The annual meeting of the European Consortium for Church and State Research took place in Trier, Germany, in November 2010 hosted by Professor Gerhard Robbers, a distinguished scholar of church and state and a member of the Editorial Board of this Journal.
The introductory lecture was delivered by Professor Jose de Sousa e Brito of the University of Luisiade in Lisbon. He provided the participants with in-depth analysis of the philosophical dimension of the religion in public education, referring to views and opinions of distinguished scholars and philosophers, including EW Böckenförde and Joseph Ratzinger. The discussion following this lecture, chaired by Professor Norman Doe, raised many issues: is it really possible for a state not to identify itself with any particular religion? How neutral is the neutrality of the state? In the case of religious communities not having a clear spokesperson, with whom should the state negotiate the content of religious education? Some participants underlined that education about religions gives a chance to learn about others' religions, but also to explain one's own religion to others. Although education at school is very important, it should not be overestimated as a solution to all problems and challenges of multi-religious societies. It is not clear either what the content of religious education or religious instruction should be in a democratic society. Last but not least, education in religious matters evokes another difficulty, namely: which right shall prevail – the freedom of religion of the individual pupil or the right of parents to educate their children in accordance with their own beliefs?
During the second session, Professor Doe emphasized in his presentation Opting Into and Out of Religious Education that the situation differs significantly in the member states. There are several basic criteria which need to be examined: what is being provided (classes about religions or religious instruction), who is providing the teacher, who is funding the opting in or opting out and does opting out mean that a pupil automatically opts into another subject, such as ethics or moral education? Member states choose a number of solutions. One is compulsory denominational education, delivered by the religious community, with the curriculum set by the religious community but paid for by the state, as in Greece and Cyprus. Mandatory religious education but with an alternative is provided in Italy, Spain and Portugal. In Scandinavian countries, the state provides compulsory courses on Christianity. Finally, in France and in Slovenia, any religious education is prohibited on school premises. Participants agreed that in many cases it is hardly possible to distinguish between education about religions and religious instruction, as the former closely resembles the latter.
Interestingly, the situation as regards education in schools is sometimes contrary to the general principle of church-state relations in a given country. For example, in Ireland, which is constitutionally a state with separation between church and state, 90% of schools are denominational. In Alsace-Moselle, contrary to the rest of France, religious education is obligatory, but an opt-out may be authorised. The common denominator for almost all member states is that the state negotiates with churches and religious communities about how to organise religious education or instruction. Another common feature is the fact that national laws are skeletal, in that they do not provide detailed information as to the content of religious education or religious instruction. The conflict between the rights of children and those of parents is interesting: the age at which children have the right to decide for themselves about their religious education differs between member states from 14 to 18. The situation is more complicated in the case of mixed marriages, where the parents disagree on the religious or non-religious education of their children. Finally, in Portugal as religious classes are organised during lunch breaks, children opting for these classes have to forego their lunch. Participants tried to find out why states restrict the right to opt out, usually by requiring a statement from a pupil's parent disclosing his or her beliefs to the school authority. There are 14 European Schools, mainly in Belgium and Luxembourg, but also in some other member states, which exist to educate the children of the officials of European institutions. These schools provide religious education, and children and their parent may choose between Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim and Jewish courses. The pupils have a choice between religious education or moral education. The mark obtained in these classes does not have influence on progression through school. The curricula are set by local religious authorities with the exception of the Roman Catholic curriculum, which is set by the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) in Brussels.
During the third session, Professor David McClean, in his paper Religious Dress and Symbols in Schools, touched upon a number of important questions, showing the variety of issues which this subject conjures up. Within the member states of the EU there are different attitudes towards the presence of a cross or crucifix resulting from history and tradition. A number of immigrants from various countries and cultures enriched this broad picture, and yet, within (migrant) religious communities, there are major disagreements concerning religious traditions and garments. The discussion has a broader dimension: some member states, instead of or in addition to a cross, put in schools or other public premises portraits of the President or the Sovereign. Similarly, wearing the shirt of favourite football team is for some an act comparable to displaying a religious symbol. Therefore, religious symbols and garments constitute a possible source of potential conflicts within a school. The problem with religious symbols is not what they are but what they represent by way of history, culture and tradition. A cross may be a symbol of devotion to Christ, but may also be associated with intolerance, such as at the time of the crusades. There is no opt-out – if a cross is present in a classroom, it is impossible not to see it. Clothing does indeed play an important role in one's judgments; people try to dress appropriately in court in order to win their case. This also has an impact on everyday life, where people still judge others by their clothes.
The Consortium will meet again in September 2011 in Stephen's House, Oxford thanks to generous support from various institutions and individuals, not least the Ecclesiastical Law Society, who will be hosting a keynote public lecture by Sir Nicolas Bratza, the United Kingdom Judge at the European Court of Human Rights, concerning Strasbourg jurisprudence on Article 9 of the European Convention. This will be by way a curtain-raiser for the conference on the theme of Religion and Discrimination Law in the European Union.
