Secular Reasons for Confessional
Religious Education in Public Schools
Winfried Löffler
The cultural importance of religion and its ambiguous potential effects on the sta-
bility of liberal democracy and the rule of law recommend including information
about religions in public school curricula. In certain contexts, there are even good
secular reasons to have this done by teachers approved by the religious communities
for their respective groups of pupils, as is being practiced in various European states
(with a possibility of opting out, with ethics as a substitute subject in some schools).
Is this practice compatible with the religious neutrality of states? An illustrative
analysis shows how suitable criteria for the admission of religious groups to offering
religious education can block the objection of undue preference. Like any solution in
this field, it is not immune to theoretical and practical problems.
D emocracies should not risk the dangers of religious illiteracy, given the
ongoing cultural importance of religion and its ambiguous potential ef-
fects on the stability of liberal democracy and the rule of law. This essay
analyzes a widespread European practice of securing basic religious competence:
religious education in public schools taught by teachers approved by the respec-
tive confessional groups. In the light of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution and the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,1 it might seem
exotic and a clear case of an inappropriate preference of one or a few lifestyles
or social groups over others. However, this model (although it is not transferable
into every cultural context) has a lot to recommend it, even within the normative
framework of a religion-neutral constitution and the priority of the secular ratio-
nale for political arrangements.
There is widespread consensus that secularization theses, a former intellec-
tual commonplace, have lost a lot of their plausibility in both of their two usual
readings. According to the first reading, religions would lose their importance,
shrink, or even die out in the course of modernization. The second reading pos-
tulated that the plausible and worthy components of the traditional religious
ethos would live on in secular transformations, such as in the shape of the hu-
man rights ethos or various cultures of sensitivity (the environmental, emanci-
pation, and gender equality movements or the general social trend to nonvio-
119
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
© 2020 by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_01807
lent education styles might provide examples). Both processes were taken to be
irreversible.
Today, however, both readings of the secularization theses seem doubtful, if
not wrong.2 Religion appears surprisingly resistant, at least as an ongoing topic of
political discussion, if not a living, organized, and widespread practice. There is
hardly any major crisis without religious aspects or, at least, to which such aspects
would not be attributed. Moreover, sociologists of religion point to differentiat-
ed results that suggest that “individualization” and “pluralization” of religion are
better diagnoses than “secularization”: organized, institutional religiosity might
indeed be shrinking (at least in the West; for Eastern Europe, South America, or
Southeast Asia, this is less clear). But individual patchwork religiosities prevail
and “religion” in a looser sense of the word keeps its importance. The second read-
ing–claiming a transformation from religious to secular ethos–is challenged by
counterexamples, which are doubly puzzling: in various European countries and
in Russia, but also in the United States and recently Brazil, irritating styles of policy
find their support among those who explicitly plead for a revision or discarding of
human rights, gender equality, the general culture of nonviolence, solidarity, and
respect for the less privileged, and that display a general contempt of democratic
processes and their players. Even more, these policies often sail under a “Christian”
flag, although they are in precise opposition to the vast majority of theologians and
religious ethicists, and conflicts between governments and church leaders and
Christian charity organizations increase. The purported transformation from a re-
ligious to a secular ethos seems to be neither content-preserving nor irreversible.
H ence, a certain amount of religious competence and literacy among citi-
zens is a desideratum in democracies: not only to better understand reli-
gious backgrounds of political behavior and to detect inappropriate uti-
lizations, misgivings, and misunderstandings of religion, but also to cultivate an
awareness of the positive contributions that many religious traditions can offer
for democratic processes. Democracy and the rule of law stand under what has
been labeled the Böckenförde paradox, after a famous dictum by the former Ger-
man constitutional judge Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde:
The liberal, secularized state lives by prerequisites which it cannot guarantee itself. This
is the great adventure it has undertaken for freedom’s sake. As a liberal state it can only
endure if the freedom it bestows on its citizens takes some regulation from the interior,
both from a moral substance of the individuals and a certain homogeneity of society at
large. On the other hand, it cannot by itself procure these interior forces of regulation,
that is, not with its own means such as legal compulsion and authoritative decree. Do-
ing so, it would surrender its liberal character and fall back, in a secular manner, into
the claim of totality it once led the way out of, back then in the confessional civil wars.3
120
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesSecular Reasons for Confessional Religious Education in Public Schools
Philosopher Jürgen Habermas (being a declared irreligious–“religiously un-
musical”–thinker and as such an unsuspicious witness) has repeatedly pointed
out over the last decades that religions might positively contribute to secure these
prerequisites, including the willingness to obey rules, to respect democratic deci-
sions and the legitimacy of deviant standpoints of others, and generally to prefer
nonviolent solutions to conflicts.4 In some of their more problematic, deteriorated
forms, however, religious mindsets can be destructive, antagonistic powers run-
ning afoul of the values standing behind democracy and the civic virtues charac-
terizing the democratic citizen. Uninformed religiosity, or the combination of de-
voted religiosity and illiteracy, appears especially susceptible to such tendencies.
Therefore, even from a secular standpoint, much underpins the need of seri-
ous and authentic information about religions for broader segments of the popu-
lation of democratic states: on the one hand, avoiding misunderstandings and dis-
information about the religions (in their ambiguity, comprising beneficial as well
as dangerous aspects); on the other hand, remaining aware of, defending, and per-
haps regaining certain value positions that have some of their strongest defenders
among religious groups. Hence, a certain level of religious literacy and competence
seems not only politically useful, but also necessary for our self-understanding.
The probably most effective and most viable way for democratic states to provide
such literacy is integrating religion (somehow) into school curricula, including
public schools.
I n many European states, religious education is either a mandatory, chosen, or
optional subject at public schools. In Austria (the case that will be examined
for the following considerations), for example, it is a regular, obligatory sub-
ject in the curricula of most public schools serving students aged six to nineteen
years (however, with the possibility of opting out or, where available, switching to
ethics).5 The classes in religious education are publicly financed, but the shaping
of their curricula is more or less autonomously left to those religious groups that
are officially recognized by the state (there are currently sixteen) and that want
to offer such religious education;6 teachers must be approved by the religious
groups and obey the state’s various regulations about school teaching. Where cor-
responding academic theological education is available (such as at some German
and Austrian state universities that currently offer academic programs in Islamic
theology, in addition to the various Christian theologies), most religious groups
require a degree at the master’s level or other suitable certificates for their teach-
ers. Religious education is usually not given or perceived as indoctrination; the
curricula comprise a lot of de facto secular ethics, religious studies, personality
formation, social sensitivity training, discussions of ethically relevant actuali-
ties, and so on; and the possibility of opting out is taken less than one might ex-
pect: participation in religious education is markedly higher than the percentage
121
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
149 (3) Summer 2020Winfried Löffler
of churchgoers. Many pupils perceive the religion classes as forums in which not
only their cognitive abilities but also their whole personalities are being taken se-
riously. Conversely, more-conservative believers sometimes lament the (in their
eyes) lukewarm, unsubstantial content of the religion classes with overly ecu-
menical tendencies.
The dangers of ideological indoctrination–which many opponents see behind
religious school education–are modest: with the possible exception of (rare) ex-
tremely charismatic figures, one or two weekly hours of religion class would hard-
ly provide a basis for ideological brainwashing activities in a rather secular soci-
ety. Moreover, religion teachers as persons and religious instruction as a subject
are embedded in the whole social fabric of a modern school: the staff of teachers,
parent-teacher conferences, parents’ councils, and the like can be seen as public
spaces of giving and taking reasons, and disturbing cases of indoctrination would
soon face opposition from other teachers, parents, and pupils.
Historically, the present Austrian situation of religious education in public
schools, combined with a “religion-friendly neutralism of the state,” can be un-
derstood as the result of an upgrade of other religions into the favorable position
that Catholicism as the dominating religion enjoyed for centuries. The Austrian
Constitution of 1920 is neutral in respect to religions and other worldviews, but
it does not endorse secularism, which would itself constitute a sort of worldview.
The practice of a noncompulsory religious education at schools is hence compat-
ible with the Austrian Constitution (and all other relevant legal documents about
human rights based in domestic and international law).
T he question of the most suitable way of spreading religious literacy in a
democratic state has probably no context-free or more geometrico–style an-
swers. Any proposal will gain its plausibility from a certain context: that
is, certain philosophical, legal, pedagogical, sociological, and historical premises,
some of which are more descriptive, others more normative in nature. Hence, the
European practice of religious education in public schools may have a lot to rec-
ommend it, but it is not easily transferable to different frameworks.
One such contextual condition is the fact that Europe–unlike, say, the United
States–was historically dominated by only a few big religious groups (coarsely
sketched: Catholicism in the South and Center, mainstream Protestantism in the
North; and Orthodox national churches in the East). This deserves mentioning
since all three groups have a long-going, basically positive approach to modern
sciences and humanities (the Vatican has run an astronomical observatory since
1578, for example, but the intellectual and institutional affinities between theolo-
gy and sciences go back at least to medieval scholastics; exceptions like the Galil-
eo case are, seen on the whole and over centuries, marginal), and they have devel-
oped a robust positive relation to democracy.7 The European practice would thus
122
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesSecular Reasons for Confessional Religious Education in Public Schools
not be viable in states with a strong religious fragmentation: organizing religious
education in public schools for too many different groups might simply find its
practical, logistical limits. And where religious groups have a conflictive relation
to democracy, the sciences, and the humanities, their involvement in the school
system might not be desirable for either part. On this latter point, there is a signifi-
cant difference between the United States and Europe: the notoriously controver-
sial issue of handling spillover effects from other subjects like biology or physics
to the religious beliefs of the pupils is almost unknown in most European states.8
Second, state-run schools dominate the education landscape in many Europe-
an countries. Private schools are rather an exception, and there are various mixed
private-public forms of organization and financing. This situation is on the whole
favorable for large-scale religious education to work, since schools are governed
by a more or less uniform legal regime.9
Third, there is a tradition of friendly cooperation between state and religious
groups in many European countries, interestingly under very different general
legal frameworks and before very different backgrounds in the sociology of re-
ligion.10 Furthermore, legal frameworks and sociological situations show no
clear correspondences: there are (or were until recently) state churches in high-
ly secularized societies (as in Britain or Scandinavia) as well as theoretically rad-
ical church-state separation systems combined with high political influence of
the churches (as in Italy; religion is a subject of choice at schools there). Forms
of friendly cooperation, such as in hospital or military chaplaincy or school mat-
ters, can hence function before various legal and social backgrounds. Some sort of
global friendly cooperation relation, however, seems a prerequisite for religious
education at public schools.
T he issue of religious education and its possible relevance for democra-
cy raises two conceptual questions. First, and in contrast to “thin” con-
ceptions of democracy as a mere technical, value-neutral voting device
to settle collective decision problems, I will here presuppose a more demanding,
“thicker” conception of democracy that includes certain civic virtues or dem-
ocratic habits and sees the democratic process in a bigger scale.11 A democratic
process finds its ends only in some suitable technical balloting procedure, but it
should be embedded in an ongoing culture of giving and taking reasons in a public
space, trying to understand the backgrounds of deviant standpoints, looking for
possible common grounds for action, granting minimal respect to political oppo-
nents, and so on. Such a conception reflects an egalitarian account of the human
being, sees a certain minimal legal position of the individual as irrevocable (even
by balloting majorities), and trusts in the benefits of reason and public discussion.
Obviously, modern democratic constitutions have some built-in devices that re-
flect such normative presuppositions: such as attempts to an intuitively plausible
123
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
149 (3) Summer 2020Winfried Löffler
proportional representation of the whole votership,12 certain transparency guar-
antees and rights of the parliamentary minority, requests for qualified majorities
in certain important decision matters, and fundamental rights that cannot be re-
stricted even by high majorities.
Recent attempts to attack or shrink democracy in this thicker sense, even in
states of the Western world (by modifying electoral laws in all-too-striking fa-
vor of the governing majority, threatening journalists, creating obstacles for free
universities, watering down the independence of judges and the competences of
supreme courts, global discrediting of entire segments of the population, and so
on), remind us that thick forms of democracy do not come as a sort of natural gift
of history, but need cultivation and protection. And religions, from their best to
their deteriorated forms, bear a high and ambiguous potential for the protection
as well as the destruction of democracy, in both its thin and thick understandings.
A second question concerns the conception of “education” that is presupposed
and that a school system is–openly or tacitly–expected to foster. Interestingly, the
legal cultures differ markedly in this respect: in some states, this question gets a
distinctive answer in the constitution or in high-rank laws, whereas other legal or-
ders are silent on it and/or leave it to the actual practice. Section 2 (1) of the Austri-
an Federal Law of School Organization (Schulorganisationsgesetz, SchOG) of 1962
exemplifies an elaborate account of the tasks of education with analogs in various
other European school laws.13 Its somewhat solemn tone bestows on the text the
character of a preamble, which has not been significantly changed since 1962:14
§ 2. The Aim of the Austrian School (1) The Austrian school aims to contribute–through
instruction according to each stage of development and educational career–to ad-
vanced competence in young people according to cultural, religious, and social values
and to the values of the true, the good and the beautiful. It shall equip young people
with both the necessary knowledge and capability for life and future career paths and
train them towards independent acquisition of education.
Young people shall be taught to become members of society and citizens of the demo-
cratic and federal Republic of Austria who are healthy and health-aware, able to work,
dutiful and responsible. They shall be guided to independent judgment, social com-
petence, and a sporty-active lifestyle, open to the political and world-view thought of
others, able to participate in the economic and cultural life of Austria, Europe, and the
world at large, and to cooperate in the common goals of humankind in love of freedom
and the pursuit of peace.
The text obviously involves some strong normative, extrareligious valuations:
Education is being conceived as more than merely getting equipped with neces-
sary knowledge and useful individual competences for employability and pro-
fessional careers. Beyond competences of cultural orientation and the ability to
124
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesSecular Reasons for Confessional Religious Education in Public Schools
understand diverse styles of thinking, there is a strong emphasis on community-
related values and democratic virtues.15
The possible rationale for religious education from this text is not its remark-
ably Platonic reference to the “values of the true, the good and the beautiful” and
not only its reference to “cultural, religious and social values”: religious values
could also be fostered by other means than religion classes. Rather, the whole cat-
alog of tasks and values mentioned here has affinities to the values and tasks fos-
tered by many religions, at least in their “best forms of appearance.” On the oth-
er hand, religion is notoriously ambiguous in this respect: certain forms of reli-
gion (often seen as “deteriorated forms” or misgivings) endanger these values and
tasks, as countless examples of intolerance, suppression of deviant standpoints,
fanaticism, and religiously motivated violence show. Sociologists of religion like
Olivier Roy have argued that religious extremism is empirically associated with
ignorance of religion.16 For example, Islamic terrorists in France are not likely to
have received a religious education from their family. Rather, they reinvent reli-
gion for themselves, based on a patchwork of contents from dubious inauthentic
sources and detached from community practices. By contrast, people with an au-
thentic religious education tend to be moderate.
Given this ambiguity, it may well make sense to include religious education
toward the “best forms” of religion, carried out by competent teachers with some
controllable quality standard, in the curricula, if “education” is understood simi-
larly to section 2 (1) of SchOG.
S o far, it has been adumbrated under which conditions religious education
at public schools in democratic states might make sense. Religions–in
their best forms–can be seen as powerful supporters of democracy and the
“democratically virtuous citizen,” by fostering attitudes like mutual respect, un-
derstanding and differentiating standpoints, cultural openness, civilized and non-
violent solution of conflicts, and solidarity, among other values.
But should religious education be done by confessional teachers approved by
religious groups? Many have argued that neutral information–by a sort of reli-
gious studies education or a general ethics education (including basic information
about the religions), for example–might do a better job; in some states, this is
current practice. However, at least four in-principle arguments seem to favor the
confessional solution as opposed to neutral information about religions.
First, twentieth-century philosophy of religion, such as of the Wittgensteinian
tradition, has pointed out the limits of understanding and authentically present-
ing religions (and other worldviews or beliefs systems) from a merely external,
noncommitted standpoint. Hence it is doubtful whether such an instruction
would deliver the desired beneficial effects of religious instruction for the val-
ue stance of the pupils. Mere external information on religions that are not real-
125
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
149 (3) Summer 2020Winfried Löffler
ly a “live option” for the pupils would be rather theoretical (of course, hopefully,
with some benefit of better understanding people with different religious back-
grounds) and in danger of focusing on the doctrines and the rituals of various reli-
gions. Authentic introduction to religions, however, must illustrate “what it is like
to be an X-ist,” and this task is hard to accomplish from an external standpoint.
Similar authenticity desiderata seem obvious in other respects: for music, phys-
ical education, or civics teachers, it appears natural to request the quality of a prac-
ticing musician or athlete or a righteous citizen with a positive attitude toward mu-
sic, or sports, or democracy and the legal state, simply because a credible, authentic
presentation of the subjects in question that accomplishes the intended pedagogi-
cal effects seems to require it. There is no reason why religious instruction should
be treated otherwise in that regard. One might object that a good music teacher
must only have a competence and passion for music in general, but not necessarily
a preference for Brahms over Beethoven, or a good physical education teacher need
not also be a soccer or tennis enthusiast, but these analogies are flawed. Just as there
is no way of being a good, authentic music or physical education teacher without
practicing or positively affirming some concrete forms of sports or music, there is no
way of authentically teaching religion without having some concrete stance in the
field of religion: be it membership to a certain confession, a marked sympathy for
some of them, or perhaps also a marked rejection of religion in general. The clear-
est and most authentic models for the meaning and the role of religion in a human
life are provided by teachers who unambiguously represent some concrete religion.
This, of course, does not prevent making comparisons to other religions at appro-
priate points, and doing so is common in many of the religion classes of the kind
in question. It is even widely seen as a competence requirement that one not teach
one’s religion in isolation, neither from other religions nor from science or culture.
Second, worldview backgrounds of teachers cannot be fully concealed or neu-
tralized anyway. Even purported “neutral” presentations of religious worldviews
may involve biases of the teachers (perhaps of a more subtle kind). Even in the
absence of obvious biases (like declared sympathies or oppositions to certain re-
ligions), neutral presentations may transport evaluative comments (such as “they
are all equally irrational worlds of ideas” or “some style of religious thought can
be found in everybody’s mindset”). Presenting religion (like democracy, human
rights, and other topics) is among those matters where a complete bracketing or
concealing of one’s own standpoint is difficult.17 Since the position of a neutral
teacher of religion is freely chosen, the complete absence of any personal stance
on the matter is hard to imagine. Conversely, undue worldview biases of teachers
committed to certain religious groups can more easily be spotted and explained.
Third, for democratic citizens, serious information about one’s own religious
background tradition is probably more important than knowing the characteristics
and differences of other religions, simply because the former is more relevant for
126
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesSecular Reasons for Confessional Religious Education in Public Schools
personal and political behavior. But for a considerable number of pupils, some sort
of confessional religious instruction is being done anyway: somewhere, by some-
body, and under some circumstances, for better or worse. In the optimal case, it is
perhaps taught by parents committed to the values connected with the democratic
legal state and the values of a humanistically minded religiosity, or by a well-educat-
ed and pedagogically gifted appointed imam, rabbi, or parish catechist; in the worst
case, perhaps by pseudoscientific creationist preachers or by the booklets, CDs, or
websites of freelancing, self-appointed radical preachers of dubious provenance.
Religious instruction in public schools done by approved, well-educated teachers
can help to counterbalance and minimize the influence of such indoctrination.
Fourth, confessional religious instruction in public schools is not an intellectu-
al one-way street. It has repercussion effects on the religious groups that could be
welcomed by both the state and the religious groups themselves. The involvement
of religious groups and institutions in the state’s legal and school systems creates
and requires a certain publicity and transparency, it brings the challenges of profes-
sionalization in the role of a teacher working on equal terms with colleagues from
other disciplines and under a certain quality control (such as in the approval of cur-
ricula and textbooks), it requires and fosters a certain theological level on the side
of the teachers, and it bears the chance of a broader exposition to attention in pub-
lic discourse. Religion teachers in schools can be important factors in the religious
life of their groups; their institutional embedding contributes to the stabilization
of the religious groups. Conversely, it offers the chance for the state to stabilize co-
operation with religious groups and to exert a certain pressure to comply with the
values of the democratic legal state. All that could not likely be achieved without
the model of confessional religious instruction. The Austrian and German efforts
over the last decades to establish Islamic theology as a university subject and to
professionalize Muslim teachers toward an academic level comparable with other
teachers provide an example for such a process of potential mutual beneficence.
O ne might of course consider a more radical alternative: completely ig-
noring religions in public schools, that is, even in the mode of informing
about them. But as Kent Greenawalt has rightly pointed out, complete-
ly ignoring religion, which is usual in many schools, represents by itself a sort of
worldview statement and exerts an influence on the pupils’ opinions.18 The heart
of the problem and the main rationale for a ban are probably the doctrines of reli-
gions: there are obvious logical tensions between the beliefs of different religions,
and tensions between some readings of some religions and some scientific beliefs
(differences between Christianity and Islam/Judaism on radical monotheism or
a triune God, or between some evangelical theologies and evolutionary biology,
provide simple examples).19 As schools should deliver consensual content only–
or so the reasoning goes–such controversial topics should best be banned from
127
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
149 (3) Summer 2020Winfried Löffler
school. On the other hand, some of these beliefs are factually important for many
pupils and their families, and banning religion from school just conceals, rather
than solves these tensions.
A viable way of dealing with them is giving these controversial positions ac-
cess to public schools, and even letting them be taught with the claim of truth and
by confessional teachers (though competent instructors may be expected to note
that certain claims are controversial or considered scientifically falsified, for ex-
ample). The notorious presence of tension-filled truth claims at schools is helpful
in two ways: on the one hand, it does justice to the importance of such beliefs for
the self-understanding of wide parts of the society, and it may, on the other hand,
teach pupils, teachers, and parents the lesson that issues about religious and oth-
er worldview claims cannot simply be dealt with and settled in the way we handle
scientific, historical, and related questions. The presence of partially incompati-
ble religious truth-claims at schools mirrors a commonplace in the epistemolo-
gy of religion: religions may have good arguments on their side, but their claims
are not “provable”; being religious is a matter of reasons and commitment. A cer-
tain degree of cognitive tension in religious and worldview matters is hence some-
thing one has to live with. For the cultivation of mutual respect and worldview
tolerance as civic virtues, such a lesson is useful.
P robably the core objection against religious education in public schools is
the claim of an inappropriate preference of religion over other social activi-
ties, and/or a bias in favor of certain religious groups over others. The force
of this objection depends on the contextual conditions mentioned above; in cer-
tain settings, some form of neutral introduction to various religions to foster mu-
tual understanding would indeed seem more viable. But the Austrian case may be
illustrative again. The overall friendly cooperation notwithstanding, the Austrian
Constitution (like many others) explicitly claims religious neutrality and pre-
cludes any form of state church. In order to harmonize the tasks of maintaining
neutrality and securing religious literacy, some rules and criteria are required to
take into account the various religions present in Austria and the growing number
of (factually or declaredly) nonreligious persons. In Austria, the current rules and
criteria are as follows: Freedom of religion is provided in that everybody may free-
ly practice and utter any religion, privately or in public, and freely join or leave any
religious group.20 The right to offer religious education in public schools, howev-
er, is restricted to those religious groups that are formally recognized by the state.
By that recognition, religious groups become something like a statutory corpora-
tion or public body, although they fully govern their internal matters themselves.
In order to be recognized, a religious group must have existed for more than
twenty years, it must have passed the preliminary legal status of a “registered
community of religious confession” for five years,21 it must represent at least
128
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesSecular Reasons for Confessional Religious Education in Public Schools
0.2 percent of the Austrian population, and of course it must be religious in charac-
ter, as opposed to, for example, a commercial, ethnic, political, or mere charity as-
sociation. The latter criterion creates demarcation problems not so much with car-
icaturing groups like the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,” but with athe-
ist and agnostic groups who claim the same privileges as religious communities.
Austrian authorities have so far solved the issue by defining “religion” in an essen-
tialist way: without a broad resemblance to the traditional religions and reference
to some “transcendent” beings, powers, and so on, nothing can be regarded as reli-
gion. Moreover, the applying community must provide a credible financial system,
it must have complied with the laws of the republic, and it must display a positive
relation to the Austrian Constitution. Offering publicly financed religious educa-
tion is then a right of the recognized churches and religious associations, but there
is not a duty to offer it. Some religious groups decline that right by themselves, and
smaller groups with locally dispersed members hardly use it for practical reasons.
O ne might still object that even this criteria-governed bestowal of state
support for religious education is an undue preference for certain reli-
gious groups: it might be biased in favor of bigger over smaller groups,
and biased in favor of religious groups over other social activities, especially those
of other voluntary associations.
The former objection finds a partial answer in the generosity of the criteria:
compliance with the laws and the constitution are musts for any association and
as such are unproblematic. Concerning the quantitative thresholds, there are
two points to consider: Unlike the religious freedom of their members, the right
of a religious group to offer religious instruction in public schools is not some-
thing like a fundamental liberty (which would preclude any quantitative minimal
thresholds at all). It is just a contingent liberty or a competence granted to certain
significant religious groups. And since the gap between the per-capita adminis-
tration costs and the number of benefitting members is widening the smaller the
religious group is, it seems justifiable to introduce some minimal threshold; in the
Austrian case (0.2 percent of the population, or about seventeen thousand mem-
bers), it appears as generous anyway. The objection of an undue, arbitrary prefer-
ence for bigger over smaller groups can hence be rejected.22
But does religious instruction in public schools constitute an undue preference
of religion over other social activities? The answer depends on the conception of
religion and its role, and the conception of education. If religious groups and ac-
tivities are conceived akin to charity associations, sports clubs, social movements,
and the like–that is, something rather accidental in the individual and public
life–then religious instruction in public schools might indeed appear as an unfair
privilege and an undue preference. But according to the conception of education
exposed above, school curricula have as their primary task to secure certain stan-
129
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
149 (3) Summer 2020Winfried Löffler
dards of literacy about scientific knowledge and cultural backgrounds, and to fos-
ter the commitment to certain values and practices of life (for this reason, for ex-
ample, music, sports, and fine arts are subjects in most schools). It is not a task of
schools to give equal “airtime” to various associations, even if they are of reason-
able or charitable character. But in the light of the exceptional historical, cultural,
and political relevance of religion, and especially its politico-cultural ambiguity,
including it as a school subject does not constitute an undue bias for religion.23
A special case is created by (new or older) non- or antireligious worldview
movements claiming the same rights as religious groups. The essentialist stand-
point of the Austrian administration is not more than a problem-shift: it is not
obvious why only religions (however defined) and not humanist groups, for ex-
ample, should be present in the school curricula. A lack of compliance to the laws
and the constitution can hardly be the argument,24 and the value-stance of these
groups usually resembles the one circumscribed, for example, in section 2 (1) of
SchOG. The strongest argument–its cogency might perhaps fade in the future–is
the incomparably bigger cultural and historical role of the traditional religions in
comparison with new humanist movements.
B eyond the aforementioned (and more fundamental) questions, there are
some minor but significantly practical issues connected with religious ed-
ucation in public schools. First, there is a worry that the “friendly coop-
eration” (as a whole, not only regarding religious education) sets some religious
groups under pressure to establish “Catholicism-like” organizational structures
and to develop doctrine-focused “theologies,” which might partly be alien to their
self-understanding. The Islamic Community in Austria (Islamische Glaubens-
gemeinschaft in Österreich, IGGÖ), for example, although it is as a statutory cor-
poration the official addressee of the state in all issues regarding Muslims, factu-
ally represents only a fraction of the Muslims living in Austria, because of the gen-
erally lower interest of Muslims in registered membership and the chiefly ethnic
structuring of the Austrian Muslim communities. The IGGÖ has a traditionally
strong Turkish orientation and other ethnic groups do not perceive it as their rep-
resentative. It may also be added that building up administrative structures, cor-
responding with state authorities, and complying with administrative regulations
of the state are comparatively harder burdens for smaller religious groups, espe-
cially for those without a powerful financing system.
This problem is probably not solvable. Even if the status of a recognized reli-
gion is a favorable legal position granted on application, the factual chances of the
various religions to benefit from this position are–for contingent historical rea-
sons–not fully equal.
Second, though focused on authentic information on one’s own religion, re-
ligious education in public schools should not create something like parallel in-
130
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesSecular Reasons for Confessional Religious Education in Public Schools
trareligious filter-bubbles, but rather learning fields for democratic civic virtues,
mutual understanding, tolerance, and respect for other religions. How a certain
level of “cross-religious” information and encounter can be secured and how un-
healthy confessionalism as a splitting, dividing, centrifugal tendency for demo-
cratic societies can be avoided is currently a much-discussed question. Various
models are being tested in Europe, ranging from factual, occasional collaboration
organized by engaged teachers (such as an “interreligious city walk” of the vari-
ous religion classes to churches, mosques, synagogues, and Buddhist centers, or
interreligious new year celebrations) via interreligious “windows” between the
classes (that is, regular encounters to learn and discuss in interreligious groups) to
permanent interreligious teaching (“dialogical confessional education”), be it by
one or more teachers.
Third, not necessarily all religion teachers exemplify the ideal model of the
“friendly and reasonable theist,” which is the tacit background of the Austrian
and related models of religious education. The problem of keeping religious ed-
ucation free from anticonstitutional, antidemocratic, grossly anti- or pseudosci-
entific, or otherwise problematic content is not huge, but it deserves attention. A
complete ban of religion from public schools would not imply that problematic
content will not find its addressees via other channels. And conversely, one might
recall the abovementioned pressure toward transparency, which emerges when
religious groups are involved in the public school system. Where textbooks are
publicly acknowledged and purchasable, where curricula are accessible on gov-
ernment websites, where teachers have to make their positions plausible in the
multi-worldview environment of a teaching staff, problematic content is more
likely to be spotted and eliminated. For serious cases, the withdrawal of the indi-
vidual license to teach (or theoretically even the status of a recognized religious
group, if the problem is of a deep-going and general nature) is a legal possibility.
The individual and constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom would
not be infringed by such a grave measure.
T here is another worry that deserves attention. Sociologist Tariq Modood
has identified five possible reasons why states might be interested in re-
ligion: truth, danger, utility, identity, and worthiness of respect.25 One
might suspect that the foregoing considerations hinge merely on danger and utili-
ty, which might appear unsatisfactory (or even reductionist) from a religious per-
spective: If at all, should not religious education at public schools rather be grant-
ed for truth, identity, and worthiness of respect? (“Identity” is not understood
as theocracy, that is, an identity between religious and political regime, but the
importance of religion for the sense of identity of the state or of religious groups,
especially minorities.) The objection is not misguided, and it may invite to render
the secular rationale for religious education in public schools more transparent.
131
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
149 (3) Summer 2020Winfried Löffler
In the context of “religion and democracy,” danger and utility are indeed the first
that spring to mind, given the political ambiguity of religion. But the rationale for
religious education in democratic states can be broader: if educational tasks and
values roughly along section 2 (1) of SchOG are plausible, and if religions (in their
best forms) pursue similar tasks and values, then even a secular state can recognize
some aspects of truth in the religions. Religions have an ongoing relevance for the
identity and cultural self-understanding of societies, certain societal groups, and
individuals, and as such they are worthy of respect by the state and by other cit-
izens. All these reasons are entirely secular and should hence be plausible for re-
ligious and most nonreligious people (strong secularists might be an exception).
There is probably no problem-free royal road toward securing minimal reli-
gious literacy in a democratic society. But religious instruction would be done
anyway, somewhere, by someone, and in some fashion. Arguably, the solution to
have it done via confessional religion teachers under the transparency conditions
of public schools is not the worst among the available options.
author’s note
I am indebted to Robert Audi, Stephanie Collins, Chip Lockwood, Domenico Meli-
doro, Lorenzo Zucca, and other participants at the Australian Catholic University
conference on “Religion and Democracy” in Rome in 2019 for numerous comments
on an earlier draft.
about the author
Winfried Löffler is Associate Professor in the Department of Christian Philoso-
phy at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, and a regular Visiting Lecturer at uni-
versities in Italy, Croatia, and Vietnam. He is the author of Introduction to the Philos-
ophy of Religion (3rd ed., 2019) and Introduction to Logic (2008) and has authored more
than 120 essays in journals, handbooks, and collected volumes.
endnotes
1 For a survey, see Kent Greenawalt, Does God Belong in Public Schools? (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 2005), chap. 1.
2 Steven Kettell, “Secularism and Religion,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Politics and Reli-
gion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/
9780190228637.013.898; Craig Calhoun, Mark Juergensmeyer, and Jonathan VanAnt-
werpen, eds., Rethinking Secularism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); and José
132
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesSecular Reasons for Confessional Religious Education in Public Schools
Casanova, “Rethinking Secularization: A Global Comparative Perspective,” The Hedge-
hog Review 8 (1–2) (2006): 7–22.
3 Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit: Studien zur Staatstheorie und zum
Verfassungsrecht (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1976), 60, translation from “Böckenförde Di-
lemma,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Böckenförde_dilemma.
4 See Craig Calhoun, Eduardo Mendieta, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen, eds., Habermas and
Religion (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
5 Basics are regulated in the Federal Law of Religious Education (Religionsunterrichts-
gesetz) of 1949; details would go far beyond the scope of this essay. For a survey on Eu-
rope, see the three-volume collection: Martin Rothgangel, Martin Jäggle, and Thomas
Schlag, eds., Religious Education at Schools in Europe (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2014–2015). In the near future, ethics will most likely be introduced as
a compulsory alternative subject for all those who opt out of religion. Interestingly,
Poland (with its much more religious society) has an opt-in system.
6 The curricula, formally promulgated by the Federal Ministry of Education, can be re-
trieved with the search term “Lehrplan Religion” at the Legal Information System of the
Republic of Austria (RIS), https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Bundesrecht/. The “legally rec-
ognized churches and religious associations” (gesetzlich anerkannte Kirchen und Reli-
gionsgesellschaften) are, at present: Catholics, Protestants (Lutheran and Reformed),
Old Catholics, Methodists, free churches, New Apostolic Churches, Mormons, Greek
Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Apostolic, Jews, (Sunni)
Muslims, Alevites, Buddhists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
7 The lamentably late unambiguously positive official statement of the Catholic Church
to democracy in the Second Vatican Council 1962–1965, the antidemocratic stance of
significant parts of German Protestantism between the World Wars, and the still some-
what ambiguous position of the Russian Orthodox church notwithstanding.
8 On that, see Greenawalt, Does God Belong in Public Schools? 28–33.
9 Numerous local differences are omitted here: for example, in Germany and Switzer-
land, school is a competence of the federal countries, and some of them have peculiar
regulations.
10 Given that tradition, decisions on matters involving religion by national constitutional
courts and the EU Court of Justice are rather scarce, and religious education is not in
the foreground; cases rather revolve around religious symbols or clothing in the work-
place, the consequences of divorce for employment in the Catholic Church, education,
and medical fields. Critics notice a tendency in EU Court decisions to interpret “reli-
gious neutrality” more and more toward the “invisibility” and exclusion of religion,
broadly along the French conception of laicité; see, for example, Mark Bell, “Leaving
Religion at the Door? The European Court of Justice and Religious Symbols in the
Workplace,” Human Rights Law Review 17 (2017): 784–796.
11 For principles of an “ethics of citizenship,” see Robert Audi, Democratic Authority and the
Separation of Church and State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
12 More is not to be demanded, due to the notorious decision-theoretical impossibility of
singling out “the one and only” perfectly just representation or voting system.
13 For basic information on the Austrian school system, see, for example, Federal Minis-
try of Education, Science and Research, Austria, Educational Pathways in Austria 2019/20
133
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
149 (3) Summer 2020Winfried Löffler
(Vienna: Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research, 2020), https://pub
shop.bmbwf.gv.at/index.php?rex_media_type=pubshop_download&rex_media_file
=191223_bildungswege_eng_bf.pdf; and “Education in Austria,” Wikipedia, https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Austria.
14 The only change was the later (and rather redundant) insertion of the “sporty-active
lifestyle.” This stability over fifty-seven years is remarkable, since the paragraph could
have easily been changed by any simple parliament majority. Section 2 is regarded
as something like “de facto constitutional law,” which should stand beyond political
conflicts.
15 There is an affinity between the ideas behind section 2 (1) of SchOG and the “ethics of
citizenship” as defended in Audi, Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State.
For the American debate on the appropriate individual moral/civic virtues component
in the aims of education in public schools, see Greenawalt, Does God Belong in Public
Schools? chap. 2, esp. 23–26.
16 Olivier Roy, Holy Ignorance: When Religion and Culture Part Ways (London: Hurst, 2010).
17 A similar point is discussed in Greenawalt, Does God Belong in Public Schools? 27–30.
18 Ibid., 81–86.
19 This topic is almost irrelevant in Austria and most other European states, and most reli-
gion teachers hold some sort of compatibilism concerning science and religion. Prob-
ably, the long-term involvement of religion teachers in the public school system has
positively contributed to this situation.
20 Of course, this freedom is limited by the borders of the Constitution (such as the reli-
gious and personal freedom of others), penal law, construction laws that also concern
religious buildings, laws regulating the use of drugs, noise annoyance, traffic rules, pub-
lic order, and so forth. Documents stating this freedom are chiefly: Article 14 of the
Basic Law on the General Rights of Nationals of 1867; Article 63 Section 2 of the State
Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye of 1919; and Article 9 of the European Convention on
Human Rights of 1950.
21 In German: “Staatlich eingetragene religiöse Bekenntnisgemeinschaft.” Currently, there
are nine, including the Baha’i, Shiite Muslims, Hindus, Seventh-day Adventists, and
the Unification Church.
22 The Austrian Constitutional Court (B516/09, December 16, 2009) regarded the 0.2 per-
cent threshold as constitutional, broadly along a similar line of argument.
23 A complicated question that cannot adequately be treated here is the appropriate substi-
tute for those pupils who freely opt out of religious education, do not belong to any re-
ligion, or belong to a religion that does not offer religious education. Solutions to that
problem (in Austria and other states) may be free periods, joining the class of a related
religious group (mutual agreement provided), or the obligation to join ethics classes
instead of religion.
24 Worldview instruction in public schools by groups having an explicitly anti-religious
agenda (as opposed to a mere non-religious worldview) might be problematic in the
light of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.
25 Tariq Modood, “Moderate Secularism, Religion as Identity and Respect for Religion,”
The Political Quarterly 81 (1) (2010): 4–14.
134
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
e
d
u
/
d
a
e
d
/
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
–
p
d
f
/
1
4
9
/
3
/
1
1
9
/
1
8
5
7
3
3
2
/
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
1
8
0
7
.
p
d
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & SciencesSecular Reasons for Confessional Religious Education in Public Schools
Download pdf