For more than 10 years the question regarding the place of religion in public schools has been debated in many committees and forums in South Africa. The emergence of the new South Africa with its Constitution that enshrines human rights — among others, the right to freedom of religion — meant the demise of an old order that described national identity in terms of a particular interpretation of the Christian religious tradition. A new identity would have to give expression to a fresh vision of freedom and equity.
Just what does the right to freedom of religion imply? How is it applied in the context of the public school? I think the answer to these questions hinges on the interpretation one gives to the Constitution in this respect. Albie Sachs, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Cape Town, described four possible models for the relationship between religious bodies and the State.
In the first place, one can have the situation where religion and State have separate spheres recognised by the constitution, but where there is a considerable degree of cooperation and interaction between the two. Such a situation would acknowledge the integrity of human beings — the citizen and believer are one and the same person, and allow religion to make an impact on public life. In agreement with Albie Sachs, I believe this is the model that expresses best the spirit of our Constitution. Freedom of religion means freedom for religion.
On the other hand, when the separation between religion and State is a strict one with no overlaps, then we have freedom from religion. In this model, all state institutions are completely secularised, and all religious bodies are completely outside the state sphere.
I feel strongly that we need to resist the latter interpretation because it relegates religion to the private sphere and sets up a dichotomy in the human person. It also, in effect, refuses to acknowledge the potential of religion for the transformation of society.
In the first model you can carry with you your beliefs or your spirituality, and you bring it in with pride and you share it with others. You don’t impose it on somebody else, but you don’t retreat into a corner to be outside of the life of the nation. You come in and contribute and enrich the life of the nation with what you are and what you believe.
The emerging national policy, articulated in the Department of Education’s Manifesto on Values, Education and Democracy, espouses religious education, ‘a programme for studying religion” with the civic function of ‘reaffirm(ing) the values of diversity, tolerance, respect, justice, compassion and commitment in young South Africans”. It is not seen as having ‘specific spiritual aims” for it would then, it is argued, infringe religious freedom.
If this is what turns out as national policy, then I think we are missing an important opportunity to breathe new life into religious education in schools. There are ways of dealing with religion in a formative way in a multi-religious context, without infringing the right to religious freedom. Good teaching never implies force or underhand influence, but an encouragement to discover in freedom and to take responsibility.
The role of religion in any moral regeneration movement, such as the one launched last year by the government, is crucial. Religion is a key motivation in the lives of the majority of South Africans for sound moral behaviour — that which befits the human being. Religions, through their codes, foster this behaviour, and provide a transcendent reference point that puts our humanity into correct perspective. Learners, whether believers or not, should not be denied access to the resources of religious traditions for their personal growth. Following such a line of argument, our institute advocated the addition of a further outcome to the learning area, Life Orientation: The learner is able to draw on religious tradition to generate meaning in his/her life, and to find motivation and resources for healthy, sensitive and responsible living. This was, sadly, not considered in the curriculum’s revision.
Such an approach to religious education, which would include a consideration of secular world views as a healthy critique of religion, would respect freedom of religion, and enable learners to be affirmed in their identity, whether inherited or chosen, while coming to terms with religious plurality.
There is, however, a further question that needs to be addressed. How does one legislate for those for whom a multi-religious approach goes against their deeply held religious convictions? I think we need an element of realism in our policy, which could be achieved by giving the right to school governing bodies, in consultation with the school community, of choosing their approach to religion in the curriculum as long as constitutional rights are guaranteed and curriculum outcomes are achieved.
Policy for Religion in Education has been a long time coming. The process has tested the patience of many, but there is a hidden wisdom in this, I think. We all need to make a personal journey from old notions and attitudes to new ones that better express who we are. And journeys take time: transport is never instantaneous.
Paul Faller is the National Coordinator — religious education for the Catholic Institute of Education; Chairperson of the Ministerial committee on religious education in 1998 and review committee in 1999. He is also a member of the Minister’s Standing Advisory Committee for Religion in Education, 2002-2004.