance and friend-ship among all nations, racial and religious groups…” and on the other, theinterests of parents and religious groups, is important, especially when welook at religious education.

Another fundamental declaration in this context is the 1981 UN Decla-ration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimina-tion Based on Religion or Belief.7 Article 5, 1 states: “The parents […]have the right to organize the life within the family in accordance withtheir religion or belief and bearing in mind the moral education in whichthey believe the child should be brought up”, and (5, 2): “Every child shallenjoy the right to have access to education in the matter of religion orbelief in accordance with the wishes of his parents […] and shall not becompelled to receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes ofhis parents […]”. (my emphasis).This invites problems. It invites parents to withdraw their children from aschool subject which I deem necessary in order to provide the child withcomprehensive knowledge about the world and mankind, and it conflictswith the aims of promoting understanding, tolerance etc. amongst nationsand religious groups. Besides, giving the parents this option is, in my opin-ion, not in the interest of the child (nor the state), but primarily in theinterest of the parents. The conflicting interests and rights of parents andchildren are of course also of extreme importance.

Looking at Europe, the most important instrument of the Council ofEurope in dealing with freedom of religion, religious education, and therights of parents, is Article 2 of Protocol no. 1 of ECHR (the Conventionfor the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms8). Havingfirst prescribed that no one shall be denied the right to education, it statesthe right of parents to ensure education for their children in accordancewith their own religious and philosophical convictions. So, the issue ofparential rights is raised here as well.

These articles, however, have been on trial in several cases where parentshave complained that the religious education offered in the public schoolwas not in accordance with their own religious or philosophical convictions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Complaints have been triggered by a confessional as well as non-confessional religious education. The rulings of the European Court ofHuman Rights provide a parameter for the kind of religious education whichdoes not violate the parent’s rights. According to these rulings (rulingswhich the American reader no doubt can relate to rulings in the US), religiouseducation may be made compulsory if the “information and knowledgeincluded in the curriculum is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralisticmanner”.9

The compulsory religious education I am looking for must be able tostand the test of the European and US courts. The courts must be able toreject any claims made with reference to faith/conviction, simply byreferring to the executive orders for the religious education in question.

Religous Education in Europe10

Though religious education is part of the curriculum in public schoolsof most countries, regulations and content differ depending on differencesin religious traditions, the role and impact of religion in society and politics,the constitutionally defined relationship between state and religion, andthe educational traditions and systems, including relations between publicand private schools.11 Besides, most countries have different regulationsand contents for religious education in primary, secondary and upper-secondary schools. In the following section, I will outline the several optionsfor religious education being pursued in Europe at this time.

No religious education in public education at all

France, with the exception of Alsace-Lorraine (with a confessionalreligious education run by the Evangelical Church), is the classical examplehere, but some of the post-communist states belong to this category too.Here, then, religious education is totally privatized, in the hands of theparents and the respective religions. Religous education is solelyconfessional and almost exclusively religious instruction, in the parents’and childrens’ own religion(s).

The principles of religious freedom, and the rights of the parents whenit comes to religious education are, no doubt, respected. The interest, whichI stipulated, of the state to produce well-educated and enlightened citizensable to cope in a holistic and rational way with a pluralistic world when itcomes to religion, however, is not furthered.

It is worth noticing that even France has grappled with this problem,12

trying to find a way to balance the notion of laicite with their Enlightenment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


heritage. In Spain too, steps have been taken to try to establish some kindof secular religious education.13 Here, however, it is not only the CatholicChurch, but also the social-democratic government, ideologically detachedfrom the majority religion but with a hostile attitude to religion and a limitedknowledge of everything but a confessional religious education, which is ahindrance.

State-guaranteed religious education in public schools

This category may be divided into two sub-categories: confessional andnon-confessional.

Confessional

This category includes countries with a confessional religious education,guaranteed and authorized by the state, but run and practiced by the religions,mainly the dominant Christian churches, who also make up the syllabi,sometimes in cooperation with the state or the local authorities.

Such is the case in Germany (with the exception of someBundesländern), Finland, Austria, Belgium and Poland. In Poland, like inother countries, religious education is offered and guaranteed, yet optional,and in some places an alternative such as Ethics/Philosophy is offered tothose who, in the name of freedom of religion and the rights of the parents,opt out.

Religous education then, here as in the first category, is predominantlyreligious instruction. Teaching about other religions may be included,especially at the secondary levels, but this then tends to be a teaching fromthe point of view of the dominant religious tradition, something Jacksonand I both reject. The teachers may be professional teachers, with or withouta close relation to the church, but they may also be clergymen or teachersappointed by and educated by the church.

The latter is the case in the Scholae Europaea of European Union too.Here the secular school authorities (the EEC) pay the salaries of the religiouseducation teachers who are appointed by the various faith-communities,personally engaged in the same religious tradition and only rarelyprofessional teachers. Besides differences due to the centralized andauthoritarian process of the Catholics (the syllabus is issued by theCommission of the Episcopacy of the European Community - COMECE),the main difference between the Catholic and Protestant-Anglican syllabi14

is that the latter is more open to a pluralistic teaching about religion(s)other than the Protestant-Anglican one. The Protestant-Anglican syllabusreflects the traditions for a multi-faith religious education characteristic of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


especially England, Scotland, and Denmark,15 as can be seen from thepreamble:

Knowledge and understanding of Christian and non-Christianreligions is a prerequisite for the modern human being andcitizen who needs to understand history and the presentsituation of the world and of Europe.

Religion is a fact of human history and culture. Religionshave been essential in the shaping of cultural institutionsand patterns, of collective and individual ways of life andthinking.

The role of Christianity in the shaping of Europe and theEuropean Union cannot be underestimated. Nor can itsinfluence on Western Art, Music, and Literature. And in spiteof the present secularised, pluralistic and multi-religioussituation, the majority of Europeans belong to one of theChristian confessions.16

In this model the major part of religious education in primary and secondaryschool is devoted to teaching about Christianity, but there is room for otherreligions.

Non-confessional

This includes countries that have an obligatory non-confessionalreligious education, authorized and more or less run by the state which, viathe Parliament and Ministry of Education, draws up the normative executiveorder, syllabus, and guidelines. Sometimes, the national curriculum maythen be filled out in more detail by the local school authorities. Some places(e.g. in Denmark) the education of the religious education teachers followsnational standards and takes place in the departments of the study of religionsat the public universities (for upper-secondary religious education) and inteacher training seminars (for primary school religious education). Such anon-confessional religious education can be found in England, Wales andScotland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

Sometimes, especially in primary school, the parents have the right towithdraw their children, and sometimes an alternative is offered. This opt-out is offered in spite of the fact that the subject is, in principle, non-confessional teaching about the major religious traditions, in secularphilosophies of life and ethics, and in theories of secularization and religion.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Within this category there are many variations and differences as well.One example: In England, the state and local school authorities haveinvolved representatives of the religious communities in standing advisorycouncils/committees for religious education in drawing up standards forsyllabi. In Denmark, the Ministry of Education appoints a committee ofscholars of religions, theologians, and religious education teachers fromthe associations of religious education teachers. At least officially,17 no‘religionists’ are involved.

Religious Education in Denmark

The religious situation in Denmark is quite different from the situationin the USA and England. Denmark has been and still is extremelymonoreligious. The Christian religion has dominated the country andpeople’s concepts of religion for more than a millenium. Following theReformation in 1536 Denmark has been dominated by a local, ratherorthodox variant of the Lutheran-Protestant tradition, and when democracyand freedom of religion was introduced with the Constitution of 1849,equality of religion was still not part of it. And it still is not. The constitutionclearly states that the Lutheran-Protestant church, with the romantic-nationalist name of the “Folk-Church,” is the religion of the state and to besupported by the state.

The Danes are not too keen on the weekly services offered by the morethan 2000 churches belonging to the Folk-Church. Some six percent attendonce a month. Yet, some 84% are paying members, and though a separationof state and church is often debated nowadays, most politicians are againstit, arguing that the majority of the population belongs to the Folk-Church,and that the Folk-Church is part of the so-called Danish tradition and integralto something called Danishness.

Though Denmark has become slightly more pluralistic in matterspertaining to religion, I find it safe to say that Denmark is not a multi-religious country. There are some 200,000 Muslims, almost four percent ofthe population, and the total amount of members of other non-Christianreligions amounts to no more than one percent. Even if we have, due tomigration, seen the establishment of several Christian-Orthodoxcommunities, and though Pentecostal churches have had some success,the religious plurality, measured in number of members, is still almost non-existant. On the individual level, plurality and syncretism in religious beliefsand to some degree practices too, is of course growing.

The strange thing about religious education in Denmark, then, is that ithas been there for years, and that it has been a ‘multi-faith’ religious

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


education long before members of other non-Christian religions started toenter the Kingdom.

Religious education in the public elementary school was, at first withthe name of “religion” and later “Knowledge of Christianity/Christianstudies,” confessional until 1975. In 1975 instruction in the core teachingsof the Lutheran-Protestant Church was (in the executive orders) replacedby words saying that the central subject matter shall be the teachings of theFolk-Church. The subject still had a special position since it is mentionedin a separate paragraph in the overall executive orders for the elementaryschool, and the possiblity of opting out is still there. In 1975 a compulsorysubject matter was introduced, “foreign religions and philosophies of life,”to be taught either in Christian studies, in history or in another subject. In1993 this was integrated into Christian studies, where “other” or “foreignreligions” shall be taught, but only on the upper-levels, not the first fiveyears of school.

Elementary school religious education, however, still has someconfessional biases. For example, the possibility of opting out still exists,the subject does not figure in the curriculum at the 6th or 7th level becausethe majority of the pupils at this time are expected to participate in afterschool programs preparing them for confirmation, and the executive orderstates that the subject must introduce the children to the “religiousdimension” of life, something described as an ontological matter of fact.The subject is, with the exception mentioned above, scheduled to one lessonper week in all the nine years of elementary school.

The Danish elementary school is a comprehensive school. The generalaim of the school to which all subjects must contribute is to educate thechildren so that they become tolerant, open-minded, creative, independentcitizens in an open democracy with respect for human rights etc.18 All theteachers, including the religious education teachers, are aware of this aswell as of the obligation to cooperate with other subjects and teachers.Quite frequently the comprehensive nature of schooling is used as anargument against a more academically up-to-date, knowledge and contentbased religious education. All teachers, however, have taken a basic coursein Christianity/Life-philosophy at teacher’s training seminars, and somehave specialised in the subject by way of another course offered calledChristianity/Religion. Though some religious education teachers at theteacher’s training seminars are candidates from the departments of thecomparative study of religions, most of them have a background astheologians. Thus the preparation of teachers is another reason for thedifferences between religious education in elementary school and in upper-secondary.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Though the executive orders, the content and the name of the subjecthave always been the subject of intense public debate, and though thesupporters of religious education do not have the same reasons for theirsupport, nobody has ever really questioned its very existence.

As I see it, religious education in elementary school is still in need of amajor revision. Indeed, it would not pass if it was evaluated in regard tothe mentioned rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. Theinformation and knowledge as prescribed in the curriculum is not objective,critical and pluralistic to such a degree that the opting out possibility canbe removed. Neither do I think that it lives up to the ideals Jackson spellsout. There are several reasons for this. The executive orders for the schoolin general and for each specific subject state that a major aim is to “makethe children intimate with Danish culture and acquainted with othercultures”. Since Danish culture is defined by reference to the traditionalreligion of the country, this amounts to some sort of religious instruction orreligio-cultural indoctrination. In this context, ‘we’ and ‘Danish culture’does not include ‘the other’ for example, the Muslims. As a result, religiouseducation in elementary school, like Christianity in the shape of the Folk-church, is used as an ethnic and national key instrument in acculturatingnewcomers as well as ethnic Danes to a kind of Danishness which is notparticularly pluralistic. Likewise, the aforementioned ‘religious dimension’of life being taught about, described as an ontological, universal fact and atthe same time in typical existentialist-protestant terms, can hardly be termedeither ‘objective, critical, or pluralistic.’

That non-Christian religions are taught only at the upper-level is alsoproblematic. Criticisms raised against this frequently is met by fourarguments: Denmark is a Christian country; the name of the subject is (andmust stay) ‘Christian Studies’ and not ‘Religion’; children at this age cannothandle the fact that there is more than one religion, and they must first havea ‘safe foundation’ in their own religion before they are ‘confronted’ withother religions.

Like Jackson, I do not buy these arguments, at least not if the state insome way or other boasts to be secular. It is not the task of the school topromote the majority religion, but to teach about it and its possible influenceson society and culture. Neither is it the task of the state and the publicschool to help the parents transmit their religion to their children. And, toinsulate the ‘innocent small ones’ from the harsh fact of traditional or modernplurality most surely is not the task of the school either. On the contrary:The earlier children learn to cope with this reality, the better. Besides, Ihave so far seen no research in favor of the argument that children cannothandle this harsh fact. Rather, I think, it is their parents and other adultswho cannot. To teach about the ‘other’ religions only at the upper levels is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


also quite a strange thing if—as is the case in many urban schools—morethan half of the pupils are from families which may be called Muslim.

However (and this may be one of the very few disagreements I havewith Jackson), at the same time as I do consider it absurd to teach only theLutheran-Protestant variant of Christianity in a class that is 50% Muslims,even in an implicit or explicit existentialist-protestant perspective ofreligions, I still find it worth discussing to what degree religious educationas a school subject, as it is presented in executive orders, shall pay attentionto the present state of affairs in the religious landscape of the country inquestion, and to the composition of pupils in regard to their religiousbackgrounds.

The reason for having a ‘multi-faith’ religious education in elementaryschool from the very beginning is that pupils will learn about the world andabout the world’s religions, and that they—as soon as possible—need tolearn to relate to religions, to their own religion and others, in a critical andqualified way. This means that the teachers cannot ignore the fact that s/hehas pupils with religious backgrounds, that some of the religious festivalsstudied are not only in the textbooks but also in the homes of some pupils,and that fierce public discussions about the relations between religions,nowadays especially Christianity and Islam, may have influenced even smallchildren. All of this, of course, may be part of the teaching and guideddiscussions. Teaching these age groups, I admit, probably makes it necessaryto relate lessons to the experiences of the pupils and to the presence oflocal and national religions. I am also very much in favor of deconstructingtheological models of religions as ‘things’ and grand ‘systems’ of ideas andpractices, and to include knowledge about ‘religion in locality’ in textbooksand religious education practice. I do, however, consider it very importantthat the teaching about various religions, and traditions within them, goesbeyond the present situation and issues, and beyond the present concernsand experiences of the pupils. One of the dangers, as I see it, with thereligious education envisioned by Jackson is that it does tend to take toomuch notice of the contemporary plurality and multicultural society andsetting (although he does give examples of how the local can be connectedto the global). Matters pertaining to this must be included and should playa substantial role, but religious education ought to broaden the horizon ofthe children and the society by including religion in the past and in otherparts of the world. But, again, I realise that this may be a matter of pedagogyand that my wishes may come through at another level of elementary school.I just do not like an religious education that tends to be about only ‘my andmy neighbour’s religion,’ and I think that some of the problems hauntingmany European societies today in regard to plurality and religions have to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


do with the fact that too much attention (also in the media) is paid tocontemporary and local plurality and issues. Teaching about pluralities andreligions of the past, in Europe and elsewhere, may further the kind ofrelativistic and reflective approach to one’s self, one’s own religion as wellas the relevant contemporary issues which I consider fundamental to acritical and enlightened society. To make the ground move beneath the feetof pupils is, I think, one of the tasks of the teacher in public school religiouseducation. This includes de-familiarizing (cf. also below) the pupils withtheir own and dominant notions of religion, making the comparative aswell as historical perspective of uttermost importance in this regard, evenat the most elementary level. Actually, I think that the kind of religiouseducation taught in upper-secondary school, as well as my ideal kind ofreligious education, ought to be the models for religious education inelementary school. I then entrust it to the skilled teachers to tailor it to theage groups in question.

Moving to religious education in upper-secondary school (age 16-19),one notices that the subject, in contrast to religious education in elementaryschool, has never (officially) been confessional. Religious education firstappeared in the ‘Grammar School’ in 1877, as a subject aimed at knowledgeabout, not instruction in, at that time of course, Christianity. Already in1930, more than 50 years before any ‘foreign’ religion had entered theKingdom of Denmark, a draft paper said that education ought to includeteaching about other religions and important elements from the history ofreligions. In 1955, 20 years before something like it happened in elementaryschool, the executive orders stated that pupils, if time allowed for it, shouldbe taught elements of the general history of religions. In 1961 this approachbecame the norm. The guidelines said: “The teaching is meant to make thepupils understand, in a historical context, religious ideas and the ways inwhich they are expressed and what they mean.”

To understand the difference between religious education in the twoschool-systems, one must pay heed to their different purposes. In contrastto the elementary school, the upper-secondary school has as its overall aimnot only ‘general education and edification’ but also preparation for highereducation. An important difference between the two has to do also with thefact that already in 1916 part of the education of teachers for religiouseducation in upper-secondary schools took place at the department of thehistory of religions at the faculty of the humanities.

In 1971, in the aftermath of the 1960s, the subject found its typicalform. It was constructed to suit various political interests by way of dividingthe content into three parts: Christianity, non-Christian religions, andphilosophies of life, ethics, and non-religious ideologies. In 1984examination was introduced, and the possibilty of opting out disappeared.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Since then the subject has been changed only in few and minor ways. In1989, for example, secularization and the secular study of religion andteaching about religion was introduced as part of the syllabus. In 1993 theguidelines explicitly stated that the subject has its roots in the academic,secular, and rational study of religion, taking the approach of the outsiderand not the insider as the point of departure.

Right now a revised version of the subject is underway. As I read thedraft papers, it seemed to me that the revised version may suffer a slight setback in terms of a more theological terminology and perspective. This isdue to the fact that the power within the committee and religious educationteacher’s union has passed to more theologically minded people, and todominant neo-romanticist and nationalist tendencies in society at large.Another change is that it will be obligatory to teach Islam as one of two orthree religions besides Christianity. All the religions must be taught in aglobal as well as European and Danish context. The teaching of indigenouspeoples’ religions, a must until 1999, has not been reintroduced. Today asbefore, the subject is based and focused upon knowledge and content. Anhistorical-textual approach with the so-called classical texts (in translation),as well as texts from the formative periods of the religions, are in theforefront, though supplementary teaching of field-work methods and visitsto the sites of living religions are recommended.

The last mentioned aspect reveals that the subject has responded tochanges within the academy as well as to changes towards a bit morereligious pluralism in Denmark, especially an increase in the number ofMuslims.

Religious education in upper-secondary school has never been in realdanger. By and large, everybody has agreed that no matter how religious,irreligious, a- or antireligious the population and the pupils may be, religionis part and parcel of global and Danish history: a historical, cultural andsocial fact which a well educated citizen has to learn and know about.

My Recommendations for Religious Education

Let me now flesh out in some more detail my ideal religious education,focusing on the content and the interplay between various subject-mattersmore than upon the interplay between the subject, the teacher and the pupils.

Nowhere, in Europe as well as in the US, can an obligatory religiouseducation be without a substantial amount of teaching about Christianity,but it must find space for teaching about the various Christianities. Likewise,it must include an equally substantial teaching about the so-called worldreligions, Islam of course being one, but not the only one. And to the degreetime allows, I fully agree with Jackson that a major challenge is to find

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


ways, in the class-room and via the texts, to deconstruct and de-reify thereligions. Materials collected locally, particularly those portraying the sameage groups as the pupils, may of course be used alongside other texts. Thesehelp pave the way for presenting the plurality within the religions and alsothe pluralism (and syncretism) so often found in the heads and maybe eventhe feet of the individuals within and without religious communities.

For a lot of reasons, some already mentioned, teaching about live ordead indigenous or ‘archaic’ religions is also a must. Here as in the generalstudy of religion, the curriculum must include the ways “we” (the Europeansand Westerners) have used these traditions to construct the science ofreligion and part of its vocabulary, to construct an ‘us’ over and against‘the other’, and to legitimize the power exercised over them.

Besides this, I consider it crucial that more subject areas be added. Allthrough the curriculum teaching must deal with questions about and answersto why religion ever originated, the many functions it may have served andstill serves in terms of evolution, society, politics, legitimation, and toquestions pertaining to its persistance. Why is religion here at all and whydoes it persist? These questions must play a major role, and we have to findways to tailor these complicated matters (as they are discussed in thecomparative study of religions by people interested in the cognitive sciences,biology, evolution etc.) to the age groups in question. This may be a way, inaddition to the ways Jackson recommends, to deconstruct reifications andtheological approaches. Besides, it may pave the way for what I have termed‘de-familiarizing religion,’ something at least as important as familiarizingthe pupils with religion.19 Most pupils, be they religious or non-religious,have notions of religions influenced by dominant notions within religiousgroups and in society at large. To relate questions about religion to biology,ecology, evolution and cognition may pave the way for more and otherkinds of interest in religious education and religion, and it may be a muchneeded antidote and supplement to ‘existential dimensions’.

Also a must, as a subject-area in itself and as one that accompanies allthe others, is ‘the academic study of and objective teaching about religion’;what we might call ‘didactics’. A secular religious education based uponthe secular, academic study of religions, must constantly question itself,e.g. by critical elucidation of its history and discussion of other ways ofteaching and studying religions. If this does not happen then religiouseducation tends to become a hegemonic discourse, and it no longer qualifiesas pluralistic. It risks becoming secularistic instead of secular.

Likewise, the comparative perspective, the uncovering of similaritiesand differences as well as the building up of a tool-box of analytical concepts,must be practised all the way through. Teaching about past and present

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


relations between majority and minority religions (as seen from theperspective of the sociology of religion) also is a must. So is the teachingof the ethics of religions, the general principles of religious ethics and theethics of the various religious traditions.

This brings me to the final subject-area, namely ‘philosophy and ethics’.When it comes to the history of religions and ideas in Europe as well as inthe USA, philosophy and non-religious ethics cannot be left out of anobligatory religious education.

There are several reasons for this. Contrary to much contemporaryChristian propaganda, today’s Europe and USA have not been shaped solelyby so-called Christian ideas and values. Neither has the study of religions(even if it has been heavily influenced by Christian notions of religion andtheology). Therefore, and in order to make the subject-areas of religiouseducation enter into a constant ‘dialogue’ with each other, religiouseducation must include teaching about the main Western philosophicaltraditions, including philosophers’ views of religion and religious ethics.Another reason for including this area is to preclude an alternative subjectdealing with the non-religious or anti-religious traditions.

The strength of the religious education here proposed may be indicatedby the success of something much like it, namely religious education inupper-secondary schools in Denmark. Unlike Christian Studies in Denmark’selementary schools, secondary religious education is a great success. Thatrecent research indicates that pupils actually become more tolerant towardsothers’ religions by way of religious education in upper-secondary schoolmay be mentioned in passing.20

One of the ‘secrets’ behind the success, however, is that since the early80s all of the teachers have been well educated at the university departmentsof the study of religions. And, allow me to be blunt about this issue towhich Jackson refers in his final chapter: There is no alternative to theacademic, scientific, comparative study of religions when it comes to theeducation of teachers who will be equipped to teach the kind of religiouseducation I and Jackson recommend. No model taken from the theologicalapproach to religion can be used in their preparation.

Only departments where various kinds of humanistic and socialscientific studies of religion are pursued produce the desired kind ofdescriptions and critical explanations of the various religions, as well asthe open-ended, non-normative definitions and theories of religion suitedfor an open, democratic and secular society and the public school. It iswithin this field of studies we find those critical and self-reflectiveapproaches upon which a compulsory religious education must be based. Itis here, today at least, that criticism of and discussions about the very notion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


of ‘religion’, ‘world religion’ and the methods and theories applied in asecular, scientific, and comparative study of religion, flourish. And, therecan, as indicated above, be no compulsory religious education in publicschools except if the very approaches applied in religious education andthe study of religions are not part and parcel of the subject.

My religious education, then, is a religious education that tries todescribe the religions from the point of view of insiders as well as outsiders,but its base is the secular study of religions. It includes sensitivity to beliefsand to people of faith, but it also has a critical edge to it. Simply because itis comparative, historical, humanistic, and social scientific in its methodsand theories. This means that one of the ‘fundamentals’ of religiouseducation is the fact, not the postulate, that it is human beings and societieswho create gods and not the other way round, and that the subject-matterunderstood in this perspective is not about gods but about human beings.Religious education, as well as the study of religions, is not in solidaritywith one religion or religion in general. It treats all religions in the sameway, and in this way it puts them all on the same level. Finally, maybesomewhat in contrast to Jackson, I recommend that religious educationpresents itself not as something which may help the pupils to make theirown religious or secular choices, but as a subject matter which helps themgain valid and critical knowledge and understanding of the world, especiallythat part which has to do with religion. The values to be transmitted to thepupils through religious education are the same as those transmitted inmany other school subjects, namely values connected to scientificallygrounded knowledge and critical, analytical skills. If religious educationhelps the students orient themselves in regard to religion, then that issomething which ought not enter the executive orders, and whatever thestudents in terms of choice of religion want to do with the knowledge andskills they acquire via religious education is their own business, not that ofthe teacher or the school.

The task for the state, then, is to draw up a national curriculum, anexecutive order and some guidelines with which the local schools andreligious education teachers are obliged to comply. It has to find means(e.g. yearly reports of the subject-matters taught) to make sure that theteachers and schools follow the executive order and the guidelines, and ithas to introduce regular and normal exams in the subject. The educationalauthorities must, accordingly, also provide future generations of religiouseducation teachers with one and the same education as outlined above.

My ideal-type of religious education, finally, looks not only like theDanish type, but a little like Jackson’s. It also looks like the model designedby a group of European religious education teachers gathered in 1994 onthe behest of the Parliament of Europe. After days of deliberation and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


dialogues on various kinds of religious education, the participants issued arecommendation:

...we wish to recommend that each country should haveformal professional time-tabled non-confessional ReligiousEducation...By “Religious Education” we mean teaching about thediversity of faiths and diversity within faiths; about coreteachings and local variations; about key beliefs and culturalmanifestations of religion. It should include sensitivity tobeliefs but also a critical edge. It should also ensure spacefor proper handling of issues related to minority groups -both minority faiths and minorities within faiths....To implement this (viz “...the teaching of religions ascultural and social facts and value bases, the analysis andunderstanding of which is necessary for an understandingof the past, present and future”) we suggest that experienceand modules developed in Religious Studies Departmentsand/or History of Religion in Universities be shared withthose responsible for teacher training and thus for thedevelopment of formal Religious Education...21

The document is important for many reasons, not least because it wasformulated and accepted22 by teachers from very different educationalsystems, and with very different religious or non-religious backgroundsand opinions. They had, however, one thing in common: knowledge aboutthe realities of daily teaching, and a will and a wish to find a way to makesure that pupils also learned something about religion. The participants, nomatter their personal opinions, agreed that religions do not solely belong tothe believers. Religions belong to the world, world history and Europeanhistory, and they are part and parcel of human cultures and societies.Whatever else it may be, religion is a human, historical, social and culturalfact, much too important to be left only to religious institutions or churches.It is, consequently, a must for the state and school authorities to provideevery future citizen, religious, non-religious or anti-religious, with aprofessional, ‘multi-faith’, non-confessional religious education. Iwholeheartedly agree, and I think Jackson does too.

Notes

1 I want to thank the AAR International Committee and the AAR Religionin the Schools Task Force, not least Mary McGhee, Ivan Strenski, and Marcia

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Beauchamp for bringing together at the AAR Annual Meeting in SanAntonio 2004 scholars from Europe and the US in order to promoteinternational discussions on religious education, and, hopefully, the teachingof religious education in public schools, in the US and elsewhere.2 R. Jackson, Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality: Issues inDiversity and Pedagogy (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004).3 Definitions of ‘secular’ are as hard to agree upon as definitions of ‘religion.’To define a ‘secular state’ likewise is no easy task. A definition I find usefulis given by Smith 1963. Ch. 1: “The secular state is a state which guaranteesindividual and corporative freedom of religion, deals with the individual asa citizen irrespective of his religion, is not constitutionally connected to aparticular religion nor does it seek either to promote or interfere withreligion.” The ’problem’ with this definition, however, is that most Europeannationstates then do not qualify as ’secular’ because they have sort of astate-religion.4 In this context I simply use the term to designate the academic study ofreligion as defined in opposition to religious thinking about religion. Cf.Jensen & Rothstein 2000, Preface.5 Cf. references in articles in AAR Spotlight on Teaching, march 2002, vol.17, no 2, and my remarks relating to this in Jensen 2002.6 Quotations refer to the internet version of the declaration at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html7 All quotations refer to the internet version at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_intole.htm8 Cf. the internetversion at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/009.htm9 Cf. Fledelius & Juul 1992,23 ff10 Cf. also Schreiner, 2002, 91 ff.11 Space prevents me from entering questions pertaining to private, (statefunded) religiously based schools in Europe or Denmark. I am in agreementwith most of what Jackson (Ch. 3) has to say about the matter. For a criticalup-to-date survey by the author (but in Danish) of Arabic/Muslim privateschools in Denmark cf. Jensen 2004.12 Cf. Debray 2002, and Jackson 173-74.13 In February 2004 in Cosgaya, Cantabria, The Spanish Association ForThe Study of Religion invited me to participate in a meeting in this regard.The scholars gathered issued a resolution which was sent to the relevantauthorities and the media.14 Sources: The Final Programme or Syllabus of the Teaching of CatholicReligion in the European Schools, by the Commission of the Episcopacyof the European Community - COMECE & European Schools; Protestant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


and Anglican Religious Education, Primary School Syllabus and SecondarySchool Syllabus, both of which have been e-mailed to me by one of theDanish, Protestant teachers.15 It also reflects the fact that the person who was in charge of drawing upthe syllabus is a Danish Protestant minister as well as professional teacher,- and that it was done following several discussions in Brussels to which Iwas invited to participate.16 From last mentioned document in note 4.17 Here I may differ from Jackson: I see reasons for involving religionistsbut I oppose it. In a secular democracy the religionists have to be representedonly by way of the elections of members of parliament. Disregarding theproblems pertaining to questions of ‘representation’, I simply insist that thepublic school and its subjects, including religious education, belong to thesecular sphere. If religionists get involved in religious education, thenwhy not involve them in all the other subjects? At the same time, I admitthat the majority religion may be said to be ’represented’ by way of the factthat most non-religionists involved actually are Christians and members ofthe national church. I also very well know that the Ministry of Education inDenmark has – at least in regard to elementary school - seen to it that theheads of past committees have been not only’normal’ members of thechurch but active members, a bishop or the like.18 In Denmark then, unlike England, there is no special school subject oncitizenship.19 Cf. Jensen 2000.20 According to research conducted by the author et al. Published only inDanish.21 Studying religions in social sciences at school, Report on the 65thEuropean Teachers Seminar Donaueschingen Germany 24-29 October 1994(1995), 5.22 I have to admit that I was there and active in drafting the resolution.

References

AAR Spotlight on Teaching, 17(2), 2002.Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms (1952), http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/009.htm

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and ofDiscrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981). http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_intole.htm

Régis Debray, L’Enseignment du Fait Religieux dans L’Ecole Laïque:Rapport au Ministre de l’Éducation Nationale (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4


M. Felderhof, ”Religious education and human rights” in N. Holm (ed.),Islam and Christianity in School Religious Education (Åbo: Åbo AkademiUniversity, 2000), 21-39.

H. Fledelius and B. Juul, Freedom of Religion in Denmark (Copenhagen:The Danish Center for Human Rights, 1992).

Tim Jensen, “‘Irreligion’ in Denmark,” Religion in the News 1(2)(1998),18-19.

Tim Jensen, “Religion or Religious Education in a Europe of Conflict-ing Trends,” Into the third Millenium. Red. Niels-Åke Tidmann. (Malmö:Föreningen Lärare i Religionskunskap, 2000), 142-59.

Tim Jensen and M. Rothstein, (eds.), Secular Theories on Religion:Current Perspectives (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2000).

Tim Jensen, “The Religiousness of Muslim Pupils in Danish Upper-Secondary Schools,” in W.A.R. Shadid and P.S. van Koningsveld (eds.),Intercultural Relations and Religious Authorities: Muslims in the Euro-pean Union (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 123-137.

Tim Jensen, “Religious Education in Public Schools - A Must for aSecular State: A Danish Perspective,” CSSR Bulletin 31(4) (2002), 83-89.

Tim Jensen, “From History of Religions to the Study of Religions.Trends and Tendencies in Denmark,” in G. Sfameni Gasparro, (ed.), Themesand Problems of the History of Religions in Contemporary Europe. Collanadi studi storico-religiosi, 6, (Cosenza: Edizione Lionelli Giordano, 2002),183-208.

Tim Jensen, “Muslimske friskoler i Danmark,” Svensk religionshistoriskårsskrift, 13 (2004), 79-104.

Protestant and Anglican Religious Education, Primary School Syllabusand Secondary School Syllabus (N.d.), Brussels.

P. Schreiner, Et al, (eds.), “Overview of Religious Education in Europe2002,” in Committed to Europe’s Future, Contributions from Educationand Religious Education: A Reader (Münster: Comenius Institut, 2002).

D. E. Smith, India as a Secular State (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1963).

Studying religions in social sciences at school, Report on the 65thEuropean Teachers Seminar Donaueschingen Germany 24-29 October1994, (Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Co-operation, 1995).

The Final Programme or Syllabus of the Teaching of Catholic Religionin the European Schools (N.d.), the Commission of the Episcopacy of theEuropean Community - COMECE & European Schools, Brussels.

Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948). http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

2:26

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

European and Danish Religious Education: Human Rights, the Secular State, and Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality