This item is the archived peer-reviewed author-version of:

Coping with diversity in religious education : an overview

Reference:
Franken Leni.- Coping w ith diversity in religious education : an overview
Journal of beliefs and values : studies in religion and education - ISSN 1361-7672 - 38:1(2017), p. 105-120
Full text (Publisher's DOI): https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2016.1270504
To cite this reference: http://hdl.handle.net/10067/1395830151162165141

Institutional repository IRUA

Coping with Diversity in Religious Education: an Overview
Leni Franken, Centre Pieter Gillis, University of Antwerp

ABSTRACT
As a result of secularization and increasing religious diversity, several European nation states adapted their policy with regard
to the organization of religious education (or its equivalent) in state schools (schools funded and established by the state). In
this article, different strategies will be outlined and evaluated: (1) the shift from confessional/catechetical to semi-
confessional RE; (2) the possibility of exemption; (3) the organization of an alternative, non-confessional subject; (4) the
expansion of RE subjects (multi-religious RE); (5) the shift from confessional to non-confessional RE; (6) the integration of
information about religions in other school subjects. Based on a human rights perspective, the author argues why some of
these strategies are preferable to others.

KEYWORDS
Religious plurality – human rights – confessional RE – non-confessional RE – exemption – Europe

1. Introduction
Until the 1960s, Christianity was the major religion in most European nation-states and
society was largely influenced by this religion. As a result of globalisation, political,
economic and religious conflicts, and far-going international mobility, this Christian
dominance belongs to the past and most European nation-states are characterized today by
ethnic and religious diversity. In addition, the role of religion in Europe has changed
significantly. Despite the manifestation of a kind of ‘cultural Christianity’, most European
states can nowadays be labelled as ‘post-Christian’: the Christian impact on culture and daily
life has decreased and most people consider Christianity to be unimportant in their daily lives.i
These societal changes have led to national and international discussions about
religious education (RE) and to several initiatives in order to cope with religious diversity in
education (e.g. Council of Europe 2004, 2008; Keast 2007; OSCE 2007; Jackson 2014a). In
this contribution, the focus will be on different strategies to cope with religious plurality in RE
classes in state schools or public schools, i.e. schools which are funded and established by the
state. Based on a human rights perspective, I will argue why some of these strategies are
preferable to others.ii
In what follows, attention will mainly (but not exclusively) be given to the following
nations: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway and Spain. The choice
for these nations is threefold: first, there is the varied geographical location of the different
nations, with Norway and Finland situated in the Northern Part of Europe; Austria and
Germany in Central Europe; France and Belgium in Western Europe; and Italy and Spain in
Southern Europe. As a result of this geographical location, the religious context is also
different: even though all nations are increasingly characterized by secularism and religious
diversity, some of them – Austria, Belgium, Italy and Spain to be concrete – are traditional
Catholic nations; Norway is a Lutheran nation; and Finland and Germany are religiously
‘mixed’ nations where respectively Lutheran/Orthodox and Lutheran/Catholic traditions are
the main religions. Different from the aforementioned nations, France is – at least from an
institutional and educational point of view – a secular (laïque) state, with a strong separation
between church and state. As a result of this diversified religious landscape, these different
nations often have different RE models, which makes a comparison between them
worthwhile.iii

2. Religious Education and Human Rights law

Human rights law protects basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled.
These rights have been defined by international conventions, treaties and organizations and
can be seen as a ‘framework’ or a ‘code of law’ for democracy. In order to serve as such a
‘framework’ for different conflicts in different contexts, human rights documents and legal
rules are formulated “in such general terms that room is left for a number of different
interpretations” (Slotte 2008, 45). Accordingly, legal rules are “indefinitely inclusive”,
“contingent”, “negotiable” and “open-ended” (Slotte 2008, 45): within certain limits, states
can decide how they fill in particular rights and freedoms, such as the freedom of religion and
the right to education.
In this paper, I will, from a human-rights perspective, focus on RE. This focus is
twofold. First, there is the legal dimension of RE. As stated in national and international
legislation, the right to education, ‘in conformity with [the parents] own religious and
philosophical convictions’ (ECHR, 1st protocol, 2nd article) should be guaranteed. But what
does this mean in practice? Does it mean that the state should subsidize faith-based schools?
Does it imply confessional RE classes in state schools? And can the organization of non-
confessional RE classes be in line with this universal right to education?
Given the open-endedness of human rights law, there are no a priori answers to these
questions and whether a given policy is in line with human rights law is partly dependent on
the context. This contextual approach is, however, only one part of the coin. In addition, it is
also true that that some policies are in general (and thus apart from particular contexts) more
in line with human rights law than other policies: even though there are several possibilities in
order to guarantee the right to education ‘in conformity with [the parents] own religious and
philosophical convictions’, some of them are principally more consistent with the freedom of
religion and education than others.
In addition to this legal aspect of RE, there is also a connection between human rights
and the pedagogical aims of RE. In 2008, the Council of Europe published its
Recommendation on the dimension of religions and non-religious convictions within
intercultural education. Its aim was “to ensure taking into account the dimension of religions
and non-religious convictions within intercultural education as a condition to strengthen
human rights, democratic citizenship and participation, and the development of competences
for intercultural dialogue.” (Council of Europe 2008, 3; emphasis mine) As stated in the
Recommendation, “intercultural dialogue and its religious and non-religious convictions
dimension are an essential precondition for the development of tolerance and a culture of
‘living together’, as well as for the recognition of our different identities on the basis of
human rights.” Education should develop intercultural competences trough “promoting
communication and dialogue between people from different cultural, religious and non-
religious backgrounds” (Council of Europe 2008, 4). Accordingly, there is “a strong case for
including religions and beliefs as an intrinsic element of liberal education, and for regarding
education about religions and beliefs as also highly relevant to students’ personal
development.” (Jackson 2014a, 25; also Jackson 2016, 36).
Also from a pedagogical point of view, some ways of organizing RE are thus more in
line with human rights and the related idea of democratic education than others.

3. Religious Education in a Context of Plurality: Six Possible Solutions

In order to assure the right to education, ‘in conformity with [the parents] own religious and
philosophical convictions’ in a positive way, state schools can organize (and subsidize)
denominational or confessional RE.iv For many years, such a policy was almost evident and
Christian (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, Orthodox) education classes were
organized in state schools all over Europe, except for the former communist states (which had
no RE on their curriculum during the communist regime) and France (which has no RE in
state schools since the 1905 law, with the exemption of the Region of Alsace-Moselle and the
transoceanic territories).
For a long time, this model of mono-confessional RE was not much disputed: even
though non-Christian religions (for instance Judaism, Islam and several eastern traditions) and
atheism had some presence in Europe before the 1960s, the majority of citizens belonged to a
Christian denomination and it was the norm to have Christian RE classes in state schools. Last
decades, however, things changed significantly as a result of globalization, secularization and
increasing religious diversity.
From a legal point of view, the mono-confessional model could no longer sustain
because it favours one particular worldview and does, therefore, not treat all students equally.
But also from a human rights based pedagogical point of view, a single model of mono-
confessional RE has its deficits. In order to understand present society, and in order to
function in that society as a future citizen, it is not sufficient (any longer) to “nurture children
and young people in a particular faith tradition” (Jackson 2014a, 16). What we need is not
merely education into one particular religion (even though this kind of RE can have its
merits), but education about religion: if we want to understand the society at large, make
independent value judgments, take social responsibility and participate in a pluralistic,
democratic society, we need to understand the nature and character of religion in general and
of diverse religions in particular. In order to cultivate this ‘religious literacy’ (cf. Wright 2001,
Prothero 2008), education about different religious and non-religious worldviews is a desired
school activity. Therefore, it is not a surprise that many states have modified their policy with
regard to RE.

3.1 From mono-confessional and catechetical to semi-confessional RE

For a long time, mono-confessional RE was the norm in many European state schools,
particularly in nations with a Roman-Catholic or an orthodox Christian tradition. From the
1970s onwards however, this mono-confessional (and/or catechetical) approach evolved in
several nations to a more pluralistic or ‘semi-confessional’ approach.
In Italyv for instance, Roman Catholic education has been organized in state schools
since 1859 (law Casati), but in 1984, the catechetical teaching model evolved to a more open,
‘cultural’ approach. Five years earlier (in 1979), the Pastoral Guidelines for Religious
Education at School in Spainvi pointed at the difference between catechesis by the Roman
Catholic Church on one hand, and Religious Education at School (‘a confessional synthesis
between faith and culture’) on the other, defending the latter. Also in Belgium vii, the syllabi of
Roman Catholic Education were substantially transformed in 1999 (cf. Boeve 2012) and since
then, they are no longer catechetical, but open and ‘pluralistic’, taking into account the fact of
religious diversity in the classroom.viii
In Germanyix, where both Catholic and Lutheran education are, in the most Länderx,
main RE subjects in state schools, the self-understanding and purposes of these Christian RE
subjects changed as well. Since the 1974 Würzburg Synod, Catholic RE is no longer seen as a
catechetical subject, but as a theologically and pedagogically-based subject that aims at
personal development in a church-related way. At the same time (1971), the Education Synod
of the Protestant Church proposed a shift away from primarily Church-based RE into a more
pluralist model that takes into account the religious freedom of all students – believers as well
as non-believers. During the 1990s and the 2000s, this shift to a more dialogical and open
approach in both Catholic and Lutheran RE classes has, once more, been emphasized and
discussed in several official church documents.
As a result of these changes, present Lutheran and Catholic RE in Germany consists of
“both confessional and non-confessional traits” (Willems 2015, 27): on the one hand, teachers
require a certification issued by their religious organization (missio canonica) and RE is thus
still organized along confessional lines; on the other hand, RE is state-funded, and state and
church cooperate in the training and selection of teachers and in the approval of the curricula
and teaching materials. Besides, the content of RE is largely deconfessionalized: the aim of
RE is no longer ‘to nurture faith’, but rather “to promote knowledge of and understanding of
different religious traditions for all pupils in the common school, together with some
reflection by pupils on what they have learned.” (Willems 2015, 27)
Notwithstanding the inclusiveness and openness in these RE classes, this
denominational and/or ‘semi-confessional’ approach is not evident for all students/parents.
Particularly in secularized and/or religiously pluralized regions, the organization of
denominational and/or (semi-)confessional RE as a regular subject is challenging. The main
problem is that RE classes are mainly organized by the Catholic and Lutheran churches and
that Christianity is still given a priority position as a point of reference. Needless to say, this is
a far from impartial, and for some parents/students also an undesirable approach.
Accordingly, additional strategies to cope with RE in state schools were required.

3.2 Exemption Schemes

In order to guarantee the freedom of religion for all students and parents, exemption from
(semi-) confessional or denominational RE classes is required when they are on the official
state school curriculum. This right to exemption (the right ‘to opt out’) has been confirmed by
the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in several court cases (e.g. Hassan and Eylem
Engin v. Turkey, Appl. no. 1448/04; Mansur Yalçın & Ors v. Turkey, Appl. no. 21163/11),
even though it is, in most European nation states, a quite recent phenomenon.
In Spain for instance, all students were, until 1977, required to take Roman-Catholic
education in state schools, without the possibility of opting out. In Belgium, exemption in the
Flemish Community was only possible after several court cases in the late 1980s and the early
1990s (Sluijs 1989; Davison 1989 & 1990; Vermeersch 1990), while exemption was, in the
French Community, not allowed before a 2015 court case (De Pascale 2015).
Notwithstanding these quite recent dates of exemption schemes, the right to exemption
is widely accepted today as a minimal requirement in order to guarantee the freedom of
religion and education when confessional or denominational RE classes are on the regular
curriculum in state schools. There are, however, at least three problems with exemption
schemes, which makes that other solutions are preferable.
First, there may be some practical problems. In the Flemish Community in Belgium
for instance, there is no alternative subject for exempted students. During RE classes, these
students stay in another class or in the school’s office, but this is far from ideal because
exempted students are, with such a regulation, often seen as outsiders: “Though opt out
classes may remedy the compulsion element, such safeguards cannot prevent possible
ostracization of those children that avail of these exemption schemes.” (Temperman 2010,
279) In addition, it is possible that exempted students do not receive any kind of RE at all,
which is, from a pedagogical perspective, not satisfactory in the present society.
Another problem is the problem of segregation. If students can be exempted for RE, it
is not possible to foster mutual dialogue in RE. This dialogue is, however, a prerequisite for
RE in the present multi-religious society: only if students of different beliefs – including non-
religious beliefs – are in the same RE class, can they thoroughly learn from each other and
come to a respectful understanding of religious difference (cf. Alberts 2007; Council of
Europe 2007; Jackson 2014a; Jacskon 2016, 35-36).
Finally, there is the theoretical basis of exemption schemes. Even though the right to
exemption is required in order to guarantee religious and educational freedom, this right
should not be overestimated. Actually, there is an important difference between (a) a state that
considers education into religion to be a regular subject and considers exemption an anomaly
(opting out); and (b) a state that allows (and subsidizes) education into religion in state
schools, but only if students or parents request this kind of RE (opting in).
In the first case, the state is not neutral: it considers confessional RE to be a primary
good or a good that is to everyone’s advantage (for this terminology see Rawls 1971, 90-95)
and accordingly, RE is scheduled on the regular curriculum. It is, however, not taken for
granted that confessional RE is to everyone’s advantage in a society that is characterized by
religious plurality and secularization. Therefore, it would be better to organize
confessional/denominational RE in state schools at request. In this case, the state only
assumes that religion (and thus also confessional RE) can be important for some
parents/students, but not for all. Because such a policy of opting in is more neutral than a
policy of opting out, and because the state treats all students (believers and non-believers) as
equals within this system, such a policy, which is for instance common in the Netherlands xi
and in Polandxii, is to be preferred over a policy of opting out.

3.3 A non-confessional, alternative Subject

Even though exemption schemes can be sufficient in order to guarantee the freedom of
religion and education, they “work best when […] a meaningful class is available to substitute
for the one that is being missed” (Evans 2008, 469). Hence the organization of an alternative,
non-religious subject for exempted students in several European nations or regions.
In Spain for instance, an official alternative for RE in secondary schools was
introduced in 1980, in response to criticism by secular parents. Fourteen years later (in 1994),
a new decree stated that RE be still organized in state schools, while at the same time
‘alternative activities’ should be offered. Different from Roman-Catholicism however, these
‘alternative activities’ do not imply assessment. For that reason, they are not taken seriously
and they are both by teachers and students often interpreted as “guided leisure time” or
“homework support” (Dietz 2007, 119).
In Germany, students who are exempted from confessional RE (mainly Roman-
Catholicism and Lutheranism) can, in most Länder, take a non-confessional subject called
‘Ethics’, ‘Philosophy’ or ‘Values and Norms’ and in Austria, there are several pilot projects
with a subject ‘ethics’ for exempted students.xiii In the southern part of Belgium (French
Community), a non-confessional subject (EPA – Encadrement Pédagogique Alternatif ) has
been introduced in 2016/17 and also in Italy, some schools organize an alternative, albeit
non-compulsory subject.
If well organized and taken seriously, the organization of a non-confessional subject
for exempted students has several advantages. First of all, it can prevent the exclusion and
stigmatization of exempted students. In addition, it leaves it open to parents whether they
choose for a confessional or for a non-confessional course (e.g. ethics, citizenship,
philosophy…). Finally, the organization of a subject for exempted students can contribute to
the religious literacy of these students, provided that attention is not only given to ethics,
philosophy and/or citizenship, but also to different religious and non-religious traditions.
There are, however, also some important deficits. First, the state is not required to
integrate religious facts in the subject for exempted students: it can also choose to organize a
subject in citizenship, philosophy and/or ethics, without any attention for religion. This is for
instance the case in Spain, where the alternative activities for religious education may not
consist of any kind of religious knowledge – even non-confessional knowledge.
Another problem is – once again – the segregation of students during RE classes.
Even though the state takes into account the freedom of religion and the freedom of education
in a positive way when it organizes an alternative subject for exempted students, such a
segregated model is not the most desirable model in a context of religious plurality. If the
state wants to prepare its citizens for a future life in society, all students should, to a certain
extent, be informed about different religious traditions. In addition, there is also a ‘need for
dialogue’ and this dialogue is more promising when students of different religious and
philosophical traditions are in the same classroom.

3.4 Multi-religious, separative RE

One step further than a system of RE in the major (Christian) tradition(s), with the possibility
of exemption and/or the organisation of a non-confessional alternative, is a system of multi-
religious RE. Within such a system, there is no monopoly for a particular religion, but
different (recognized) religions can organize their own RE classes. In these classes, students
of different religions are separated according to their religion and RE is thus organized in a
separative way. In most cases, multi-religious RE is confessional, although a non-
confessional approach is also possible.

3.4.1 Separative, confessional RE

In Austria and Belgium, RE is organised in a separtative and confessional way. In Austria,
sixteen churches and religious societies are currently recognized by the state: the Catholic
Church, the Protestant Church Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) and Helvetic Confession
(Reformed), the Greek Orthodox Church, the Jewish Religious Association, Islamic Religious
Community, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Old Catholic Church, the Evangelical
Methodist Church, the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), the Armenian Apostolic
Church, the New Apostolic Church, the Austrian Buddhist Religious Society, the Syrian
Orthodox Church, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islamic Alevite Religious Community, and Free
Churches. In accordance with basic law, all these religions can organize state-funded
denominational RE in state schools. In addition, non-recognized churches or societies can
organize optional RE classes, but these are not funded by the state.
 In a similar way, state schools in Belgium are constitutionally required to organize RE
classes in the recognized religions and worldviews, which are at present Roman-Catholicism,
Protestantism, Anglicanism [only organized as RE class in the Flemish Community],
Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and non-confessional humanism.
Also in Germany, RE in state schools is, despite the majority of Lutheran and Catholic
RE, to a certain extent also multi-religious: in several Länder, students cannot only choose
Roman-Catholic RE, Lutheran RE or an alternative subject (ethics), but also one or more
other RE subjects, among them New Apostolic RE, Mennonite RE, Old Catholic RE,
Orthodox Christian RE, Buddhist RE, Jewish RE and Islamic RE. In a comparable way,
Catholic RE is the norm in Spain, but at parental request, Jewish, Islamic and Evangelical RE
can also be organized.

3.4.2 Separative, non-confessional RE

In Finlandxiv, RE classes are also organized separatively, but the different RE classes are
organized in a non-confessional way. Most Finnish students (91,9%) take Lutheran RExv, but
if several conditions are fulfilled, students who are officially not a member of the Lutheran or
Orthodox Church (which are both national churches in Finland) have the right to take another
RE class. At present, National Framework Curricula are written for thirteen religions:
Evangelical Lutheran Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism,
Buddhism, Kristiyhteisö [Christian Community], Latter Day Saint religion [Mormons], Free
Church, Adventist religion, Baha'ì, Hare Krishna [ISKCON] and Herran kansa ry [the Lord’s
people]. In addition, a non-confessional subject ‘Life Questions and Ethics’ is organized for
students who do not belong to any (recognized) religious community.
RE classes in Finland are considered to be non-confessional: the main purpose of
Finnish RE is not to convert students or teach into their own religion, but “[…] to offer the
pupils knowledge, skills, and experiences, from which they obtain materials for building an
identity and worldview.” (National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004, 202) This
“non-confessional approach” becomes also visible in the requirements for teachers: since the
Freedom of Religion Act (2003), RE teachers should no longer be a member of the religious
community whose religion they teach. In principle, a person can teach any religion as well as
ethics, provided that he/she has the relevant qualifications to do so.xvi Also important is that
the state (the National Board of Education) – and not the churches – has final authority over
the curricula. Accordingly, school RE in Finland does not belong to the sphere of interest of
the Church, but rather to that of the State.
 However, in spite of this non-confessional character, Finnish RE also contains
confessional aspects and practices. As a result of the denomination-based separative aspect on
one hand, and the non-confessional approach on the other, the Finnish RE system is “ridden
with contradictions” (Sakaranaho 2013, 247) and is therefore often labelled as ‘weak
confessional’ (Kotiranta 2013, 107; Ubani & Tirri 2014, 110).

With a multi-religious model, the state positively takes into account the fact of religious
plurality: RE is not only organized in the major tradition, but different religious groups can
organize their own RE classes in state schools. Accordingly, the parental freedom of religion
and education is, at least for parents who belong to one of the religions which have their own
RE subject, guaranteed in a positive way (freedom to religion).
This benefit has, however, also its deficit: in Belgium, Austria and Finland, RE is only
organized in the recognized or registered religions and/or worldviews, and not in non-
recognized or non-registered religions or worldviews.xvii This leads to a form of inequality:
even though more students in Belgium adhere, e.g., to Buddhism (not recognized [yet]) than
to orthodox Christianity (recognized), only education classes in this last religion are
(currently) organized in state schools and subsidized by the state. For similar reasons, Wicca
in Finland is “the most established faith tradition without RE” (Ubani & Tirri 2014, 108).
Another problem is the segregation of studentsxviii: during RE classes, Catholics gather
with Catholics; Muslims with Muslims; Protestants with Protestants; and so on. From a
pedagogical point of view, such a segregated model is not the most preferred model in a
religiously diversified society, where particularly religious differences and a lack of religious
knowledge of the ‘other’ are important factors of intolerance and conflict and where,
accordingly, an integrative approach in which discussion with co-students adhering to another
religion is recommended (cf. Alberts 2007).

3.5 Education about Religion as a separate, integrative School Subject

In order to cope with religious diversity in an open and dialogical way, several nations or sub-
nations (for instance Sweden, the UK, Denmark, Norway and some cantons in Switzerland)
organize non-confessional, integrative RE: based on a religious-studies based approach (and
not on a theological approach), students get information about diverse religious and
philosophical traditions and dialogue between these traditions is stimulated. Different from
the previous models, RE is not organized by the religious communities, but by the state.
Accordingly, RE is no longer seen as education into one’s own religion, but as a regular, non-
confessional subject that contributes to citizens’ general education or Allgemeine Bildung
(Jensen 2008; 2011).
With the organization of non-confessional and integrative RE, students with different
religious backgrounds have the same RE subject, which gives them the opportunity to learn
from and interact with each other and to question their own and other worldviews. In addition,
this model gives all students the opportunity to enlarge their religious knowledge and to
stimulate an open attitude of tolerance.
Notwithstanding these noble aims, the organization of non-confessional RE is not
uncontested, particularly when the subject is mandatory for all students. In Norway for
instance, the organization of non-confessional, integrative RE has led to a well-known court
case in which the (parental) freedom of religion and conscience was one of the disputed
issues. But also beyond the European borders, the mandatory character of non-confessional
RE has been disputed: in Québec for instance, the subject Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC)
was, since its implementation in 2008 (and even before), twice brought to the Canadian
Supreme Court.
In Folgerø v. Norway (2002, Appl. no. 15472/02; 2002)xix and in SL v. Commission
scolaire des Chênes (SCC 7, 1 S.C.R. 235, 2012 )xx, parents complained about the mandatory
character of RE: according to the Norwegian parents, the non-confessional subject KRL
(Kristendoms- religions- og livssynskunnskap [Christianity, Religion, Life Stances]) was too
religious, while the Québec parents considered ERC not religious enough. Even though both
parents opposed the subjects for different reasons, they were both convinced that the
mandatory character of the RE subject was not in line with their freedom of religion. As said
by both Courts, however, this mandatory character is in line with human rights law, as long as
the subject is taught in a ‘critical, objective and pluralistic manner’ and as long as it does not
lead to indoctrination.xxi
Also important with regard to non-confessional RE is the common critique that it is
impossible to teach about religion in a neutral or impartial way. Even though I cannot go into
detail herexxii, it is important to make a distinction between a-religiosity and methodological
agnosticism on one hand, and anti-religiosity on the other: in non-confessional RE classes,
methodological agnosticism or methodological a-religiosity is required from the teacher with
regard to metaphysical and religious truth-claims, but this does not entail a negative stance
toward religion (anti-religiosity). Rather the contrary: it is exactly because religion is so
important, that different beliefs should be taken seriously and that all students should, in a
critical and impartial way, be well-informed about it.
 Finally, there is the critique that non-confessional RE is opposed to religious
pluralism: rather than being in line with religious plurality, non-confessional RE presents all
religious and non-religious worldviews in the same, ‘neutral’ and ‘relativistic’ way and there
is no place for real diversity and identity formation within a specific religious tradition.
Particularly when non-confessional RE classes have replaced the confessional RE classes, and
when they are on the mandatory school curriculum (which is for instance the case in Norway
and Quebec), these and other criticisms are frequently picked up.

3.6 Education about Religion as an integrated School Subject

The aforementioned problems with regard to neutrality, religious identity, and the parental
right to educate their children in conformity with their own religious tradition, make that the
organization of a separate subject about religion is not always evident. One possible way out
here is the integration of education about religion in other subjects such as history, geography
and language education. This is for instance the case in France, where education about ‘le fait
religieux’ is integrated in state schools.xxiii Also in the United States, several state schools
integrate knowledge of religions in the regular school subjects (e.g. history, literature), in
order to increase the students’ religious literacy.
One of the advantages of this ‘inclusive approach’ is that there is no separate subject
about religion which has the ambition of being neutral. Accordingly, there is no need for
exemption schemes: given the fact that teachers do not claim any moral or religious truths, but
only inform students about facts concerning religion within their regular, non-religious
classes, there is no need for exemption.xxiv Finally, the inclusive approach enables all students
to learn together about religion and to discuss with each other in an open and critical way.
This inclusive organization of non-confessional RE is, however, not uncontested.
Particularly in France, where state schools are considered to be secular or laic institutions, the
inclusion of religious facts in the regular school curriculum raises many issues and opponents
are afraid that it would bring God back into school. But also in the United States, the
integration of RE in state schools is not uncontested. In the Mozert v. Hawkins (6th Cir. 1987)
court case for instance, parents complained about the use of texts during reading classes,
which were not in line with their religious convictions. Even though the US Circuit Court
argued in favour of the school (and not of the parents), this case shows that even the use of
religious texts within non-religious subjects can be perceived as problematic.

4. Conclusion
There are different strategies to cope with religious diversity in RE classes in state schools.
Given the existing plurality of religious and non-religious views in Europe, a mono-
confessional approach, in which one particular RE subject is organized, without the
possibility of exemption, is, from a legal human rights perspective, not in accordance with the
freedom of religion and the freedom of education – even if the subject content is less
catechetical and more dialogical and interreligious than a few decades ago. Therefore, a
minimum requirement is the possibility to get exemption.
However, in order to guarantee that all citizens are, as far as possible, treated as
equals, exemption schemes are not sufficient. From a normative stance, a system in which
students can take confessional or denominational RE at request, and in which different RE
classes and a non-confessional alternative can be organized, is more in line with human rights
such as the freedom of religion and the freedom of education, and with the principles of
equality and neutrality, than a system in which (mono-)confessional RE is the norm.
From a pedagogical point of view, however, such a system raises important issues.
The main problem is that students are segregated according to their religion or worldview,
which is not the most desirable situation in a context of increasing religious diversity.
Besides, the possibility of exemption and/or the organization of non-confessional alternatives
enable that some students will have no RE at all. If we agree that some core aims of 21st
century RE are “to cultivate reciprocity, sensitivity and empathy and to combat prejudice,
intolerance, bigotry and racism” (Jackson 2014b, 137), this is problematic. As argued by
Jackson (2014b, 137), “ [t]he ideal learning context [for RE] is provided through a safe forum
or learning space in which students can engage in dialogue and discussion managed by
teachers with appropriate specialist knowledge and facilitation skills” and hereto, a single
model of separative, confessional/denominational, and therefore also optional RE, is
insufficient.
Presently, there is a need for “knowledge and understanding of the main religions and
non-religious convictions in the world and of their role in society ” (Jackson 2014b, 137) and
in order to realize this, a model of integrative and mandatory education about religion – as an
integrated part of other subjects, or as a separate subject – is, from a pedagogical human
rights perspective, more promising than a model in which one or more separate, optional RE
subjects are organized. Because attention is given to different religious and non-religious
traditions and because there is no preference for one particular religion or worldview, this
model is – at least in theory – also from a legal perspective “most compliant with the states’
‘human rights obligations” (Evans 2008, 471). We should, however, be aware that organizing
RE in an ‘objective and pluralistic manner’ is not that evident in practice, particularly when it
is organized as a separate and mandatory subject. But even if we take into account these
challenging complications, I see this kind of RE, for reasons mentioned above, as the most
promising RE model in European state schools today.

References

- Alberts Wanda. Integrative Religious Education in Europe: A Study-of-Religions

Approach. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.
- Alberts, Wanda (2011). “Religious Education in Norway”, in Religious Education in a
Plural, Secularised Society, edited by Leni Franken & Patrick Loobuyck, 99-114.Münster:
Waxmann.
- Aldridge, David. “The Case for Humanism in Religious Education.” Journal of Beliefs &
Values 35(1) (2015): 92-103.
- Barnes, L. Philip. “Humanism, non-religious Worldviews and the Future of Religious
Education.” Journal of Beliefs & Values 36(1) (2015): 79-91.
- Boeve, lieven. “Religious education in a post-secular and post-Christian context.” Journal
of Beliefs and Values: Studies in Religion & Education 33(2) (2012), 143-156.
- Bosset, Pierrre. “Les Droits des Parents en Matière d’Enseignement Religieux: pour une
Mise en Perspective du Discours Juridique.” In Le programme d’Ethique et Culture
Religieuse, edited by Mireille Estivalèzes et Solange Lefebvre, 157-174. Québec: Les
Presses de l’Université de Laval, 2012.
- Bråten, Oddrun M.H. Towards a Methodology for Comparative Studies in Religious
Education. Münster: Waxmann, 2013.
- Bråten, Oddrun M.H. “Are Oranges the only Fruit? A Discussion of Comparative Studies
in Religious Education in Relation to the plural Nature of the Filed internationally.” In
Religious Education at schools in Europe. Part 3: Northern Europe, edited by Martin
Rothgangel, Geir Skeie & Martin Jäggle, 19-43. Vienna: Vienna University Press, 2014.
- Council of Europe. The Religious Dimension of Intercultural Education. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe Publishing, 2004.
- Council of Europe. Recommendation CM/Rec 12 of the Committee of Ministers to member
states on the dimension of religions and non-religious convictions within intercultural
education, Council of Europe Publishing, 2008.
- Derroitte, Henri, Guido Meyer, Didier Pollefeyt & Bert Roebben. “Religious education at
schools in Belgium.” In Religious Education at Schools in Eruope. Part 2: Western
Europe, edited by Martin Rothgangel, Robert Jackson & Martin Jäggle, 43-63. Vienna:
Vienna University Press, 2014.
- Dietz, Gunther. “Invisibilizing or Ethnicizing Religious Diversity? The transition of
Religious education towards pluralism in Contempory Spain.” In Relgion and Education
in Europe. Developments, Contexts and Debates, edited by Robert Jackson, Siebren
Miedema, Woframm Weisse & Jean-Paul Willaime, 103-131. Münster: Waxmann, 2007.
- European Commission. Special Eurobarometer (Biotechnology Report). Brussels: TNS
Opinion & Social, 2010.
- Evans, Carolyn. “Religious Education in Public Schools: An International Human Rights
Perspective”. Human Rights Law Review 8(3) (2008): 449-473.
- Ferrari, Alessandro. “Religious Education in Italy.” In The Routledge Handbook of
Religious Education, edited by Derek H. Davis & Elena Miroshnikova, 175-180. New
York: Routledge, 2013.
- Franken, Leni & Patrick Loobuyck, eds. British Journal of Religious Education. Special
issue on Neutrality and Impartiality 39(1) (2017).
- Garcimartin Montero, Carmen. “Religious Education in Spain.” In The Routledge
International Handbook of Religious Education, edited by Derek H. Davis & Elena
Miroshnikova, 329-335. New York: Routledge, 2013.
- Gaudin, Philippe. “Enseignements des faits religieux et laïcité en France.” In Le défi de
l’ensignement des faits religieux à l’école. Réponses européennes et québecoises, edited
by Jean-Paul Willaime, 241-257. Paris: Riveneuve, 2014.
- Gaudin, Philippe (2016). “Neutrality and impartiality in public education: the French
investment in philosophy, teaching about religions, and moral and civic education”.
British Journal of Religoius Education, DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2016.1218221
- Geurts, Thom, Ina ter Avest & Cok Bakker. “Religious Education in the Netherlands.” In
Religious Education at schools in Europe. Part 2: Western Europe, edited by Martin
Rothgangel, Robert Jackson & Martin Jäggle, 171-204. Vienna: Vienna University Press,
2014.
- Griera, Mar. “Les débats concernant l’enseignement des relgions à l’école en Espagne.” In
Le défi de l’ensignement des faits religieux à l’école. Réponses européennes et
québecoises, edited by Jean-Paul Willaime, 145-170. Paris: Riveneuve, 2014.
- Hagesæther, Gunhild & Signe Sandsmark (2006). Compulsory Education in Religion –
the Norwegian case : an Empirical Evaluation of RE in Norwegian Schools, with a Focus
on Human Rights. British Journal of Religious Education 28(3): 275-287.
- Jackson, Robert. Signposts – Policy and Practice for teaching about religions and non-
religious worldviews in intercultural education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing, 2014a.
- Jackson, Robert. “The development and dissemination of Council of Europe policy on
education about religions and non-religious convictions.” Journal of Beliefs and values
35(2) (2014b), 133-143.
- Jackson, Robert. A Human Rights Rationale for Religious Education as ‘Education about
Religions and Beliefs’? (Keynote Lecture, International Seminar on Religious Education
and Values XX, ‘Values, Human Rights and Religious Education’, Chicago, Illinois
[2016-07-31/2016-08-05]), 2016. Available at
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M5A1C_JbVeYJ:www2.warwic
k.ac.uk/fac/soc/ces/research/wreru/aboutus/staff/rj/rj_isrev_paper_2016.docx+&cd=3&hl
=nl&ct=clnk&gl=be&client=firefox-b-ab (accessed 2016-10-16)
- Jäggle, Martin & Philipp Klutz. “Religious Education at schools in Austria.” In Religious
Education at schools in Europe. Part 1: Central Europe, edited by Martin Rothgangel,
Martin Jäggle & Thomas Schlag, 39-68. Vienna: Vienna University Press, 2016.
- Jensen Tim. “RS based RE in public schools: a must for a secular state.” Numen 55
(2008): 123–150.
- Jensen, Tim. “Why religion education, as a matter of course, ought to be part of the public
school curriculum.” In Religious Education in a Plural, Secularised Society: A Paradigm
Shift, edited by Leni Franken & Patrick Loobuyck, 131–149. Münster: Waxmann, 2011.
- Keast, John, ed. Religious Diversity and Intercultural Education: A Reference Book for
Schools. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2007.
- Kenngott, Eva. “Life Design-Ethics-Religion Studies: non-confessional RE in
Brandenburg (Germany).” British Journal of Religious Education (Special Issue on
Neutrality and Impartiality in RE) 39(1) (2017)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2016.1218223.
- Knauth, Thorsten. “Religious education in Germany: a Contribution to dialogue or a
source of conflict? Historical and Contextual analysis of the development since the
1960s.” In Relgion and Education in Europe. Developments, Contexts and Debates, edited
 by Robert Jackson, Siebren Miedema, Woframm Weisse & Jean-Paul Willaime, 243-265.
Münster: Waxmann, 2007.
- Kotiranta, Matti. “Religious Education in Finland.” In The Routledge International
Handbook of Religious Education, edited by Derek H. Davis & Elena Miroshnikova,
104112. New York: Routledge, 2013.
- Kuusissto, Arniika & Kallioniemi, Arto. “Pupils’ views of religious education in a
pluralistic educational context. Journal of Beliefs & Values 35(2) (2014): 155-164.
- Lied, Sidsel. “The Norwegian Christianity, Religion and Philosophy subject KRL in
Strasbourg”. British Journal of Religious Education 31(3) (2009): 263-275.
- Loobuyck, Patrick & Leni Franken. “Religious education in Belgium: Historical overview
and current debates.” In Religious education in a plural, secularized society. A paradigm
Shift, edited by Leni Franken & Patrick Loobuyck, 35-67. Münster: Waxmann, 2011.
- Mazzola, Roberto. “La religion à l’école en Italie: état des lieux et évolutions.” In Le défi
de l’ensignement des faits religieux à l’école. Réponses européennes et québecoises,
edited by Jean-Paul Willaime, 103-120. Paris: Riveneuve, 2014.
- OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe). The Toledo guiding
principles on teaching about religion or belief. Warsaw: Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights [ODIHR], 2007.
- Pettigrew, Jaques. “Le Programme Ethique et Culture Religieuse et le Jugement de la
Cour suprême du Canada dans l’Affaire.” In Le défi de l’ensignement des faits religieux à
l’école. Réponses européennes et québecoises, edited by Jean-Paul Willaime, 223-237.
Paris : Riveneuve, 2014.
- Prothero, Stephen. Religious Literacy. What every American needs to know – and doesn’t.
New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2008.
- Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1971.
- Rogowski, Cyprian. “Religious education at schools in Poland.” In Religious Education at
schools in Europe. Part 1: Central Europe, 185-208. Vienna: Vienna University Press,
2016.
- Rothgangel, Martin & Ziebertz, Hans-Georg. “Religious education in Germany. In
Religious Education at schools in Europe. Part 1: Central Europe, edited by Martin
Rothgangel, Martin Jäggle & Thomas Schlag, 115-148. Vienna: Vienna University Press,
2016.
- Sakaranaho, Tuula. “Religious Education in Finland.” Temenos. Nordic Journal of
Comparative Religion 49(2) (2013): 225-254.
- Skeie, Geir. “Impartial teachers in religious education – a perspective from a Norwegian
context”. British Journal of Religious Education 39(1) (2016). DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2016.1149047
- Slotte, Pamela. “Waving the ‘freedom of religion or belief’ card, or playing it safe:
religious instruction in the cases of Norway and Finland.” Religion and Human Rights
3(2008): 33-69.
- Slotte, Pamela. “Securing freedom whilst enhancing competence: the ‘knowledge about
Christianity, religions and life stances’ subject and the judgment of the European Court of
Human Rights.” Religion and Human Rights 6 (2011): 41-73.
- Temperman, Jeroen. State-religion relationships and human rights law. Toward a right to
religiously neutral governance. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010.
- Ter Avest, Ina, Gerdien Bertram-Troost & Siebren Miedema. “Religious education in a
pillarised and postsecular age in the Netherlands.” In Religious Education in a Plural,
Secularised Society. A Paradigm Shift, edited by Leni Franken & Patrick Loobuyck, 85-
98. Münster: Waxmann, 2011.
- Ubani, Martin & Tirri, Kirsi. “Religious Education at Schools in Finland.” In Religious
Education at schools in Europe. Part 3: Northern Europe, edited by Martin Rothgangel,
Geir Skeie & Martin Jäggle, 105-126. Vienna: Vienna University Press, 2014.
- Van der Kooij, Jacomijn, de Ruyter, Doret & Miedema, Siebren. “’Worldview’: the
Meaning of the Concept and the Impact on Religious Education.” Religious Education
108(2) (2013): 210-228.
- Weisse, Wolfram: “Dialogical ’Religious Education for all’ in Hamburg”. Pedagogiek
33(2013): 166-178.
- Weisse, Wolfram. “La religion à l’école dans le Land de Hambourg.” In Le défi de
l’ensignement des faits religieux à l’école. Réponses européennes et québecoises, edited
by Jean-Paul Willaime, 67-81. Paris: Riveneuve, 2014.
- Willaime, Jean-Paul. “Religious education in French schools.” In Religious Education at
Schools in Europe. Part 2: Western Europe, edited by Martin Rothgangel, Robert Jackson
& Martin Jäggle, 99-119. Vienna: Vienna University Press, 2014.
- Willems, Joachim (2015). “Religious Education and the Student’s fundamental Right to
Freedom of Religion – some Lessons and Questions from Germany.” In The Future of
Religious Education in Europe, edited by Kristina Stoeckl & Olivier Roy, 27-38. San
Domenico di Fiesole: European University Institute, 2015.
- Wright, Andrew. “Religious literacy and democratic citizenship.” In The fourth R for the
third millennium. Education in religion and values for the global future, edited by
Francis, Leslie J., Astley, Jeff, & Robbins, Mandy 201-219. Dublin: Lindisfarne Books,
2001.

i
Notwithstanding this general tendency of ‘secularization’, belief in God is still common in several EU member
states: in Malta, 94% of the population declares to believe in a God, in Romania 92%, and in Cyprus 88%. Also
in Poland, Slovakia, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece and Ireland, the majority of the population believes in God.
However, in spite of this high rate of ‘believers’, in most of these countries church attendance has decreased and
religion is no longer an all-encompassing factor of daily life. In other EU member states, less than 50% of the
population declares to believe in God and also there, church attendance has decreased significantly. (for
statistics: see European Commision 2010, 204).
ii
As a result of the international scope of this paper, the concept ‘RE’ will be used here in a very broad way, i.e.
as education wherein ‘the religious dimension’ (cf. Council of Europe 2004) plays a central role. RE so broadly
understood covers among others confessional and non-confessional RE; denominational and non-denominational
RE; integrative and separative RE; education about, into and from religion; and religious-studies as well as
theology based RE. In addition, also the concept of ‘religion’ will be used in a broad way, covering not only
religious traditions, but also non-religious and/or philosophical worldviews such as secular humanism, atheistic
existentialism, scientific materialism, hedonism, stoicism and nihilism. (For discussion of the concept
‘worldview’ and for its inclusion in RE, see for instance van der Kooij et al 2013; Jackson 2014a, Ch.7; Aldridge
2015; Barnes 2015)
iii
In some cases, references to non-European nations or regions (e.g. Québec and the US) will be made, in order
to clarify the situation in a more profound way.
iv
For the difference between denominational and confessional RE, see e.g. Bråten 2013, 22-24 and 2014, 25-27.
v
For RE in Italy, see Ferrari 2013; Mazzola 2014.
vi
For RE in Spain, see Dietz 2007; Garcimartin Montero 2013.
vii
For RE in Belgium, see Loobuyck & Franken 2011; Derroitte, Meyer, Pollefeyt & Roebben 2014.
viii
Remarkably, the bishops in Belgium declared in September 2016 that Catholic RE should become ‘more
Catholic’ again, because many students are presently uninformed about the fundamentals of the Catholic and
Christian tradition. At the same time, however, Roman Catholic RE should be accessible for all students and
organized in an open and dialogical way.
ix
For RE in Germany, see Knauth 2007; Willems 2015; Rothgangel & Ziebertz 2016.
x
In Germany, RE is in most Länder organized in a confessional and separative way. Exemptions to this ‘general
rule’ are Brandenburg, Hamburg and Bremen. In Brandenburg, an ‘integrative’ and non-confessional subject
‘LER’ is organized as an alternative for confessional RE (see e.g. Alberts 2007, 337-342; Kenngott 2016); in
Hamburg, RE is organized in an integrative, dialogical way (see e.g. Alberts 2007, 332-355; Weisse 2013,
2014); and also in Bremen, RE is organized in an integrative and (at least officially) non-confessional way (cf.
Alberts 2007, 335-337).
xi
For RE in the Netherlands, see Ter Avest, Bertram-Troost & Miedema 2011; Geurts, ter Avest & Bakker 2014.
xii
For RE in Poland, see Rogowski 2016.
xiii
For RE in Austria, see Jäggle & Klutz 2016.
xiv
For RE in Finland, see Kotiranta 2013; Sakaranaho 2013; Kuusisto & Kallioniemi 2014; Ubani & Tirri 2014.
xv
Numbers are from 2012. Based on http://www.suol.fi/index.php/uskonnonopetus-suomessa/religious-
education-in-finland (accessed 2016-09-20)
xvi
This way of qualifying RE teachers has been criticized by teachers of minority religions and particularly by
some Muslim parents. In some cases, they have transferred their children from Islamic education to ethics
education or to religious instruction provided by their Islamic community. (cf. Sakaranaho 2013, 246.)
xvii
In Austria and Finland, only religious communities are recognized by the state and have, accordingly, a right
to organize their RE subject in state schools. In Belgium, the non-confessional humanists are also recognized and
accordingly, they organize their own, secular humanist ‘RE’ subject in the Flemish Community. In the French
Community, the state (and not the recognized humanist organization) is responsible for this subject, but its
content is also influenced by secular humanism.
xviii
In addition to these principal problems, there are some practical problems with multi-religious, separative
RE. To name but a few: it is expensive; it creates difficulties in scheduling RE classes and finding classrooms;
and there are not always qualified teachers for the different classes.
xix
For discussion of this case and the preceding HRC case (Leirvag and others v. Norway,
CCPR/C/82/D/1155/2003), see e.g. Hagesæter & Sandsmark 2006; Slotte 2008, 2011; Lied 2009; Alberts 2011;
Skeie 2016.
xx
For discussion of this case, see e.g. Bosset 2012; Pettigrew 2014.
xxi
Notwithstanding this decision, the Canadian Supreme Court limited the mandatory character of ERC in
another case (Loyola High School v. Quebec, SCC 12, 1 S.C.R. 613, 2015), arguing that the state cannot require
faith-based schools to organize a strict non-confessional subject about religion since that would lead to an
infringement of the (collective) freedom of religion and education.
xxii
For a profound discussion, see Franken & Loobuyck 2017.
xxiii
For RE in France, see Willaime 2014; Gaudin 2014 & 2016; Griera 2014.
xxiv
Even though this is (or should be) also the case in a separate subject about religion, it has been claimed
frequently that non-confessional RE classes cannot be ‘neutral’ or ‘impartial’. Currently, there seems to be a
consensus among parents, academics and policy makers, about the possibility of being neutral for, for instance,
teachers of history, language or geography. For RE teachers, however, things seem to be different: given the
sensitive, contested and normative issue, some people are convinced that such a neutral stance is impossible,
even within a non-confessional course.