Religious Lessons in Public Schools

Davit Tinikashvili, Liberali

Part of society thinks introduction of religious studies in public schools might breach principles of democratic and secular state. However, the democratic norms and principles envisage and require similar education because in a liberal-democratic state only one confession cannot be supported and all others (of course we do not mean the ideologies which threatens healthy and safe development of the society) prohibited. Secular state does not mean atheist state which prohibits existence of religious unions or religious education in public schools.

If the purpose of modern school is to grow up educated, cultural citizens free of all xenophobic ideas, then religious studies shall be integral part of basic education together with the origin and development history of world religions. Religion had always had a huge influence on the society. So, we think, it will not be effect to substitute the religious educations with humanism, secular ethic, civic education, etc. Or to declare that it is enough to teach religion through various subjects.

Majority of works of literature, art or philosophy are related with religious faces-symbols, plots or ideas. Knowledge of religious factors is urgently important and they should be envisaged during the research of civil live. It proves the particular significance of religious educations in modern schools.

This subject shall be included in schooling curriculums in order to guarantee human rights and particularly religious freedom in the country in order not to neglect the wish of school-children, who believe, that similar education is important for them. Thus we maintain elementary justice: they also pay taxes to state budget which then funds public schools. Simultaneously, the right of atheist pupils or children of atheist families shall be guaranteed and they should have chance to choose the subject. But, for example in Sweden atheist pupils have to learn religious history at school.

There is a case Angelini v. Sweden in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. The trial was launched based on the following ground: the Ministry of Education refused atheist mother and daughter to free the daughter from religious lessons. The European Court had to decide whether the girl was subjected to ideological oppression from the side of school (or the state). The Commission noted that “only informational education cannot be considered as an activity which contradicts the European Convention on Human Rights or its protocols. A child shall receive education about religion and not religious education” (see: Buern, Jeraldin, Children and Religion//magazine “Solidarity” # 1(10)2007 p.33).

Where Religion Should Be Taught?

Very often we hear that religion is part of personal life and it can be taught only in a family or special denominational institutions of particular church or in private schools. Of course, religion is part of personal life but we do not speak about person’s devotion or his/her spiritual life, but we speak about education, knowledge and information about religions.

Of course, religion must be taught both in private and public schools, both in secular and religious educational institutions but the tuition process must be different. History and doctrine of only one (personal) confession can be studied at denomination schools or other religions can be studied just for criticism and comparison; thus the subject will have apologetic character. However, if the school administration and pupils wish, the religions can be impartially taught at public schools.

As for public (state) schools, denominational education must be completely excluded in this case. Secular state must not support any particular confession. Liberal-democratic state is required to create equal conditions for everybody to equally demonstrate or learn its confessions. A public school is a state institution, where only one particular religion must not be taught because other confessions will remain beyond attention though there might be believers of those confessions in public school. Religions of minorities must not be taught at school for the purpose of their discrimination.

Besides that, it will be unfair if teachers, who receive salaries from state budget, will teach history of only one confession to their pupils because everybody, followers of all confessions, pay taxes to state budget.

Thus, religious education is permitted in every school though in accordance to relevant norms.

How religion shall be taught at schools?

Of course, teaching religion at public schools does not aim to train somebody to be believer or to give religious-moral education to pupils. It is only within the competence of a family, church or even of private confessional schools. However, pupils can demonstrate their own faith and devotion in the territory of a public school. Unless it hinders education process pupils can wear religious clothes, have bible or other religious texts at schools or to pray and establish religious circles in the territory of school. “However, religious circles must not be funded from school budget in order to avoid state support for concrete religion” (see article by T. Mebagishvili Et al. Religion in State School // magazine Freedom # 6(42)2005 p 20). School administration members and teachers do not have similar rights.

Law of Georgia about General Education (2005) grants enough freedom to pupils to receive education about religion. The law guarantees not only education of various religious histories in public schools, but pupils have right to learn concrete religion and confession. “Pupils of public school can learn religion or conduct religious ritual during free time if its purpose is to receive religious education” (article 18.4). Simon Janashia also wrote in his letter that “pupils have right to invite a clergyman to school to speak about interesting topics” (Simon Janashia. School, Religion and Freedom. p 1 http://www2.tabula.ge/article-1490.html)). The law completely discharges the private school from similar regulations because the administration of a private school can individually decide the amount, form and direction of religious education for their pupils” (the same source, p 1)

On April 8, 2005 the Parliament of Georgia adopted a law about general education (Article 13.2) which prohibits religious sermons and teaching of one concrete religion (indoctrinization) in public schools or exposing one religion as the only true religion before pupils in order to convert them into it (proselytism), praying during lessons, exhibition of religious symbols (icons, crosses) in the territory of public schools except cases when they are used for the education.

Who must teach religion at schools?

After the problem of school text-book is resolved, the issue of a qualified teacher will be raised. First of all, we must exclude possibility of inviting clergymen (of any confession) to teach this subject at school. We think, it will cause irritation of part of our society.

It will be perfect if young people with theological education are invited to teach this subject at school. But we can face two problems here:

1. Lack of qualification. Those, who graduate from theological institutes, are not always skilled enough to teach the subject with the required competence. Additionally, those people do not know methodology of teaching.
2. Denominational education.   Part of people, who have more-or-less acceptable theological education, might not wish or cannot teach the subject at school in accordance to international standards.

So, there is only one solution of the problem: any person with humanitarian high education can teach religion at school but she/he should take corresponding training to teach the new subject. Candidates with relevant experience in teaching will acquire minimal knowledge of theology during the training as well as principles of general theology and necessary standards to teach this subject. Those, who do not have teaching experience, but are competent in theology, will be trained in pedagogical methodology. Those people, who have elementary education neither in theology nor in pedagogical methodology, will attend the trainings and acquire all necessary skills. Consequently, duration of similar courses will be different for different candidates.

As for the issue who can be a trainer of trainers in the training courses, we should recall specific mistakes committed in the recent years: religious training courses functioned for a short time since September 1, 1990 at the Georgian Teachers’ Training Institute. Mr. Nugzar Papuashvili noted that unfortunately, soon after the course started functioning, “problems originated after scientific-consultation council was established and director (of the institute) Gia Murgulia invited Protopresbyter Giorgi Gamrekeli and Archpriest Archil Mindiashvili to the Council as official representatives of the Patriarchate” (N. Papuashvili Via Dolorosa of Religious Studies in Georgia//Freedom #9 (33)2004 p 14). The author added that representatives of the Orthodox Church requested to expel Baptist Malkhaz Songulashvili, who was invited as a lector at the training course, though he had enough competence to work in this institution: by that time he had graduated from the university; was invited to the group of Bible Translators by the Georgian Patriarch Ilia II; knew several foreign languages – Jewish, ancient Greek, Latin, English, French; he is one of the best specialists of Bible Study not only in Georgia but abroad (currently Archbishop Malkhaz Songulashvili is finishing his thesis for doctor’s degree at the Oxford University).

Thus, bearing in mind the bitter experience of the recent past, I think clergymen (of any church) shall not be invited as lecturers in similar training courses in two occassions: 1. if they do not have required competence in the particular direction, and 2. if they have complaints like we have discussed above (against any lecturer due to his/her religion regardless the fact how qualified he/she is).