Diversity and the political function of religious education

Abstract

Questions about the relationship between religion and politics are discussed with particular focus on the consequences for religious education. Norway is taken as an example of a country where increasing cultural diversity challenges traditional politics of religion. In the present climate of conflicting views on the role of religion in politics, religious education is higher on the political agenda in many European countries, but it is unclear which path the governments choose to follow. For religious educators it is important to engage critically in the political debate about religion, and to show a basic political loyalty towards the education of the individual child and towards improving the lifeworld of children.

Keywords:

• Religion
• education
• politics
• corporatism
• diversity
• culture

Notes

1. For more general background knowledge about Norwegian religious education, see Haakedal (2001).

2. The RE syllabus established in 1997 was revised in 2002 and again together with the other school subjects in 2005. These revisions have not changed the main issues discussed here. Some general information about Norwegian religious education is available in English (http:/www.ls.no).

3. As a result of the instructions from the UN Committee on Human Rights the Norwegian government revised parts of the school law, the syllabus and the rules for exemption, putting this into practice in the autumn 2005. The main content of these changes was to treat the different religions and worldviews more equally within religious education, and to make the system for exemption more flexible and easy to practice. There is still no right of full exemption. The changes mentioned were not fundamental, but since they were done during the writing of this article they cannot be discussed further here.

4. ‘Corporatism’ is not used in its original meaning referring to authoritarian state corporatism as in Mussolini’s Italy, but to indicate an integrated cooperative relationship between independent organisations and state. Rokkan (1966) has described the particular role of organisations in the Norwegian political system as ‘corporative pluralism’, a concept still discussed in political science.

5. One illustration is the debate about the religious foundation of politics in the 1880s during the struggles for a parliamentary system of government and independence from Swedish rule. A special call to ‘the friends of Christianity in our country’ was issued by the conservative elite just before the elections of 1884 (Wisløff, 1961; Oftestad, 1998). Seen from a longer perspective, some of the underlying ideas of the infamous call of the 1880s can be detected even in current policies.

6. Barth (1994) discusses in Chapter 8 the understanding of culture in complex societies and particularly emphasises the different degrees of ‘sharing’.

7. This comparison of Norway and France ignores important historical differences; the French secularism with roots back to the Enlightenment is also a result of the church–state relationship established in 1905 after many years of struggle (Beckford, 2003, pp. 91–94).

8. An example of an initiative from researchers that also has a bearing on political decisions is the ENRECA policy statement; see http://enreca.isert‐network.com/docs/index.htm. The work of the Oslo Coalition is also relevant here (http://www.oslocoalition.org/).