Discussing freedom of religion and conscience protected by section 15 of the Constitution a few years ago, a Muslim student told me her Grade 1 daughter was forced to learn the song: “Fishing for Jesus.” When she complained about this to the teacher, the enterprising teacher made a plan. A few days later her daughter came home singing the same song, but with a second verse added: “Fishing for Allah!”
This story came back to me when I read in the Afrikaans media that Prof George Claassen of Stellenbosch University has launched a campaign to try and prevent public schools from using teaching time to conduct religious instruction at schools. Claassen is also upset that some schools describe themselves as having a “Christian character” and as institutions where “Christian values” (whatever that may mean) are taught. He is also upset that some schools organise something called a “Jesus week” during which children are encouraged to pin yellow ribbons to their uniforms to show that they are Christians.
Some constitutional law experts quoted in the article rubbished Claassen’s campaign, stating – correctly – that religious ovservance at public schools are not prohibited by our Constitution. But this is a grey area and it is far from clear where exactly our Constitution draws the line.
Many moons ago when I was still at school, our education was avowedly “Christian Nationalist” in character. This meant we were taught that Jesus loves apartheid, the National Party, and “our” boys on the border, that He had died for our sins on the cross so that we could live happily ever after in white South Africa and beat the technical school at rugby, and that evil philanthropists like Lord Phillip who believed black and white were equal in the eyes of the Lord would burn in hell for their sins.
My take of freedom of religion and conscience might therefore be slightly jaundiced.
The starting point must, of course, be section 15(2) of the Constitution which states that ”religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities; they are conducted on an equitable basis; and attendance at them is free and voluntary”. This must be read with section 7 of the South African Schools Act which states that:
Subject to the Constitution and any applicable provincial law, religious observances may be conducted at a public school under rules issued by the governing body if such observances are conducted on an equitable basis and attendance at them by learners and members of staff is free and voluntary.
But what does this actually mean? Our Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on freedom of religion and conscience has been far from satisfactory, so the answer to this question is not as clear as it could have been.
The Court seems to have some difficulty with the interpretation and application of section 15 and then often reverts to the limitation clause to “solve” the problem. In one case – Christian Education - Justice Sachs even declined to make a finding on whether the ban on corporal punishment at Christian schools infringed the right to freedom of religion (spare the rod and spoil the child, and all that). He merely assumed that it did infringe on the right before deciding that even if it did, the ban would still be justifiable in terms of the limitation clause.
In the Lawrence case, Justice Chaskalson – in what was effectively a minority judgment – emphasised that the right to freedom of religion meant that school prayers had to be carried out on an equitable basis and had to be voluntary and then continued:
I doubt whether this means that a school must make provision for prayers for as many denominations as there may be within the pupil body; rather it seems to me to require education authorities to allow schools to offer the prayers that may be most appropriate for a particular school, to have that decision taken in an equitable manner applicable to all schools, and to oblige them to do so in a way which does not give rise to indirect coercion of the non-believers.
The big problem is, of course, what would constitute coercion. It is clear that coercion can be both direct and indirect in nature. Direct coercion would occur where a pupil is forced to take part in religious activities or instruction, forced to sing “Fishing for Jesus”, or forced to wear a yellow ribbbon for Jesus.
Indirect coercion is more subtle. The examples used by Prof Claassen might amount to such indirect coercion. Justice O’Reagan pointed out in the same Lawrence case (in a majority judgment), that where an institution endorses one religion over another or religion over non-religion, the effect would be coercive in nature.
Where the institution places its prestige and authority behind one religion or behind religion in general, it will send a signal that individuals who do not adhere to that religion or are not religious at all are somehow less worthy of respect and dignity. It will then place pressure on such individuals to conform and not to opt out of religious observance or instructions for fear of being ostracised or vilified. Religious observance will then become voluntary in name only.
In such circumstances it will be difficult for individuals – especially school pupils who experience peer pressure acutely – to distance themselves from the widely endorsed religious practices of a school and they will indirectly be coerced into taking part in religious activities with which they do not agree. While the religious views of the majority of pupils could be taken into account by a school’s governing body when formulating a policy on religious observance for its school, and while a school could therefore facilitate voluntary prayers associated with that majority religion, any policy will have to be formulated in a way that would prevent indirect coercion.
A policy that explicitly endorsed one religion over another or religion over non-religion will – in my opinion – not be in accordance with the Constitution because it would signal that those with different beliefs are not “normal” or are considered to have a lesser status or dignity by the powers that be.
I would say a school breaches the provisions of section 15 if it states that it has a “Christian character” and teaches “Christian values” or where it endorses a “Jesus week” but fails to endorse other religious activities of minority religious groups or non-believers. Such actions would make it very difficult for non-believers or believers of non-majority faiths from opting out of the religious activities at schools and the non-believers or believers of other faiths will be indirectly coerced into a specific Christian religious observance – something prohibited by the Constitution.
One way to get around this would be for a school to encourage and facilitate respect for religious differences by refusing to endorse one particular religious view and by encouraging pupils to express their beliefs openly – no matter what they may be. Such a school would then be allowed to have a “religious week”, say, where pupils could wear yellow ribbons if they were Christians, orange ribbons if they were Muslim and purple ribons if they were athiests.
A school could also invite different speakers who would then inform all pupils about various religions and athiesm to send the signal that while the majority of pupils in a school adhere to Christianity, say, other religions and athiesm are just as valid and pupils who adhere to other beliefs are just as valued and respected as those who believe in fishing for Jesus.
Given your own background, it is natural to focus on schools with a Christian character. Besides, these schools most often attract the media (and legal) attention. In most cases, these were the former white/model C schools and the schools still most often associated with quality education.
But what about schools with a Muslim or Hindu character? How often do we scrutinize their observance to religious freedom that our Constitution guarantees? Or is it more a case that these schools are so obvious in their religious nature that people from other religions do not consider enrolling their children there? Maybe someone with more experience in these schools could comment….
Pierre, this is a difficult question. OK, I am a Christian. Would I like my children to attend a schoo, that had a “Christian character”. Absolutely. But I would also absolutely not want Muslim children, for example, to be made to partake in religious observances against their will. I agree that a policy of voluntary anstention is not enough – there is a need for the school to discuss the situation carefully with the children to mitigate the effects of the indirect coercion you mention
However, there is one position that is not tenable from a Christian’s point of view – that is the “assumption” that all religions are somehow equivalent. You see, this is a religious position in its own right, and is effectively a statement that Christianity is false (Islam ought to be similarly offended).
On the other hand, there is no problem acknowledging that pupils at the school have different convictions, and making all children respect other children, even if their beliefs differ. What goes wrong is to make children “respect” all beliefs.
Another interesting issue is that when the then Minister of Education, Prof Asmal, put into effect his policy on religion in education a few years ago, he did not have the legal right to do so. It was tabled in terms of the national Education Policy Act, but this act gave no explicit power for the Minister to determine policy in respect of the religious character of schools. His action was totally ultra vires.
George Classen is a nutter who really shouldn’t be taken seriously. Read his website and you will find him to be overbearingly zealous.
If the campaign was by someone else I might be more enthusiastic.
To Pierre de Vos:
Firstly, the report on Dr. Claasen is pure sensationalism and does not contribute to any healthy atmosphere in discussing a highly sensitive and personal issue like religion and the freedom of religion. Why must it sound like it is a witch-hunt respectively like there is „a war“. I hold nothing of this report.
Secondly, concerning the issue of religion at schools: certainly one has the right to freedom of religion protected under the Constitution. However, no constitutional right is absolute or unlimited. Thus, the question is: should the right to freedom of religion also extend to the right to teaching religion at schools? I think not. My reasons for maintaining this are:
1. Religion is a personal matter and should not be the subject of public domain. Precisely because it is an issue of public domain presently, it is extremely difficult to balance the interests of all parties/groups without being non-discriminatory to some group or other. So to me, the point of departure is primarily the wrong one – little wonder that even Justice Sachs refuses to make any concrete decision on an already erroneous basis. We need a paradigm shift so that the focus is not religion but one of universal values of respect for humanity (and everything which goes with it).
2. Following 1 above, religion should not be taught at schools. Instead, ethics – which is considered as something with universal human values – is the perfect alternative. Ethics also includes many values resident in many world religions and accordingly, many religious tenets which also embody humanistic values (e.g. do not steal, do not kill etc.) could be taught on a non-religious basis. Teaching ethics at school is far more objective, it teaches people respect for humanity and it is non-divisive, something I cannot maintain from teaching religion. Religion has always polarised and I’m surprised that people in this discussion still insist on using a polarising point of departure (like religion) with a view to reaching a non-divisive and non-polarising result (such as common and mutual respect of humanity). Religion has always been associated with oppression and systemised victimisation of groups of people. Why continue this status quo, which is based on a wrong point of departure?
3. In terms of my argument, those devoted to following and practising their religion are not prejudiced (constitutionally,socially or otherwise) in any way through teaching ethics at schools. On the contrary, they’re more than welcome to go to church or mosque to practise their religion within the confines of these buildings – that is what a church or mosque is primarily there for: to teach its religion to its followers. By entertaining the idea of transporting religion into the classroom is silly and ill-considered and merely perpetuates an already intolerable social nuisance, to say the least. The wish to accommodate the teaching of religion at school lacks every effort and understanding in preventing a clash in constitutional rights/interests of all people (as opposed to a majority-minority argument). So to this end Pierre, I’m also surprised that even you favour a discussion based on an erroneous point of departure.
4. In this way Pierre, I believe the issue of coercion (direct or indirect) is not circumvented but that you are running into a double-edged sword. The issue of religion at school is not dealt with in a concrete manner on a social basis, let alone on a constitutional one.
5. P.S. (my rhetorical questions): What is the sense in teaching religion at school anyway (mostly it is always only the Christian religion, to the exclusion of other religions anyway!)? What does it achieve? Does teaching religion at school lead to a greater understanding of and respect towards others in society? Does it have any pertinent social relevance (other than merely dividing people into groups and polarising society even further)?
Is it possible to safeguard against what the Professor calls indirect coercion in instances wherein the clear majority of students or teachers subscribe to a particular faith? My guess is that it is not.
The Professor ventures two solutions to the problem of indirect coercion at the tale end of his piece – which, by the by, I very much enjoyed. And even though he sets those solutions out in fairly general terms, I would think that the most effective solutions may well draw quite heavily from his suggestions.
But my regard for the Professor’s suggestions aside, I will restate that I am quite skeptical as to whether indirect coercion could be satifactorily excluded in instances involving strong majorities.
Perhaps this hypothetical instance will make my view clearer: most pupils and teachers at school X subscribe to Christianity. The school holds religious weeks in which students are allowed to express their devotion to their respective faiths. Given the numbers at the school, most people end up expressing devotion to Christianity. I think we ought to bear in mind that many of the students would be going through very confusing or otherwise challenging times in their lives. At seven years old, the regard of one peers means a great deal. And so-called peer pressure is an infamous phenomenon during the teenage years.
The question seems to be: could the circumstances in such instances gravely undermine any attempts to protect against indirect coercion? That is, could these almost characteristically vulnerable people suffer indirect coercion despite the school’s efforts to protect them? I tend to think so – and I will say so with great respect to people who would want to see their children eductated in schools that emphasis religious observances.
I am aware that the Constitution contemplates religious observances at state and state-aided schools. But I will still ask the following question: if it is fair to say that sometimes it is not possible to satisfactorily exclude indirect coercion, is the better approach to merely secularise state or state-aided institutions? I think it might be.
Andy, I tend to agree with you on the basis of what one may style a risks to benefits analysis.
If parents and guardians want their charges to engage in religious observances, well they can go to places that are pretty much earmarked for those things. Thus they still get the relevant benefit. And with the schools suitably free from religion, the students would at the very least suffer a greatly reduced risk of indirect coercion to engage in observances with which they do not agree.
And of course ethical education in schools does not have the same drawbacks as relgious education therein and, in addition, ethical instruction may even, as you make out, amount to instruction that is supportive of relgious teaching.
Andy and Leigh, apart from the fact that section 15(2) explicitly allows for religious observance at schools, there is another problem with your suggestion: Religion is not only a private matter. As the Constitutional Court so eloquently stated in the nose stud (Pillay) case, religion and culture are entwined and religion therefore also often has a public component. (On Sunday Muslims broke their fast after Eid and in Sea Point where I live hundreds of families gathered on the lawns of the promenade to have a clear sighting of the sunset and to enjoy the deeply significant event with others. Driving down Beach Road, it would have been difficult not to recognise the public component that religion will often have.) Moreover the right to freedom of religion and conscience is broader than merely the right to HOLD (or not to hold) certain beliefs. It extends to the right manifest that belief and practice that belief. To keep religion completely out of public life diminishes the rights of believers as it limits their ability to manifest and practice their beliefs in public with other like-minded individuals.
No solution is perfect, but I suspect the best compromise is for schools and other institutions to respect and celebrate religious diversity – which would include respect for non-belief. The big problem is that some people seem to think that their religion is entitled to more respect and better protection that the beliefs of others and wants to demand institutions or the state to enforce or protect their religious beliefs to the detriment of other beliefs. Seems to me if one is secure in one’s beliefs one would not demand special protection and special status for one’s own views, but would generously accept difference of beliefs secure in the knowledge that one’s own views are not threatened.
Pierre,
Thank you for your comment. Naturally, the right to freedom of expression should also be manifested in people being able to celebrate and practise their religious rituals as they please (whether in public or private) – only proviso: not to the extent where others feel their right to privacy is invaded or violated. If Muslims respectively any other religious group do not disturb anyone in their public rights when celebrating their rituals in public, so what? So I agree with you on this aspect. This however, has nothing to do with my argument that religion is and should be a private matter. The point (and my problem too) is the constitutional anchoring of a right such as the right to allow for religious observance at school – which is very different to the issue raised in your reply. The anchoring of a right allowing for religious observance in the constitution is for me the wrong point of departure (as already argued in my prior contribution), which right is obviously also in conflict with many other broader rights. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that this right is anchored in the constitution, my argument is one calling for an abolition of this right an replacing it with a more sensible obligation of the state to teach people ethical standards as opposed to religious values. It is not the duty of the state to teach religion (least of all at school!) – conceptually, this is a contradiction in terms. Accordingly, this right allowing for religious observance at school has to be revised constitutionally particularly because the existing right as embodied in section 15(2) is a right which (i) does not act in the general interest of all faiths and religions [on the contrary, it only favours specific groups or dominant religions], (ii) it therefore contains discriminatory elements in its content, application and implementation and (iii) it does not do justice to all groups. So why perpetuate a discussion based on an intrinsically detrimental albeit human right? Amending and replacing section 15(2) with ethics is for me the more logical and coherent argument. It is an easier, a fairer and a just manner in regulating values of common societal value.
Concerning your question of religion being intertwined with culture: who says there has to a constitutional conflict of interests in the pragmatic application and/or implementation of religion vis-à-vis culture (note, not versus) when these values are not enshrined in the constitution? I do not see how the abolition of the right to freedom of religion could make any in-road into anyone’s right to publicly practise their religion. Most certainly, everyone may publicly demonstrate their religion as they please (marches, preaching sessions etc.) – this is anyone’s right. But when people have their religious marches, gatherings, preaching sessions etc, they are intrinsically also organising/holding a cultural event. So when Muslims sit down in Sea Point to enjoy the sun setting as part of their religious feast, then certainly this is not only a religious activity but it is also a cultural and quasi-public event. I am therefore not arguing that religion be kept out of the public arena. My argument is not that religion should be banned from the “public eye”. On the contrary, my argument is (a) that it is not the duty of the state to instrumentalise religion as a belief system (also not in the form of teaching religion at schools) and (b) that it should be left to the individual to decide how, when and where they’d like to practise their religion within the framework of ethics.
Given the sorry state of our education system, it certainly doesn’t need more contentious issues to hinder it. But it is broader than that. Christianity is by far given preferential treatment compared to other faiths. Certain public holidays, given different names, does nothing to diminish this fact. Even the Con Court in the case about trading of alcohol on a sunday showed bias (thought creatively hiding it) to Christian based tenet.
The teaching of ethics, as its been suggested, is also based on ideologies, and be equated to personal opinion. Thankfully our education system isn’t great, or we would have learners objecting to being taught the theory of evolution!
Prof De Vos. I agree that this might pose a big dilemma for ‘public’ schools. But what about ‘private’ schools – modern ‘Christian’ Schools (some having names like “ENTHEOS” – “Inspired by God”); Catholic Convents (e.g., those run by the Order of the Sacred Heart); Hebrew Schools; Muslim Schools; Bhudist Schools; Hindu Schools. Should the children of people who choose to enroll their children in a school that is based on the teachings of a different religion than the one (if any) the specific family endorses now be excluded from schooling at that facility? Should they be required, if enrolled in the specific school be required to attend religios activities (and teachings) offered by those schools?
One should remember that the concept of ’school’ actually arose from the fact that parents did not have enough time (in modern times) to tutor their children the way they wanted (”Teach your children well …”), and that ’school’ ecame an extension. Therefore you get many so-called “Home Schools” today. So, in effect, it is the parents that ‘choose’ what religion, if any, their children should be exposed to. Now, there are many religious parents that want their children to be taught about specific religions outside of their homes, at school, for example, but who cannot afford sending them to a private school of their choice. So mwhat is wrong if they send their children to a public school endorsing a specific religion? And, with religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, why should parents be refused the right to enroll their children in a school where they are protected from being ‘opened’ to influences of other religions? Again, how does one exclude indirect coercion?
This whole argument has a circular nature. For example, when a (non-Christian) person chooses to reside right across (or next to) a church where “Fishing for Jesus” (it has such a catchy tune!) is sang, not only on Sundays, but also on different days of the week? Would that count as indirect (or rather direct)religious coercion? What if a non-Muslim person chooses to reside right accross a Mosque, with speakers blaring out the morning, noon and evening prayers to Allah?
Choices, choices, choices. … That is what we are faced with every day. Enforcing total non-religiousness (whether public – or private) in a state amounts to the taking away of religious freedom. … Very difficult this thing, and I think much more debate is needed.
Anonymouse says:
September 22, 2009 at 18:22 pm
What a realistic post. Welgedaan Annoniem!
This is a difficult aspect. My opinion takes its starting point as the fact that the Constitution, as far as I see, is intended to complement and highlight the diversity of South Africans, and not to suppress it. Obviously this outcome is intended to take place within the parameters of a very progressive legislative framework.
Secondly, people have the right to associate with whom they choose. This extends to all aspects of life, not merely social – you may choose to work at a certain company, or attend a certain charitable organisation, or where you want your kids to go to school.
It is unreasonable to expect parents to send their children to a school where that family’s beliefs, values and morals are not reflected by the broader population. If a parent chooses to do so, this is their right – but nobody has the right to EXPECT parents to do this.
Therefore, it is completely logical that a school that advertises itself as Christian in character will attract, by and large, pupils who come from Christian homes. Likewise Muslim schools, and more new-age schools like Waldorf each attract a specific kind of child to the majority.
To expect schools to not favour one religion over another is silly. If I were to send my child to a Muslim school, and then demand that they cease mentioning Islam because it’s coercion – well that’s just daft. I made the choice knowing full well what the school was like. That would be like saying that a school should teach in as many official languages as are represented by the learners – it is completely ridiculous to demand an english langauge school to teach in Zulu, Afrikaans, Venda and so forth, all at once. It is impractical.
However, I do agree that children should be taught about other religions. As a Christian, I still enjoy learning about what other people believe and why, and it has helped me to understand other cultures in SA a bit better. There is nothing wrong wrong with teaching in a Christian school what Islam believes, or what Hinduism believes, and so forth.
But each school will have it’s own character, values, and ethos. Perhaps I will say it like this – if my family gives thanks before dinner each night, and my Muslim friend comes over for dinner one night – are we as a family expected now to not say grace because we might be coercing or offending him? Surely not? Why is it any different in a school setting? If there are not enough schools representative of the diversity of religious beliefs, then the solution is not to reduce everybody to the lowest common denominator – our government should live up to some of its promises and build more schools.
Leigh,
Your approach is basicaaly the same as that used in Canada, where the sensitivities of minorities land up dictating what the majority may or may not do.
The problem is that by imposing a secularist solution on all the message is conveyed to children that religious faith and belief is subordinate to some supposedly neutral worldview. But the point is that secularism is a worldview that competes with others that derive from religious beliefs.
We actually can’t escape from the influence of this thing called “worldview” in our public life. And because secularism is potrayed as neutral, it obtains an unfair advantage over others. Sure, there might be some Muslims who prefer a secular worldview over a biblical one, but they would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces because the Christian worldview is closer to their own than secularism. Remember that this relates to the underlying system of thinking, rather than religious observances, per se, or individual faith.
The biggest misconception about allowing a biblical worldview to underpin law and society is that it would compel people to be Christian. The reverse is true, for a proper biblical outlook recognises that individual choice in matters of faith is paramount.
Yes, certain values and principles would be “imposed” on society, but we already have this, where secularist values and principles are imposed on us. We already have the minority dictating to the majority under this guise of neutrality.
The Big Slipper says:
September 22, 2009 at 18:51 pm
As usual with your posts : thumbs up.
Jy’s moers
To deal briefly with what was written in the post on coercion – I attended a private Christian high school where every student was required to attend Chapel three times a week. The thing is that it was never considered something which was ‘forced’ on us – those who found themselves to be atheists where never prevented from expressing their views (which many inevitably did) and accommodations were made for students of other religions – e.g. Muslim students could leave early on a Friday to go to prayers, could relax their participation in compulsory sport during the fast, etc.
My point is that sure this is just one model, but it shows that religion can work in schools where there is diversity.
Koos – Wel gedaan op die RDK vandag?!
Well, Koos, I was just playing Devil’s Advocate. … Oops, isn’t that a religious concept!? Nevertheless – I agree with Koos, Big Slipper, … it is all a matter of CHOICE!
Anonymouse:
Choice, sure–but if the government provides a muslim choice to muslims, and a catholic choice to catholics, would it not also be required to provide a buddhist choice to buddhists? or a rastafarian choice to rastafarians?
If you cater to one group, do you not also have to cater to all groups? If not, where do you cut it off? How do you decide?
Mike:
I disagree with you that Leigh’s solution amounts to making secular the default position. I do not think that follows at all. Rather, I think that you need to understand the question the Leigh is asking–why must religion enter into education at all? Given that there are so many different religions, and that they are mutually exclusive (as you yourself pointed out, each one claims for itself the “truth”), maybe it is simply better to allow religion to be taught in the home and in church. After all, there is much that must be taught in school already, and little time to do so. Currently, the Schools in SA are not doing a good job as it is, and adding one more controversial thing to their plates seems unwise. Let the schools figure out how to do a good job teaching the basics first, and then we can figure out the religion thing.
Besides, we all of us know that there can only be one truth, so the vast majority of all the religions in the world are false (all except for one, and that one is mine, of course), and that means that many schools would end up in the position of teaching lies to their students. And we don’t want that, right?
PM,
We are dealing with two distinct things here. Firstly, we have religious observances, and then we have teachiong of religion. Actually, this can be split into the teaching of a particular religion as “truth”, and then teaching about religion.
As a right-wing Christian fundamentalist (well, that is what former Minister Asmal and others would call me) who is personally and intellectually fully persuaded of the truth of what I believ e in, my position would be as follows:
- The constitution allows for religious observances. Where a school community is homogeneous (as it is in much of the country), and where communities value religious observance, then this should be allowed in schools. Where you have “mixed” school communities (mainly W Cape, parts of KZN and Gauteng), it is more tricky, and each school community must establish its own position, with due care and sensitivity. There simply MUST be protection for noncomformists (including Christians in Muslim communities). If you remove religious observances, then you send a message to children that religious faith is of lesser importance.
- Only when a school community is predominantly of one religion could that be taught as “the truth”. In my view, this may have to be rare. However, private schools (of various religious persuasions) should be allowed to be unashamedly single-faith in observance and teaching. Attendance at the school is voluntary. Also, religious schools such as Cathloic or jewish schools have managed religious diversity wonderfully well for many years, while still teachiong their own ethos.
- It is reasonable to teach ABOUT different religions, because on a human level we really need to understand one another, and what motivates us. many of us live in pluralistic communities, and respect and understanding for others is critical. However, it is better to steer clear of teaching the equivalence of different belief systems – this diminishes them all to a non-rational sphere of merely subjective “belief” or “faith”. Also children should not be made to participate in an y of the practices or observances of other religions in the guise of “learning” (although experiential learning may be deemed to be the best – it tramples of constitutional rights here).
To: The Big Slipper,
I’d like to comment on your last contribution above.
I agree that the Constitution must guarantee diversity – but this would then not only include religious diversity but also religious equality. Hence my question: how does one pragmatically want to achieve this kind of diversity and moreover religious equality?
I agree with you that “…it is unreasonable to expect parents to send their children to a school where that family’s beliefs… are not reflected…”; but for different reasons. Why should one have to go to a public school to learn religion in the first instance? If a family wanted their child/ren to learn religion, then by all means – but then in the confines of their own walls, churches or religious institutions created by them to serve their own interests and not in a public school. If we did not have the present situation where religion is taught at public schools, then neither a parent nor a child would have to be faced with this conflict of conscience. And no matter how you turn cube, there will always be one group which is disadvantaged at the expense of the other. My proposal: revise this silly right allowing religious observance at schools [section 15(2)] and replace it with teaching ethics at school. Section 15(2) is legally untenable, morally unbearable and socially unjust.
You say “To expect schools not to favour one religion over another is silly”. This perception favours an intrinsic and active discrimination towards others groups, a perception I cannot subscribe to. Given my argument of scrapping section 15(2), I also maintain that it is not the state’s duty to regulate issues of religion and that religion should not be taught at schools per se. The idea of religious schools is not a bad one. I say this with a jaundiced eye because, presently, what we have at public schools where religious observance is practised is nothing different to a “qausi religious schools”– this is really what it boils down to. But even the formation of so-called religious schools should not be a product of the state but a product of the right to the freedom of association. In effect, what I am saying is: I’m against any state interference when it comes to religion. Religion does not belong in schools primarily because it is not the duty of the state to promote or make provision for any religious activities whatsoever. Religion is a subject belonging to the church and other places where people determine these themselves. So to this end you are therefore right when you say “… people have the right to associate with whom they choose.” – but only in the context of a right which says I can choose to which school I’d like to send my child and not because the state has predetermined this (i.e. where no religion is taught at school). In effect, it is the state which has caused this moral and social conflict through a sloppy legal formulation of a right which is intrinsically detrimental to most people or their personal belief systems anyway – and it is the state who must fix this sloppy formulation by scrapping section 15(2) and replacing it with more universal values of ethics.
About your last paragraph: the difference between schools and your private dinner is quite simply this – at school you (or your child) have no choice but to go to this school where religious observance is practised (but which may be in conflict with your personal belief) whilst at home, you have the choice and right to determine what happens there. The points of departure are obviously very different and the two situations cannot be compared with each other simply because at home you can enfold and practise your religious rituals as you please, whereas this may not necessarily be the case in a public context (e.g. at school, where one has the right to practise his/her religious beliefs).
The argument “…that by allowing religious observance at schools, the constitution makes provision for diversity…” is fallacious. In fact, the opposite is true – it does not allow for diversity but it stifles and brings diversity into conflict (as can be seen from your very own but good examples). Diversity, in the context of religion, means the right for anyone to gather or go to a church of his choice, to send his child/ren to a school of his choice (in the form of a religious school where such religious beliefs may be practised and/or taught) etc. To my mind, this right does not extend to and does not include the right to send my child to a public school where my religious beliefs are expected to be taught or observed, to the exclusion of other religions or faiths. Purely on definition, a public school is a public institution and thereby also something which cannot/should not guarantee the interests of specific groups (as is presently the case!).
Professor, sorry for responding so belatedly but I had a few internet problems yesterday. You seem to suggest that I advocate keeping religion out of the public domain. With respect, I do not.
I advocate the following: in some instances, the majority of people at schools may subscribe to particular beliefs. And given the numerical advantage they enjoy, and given also the typical vulnerability of school goers, it may be the case that any attempts to exclude indirect coercion in the narrow context of state schools would be gravely undermined.
As I made out a in my first post in this discussion, I am aware of the content of section 15 (2). I merely advance that it may not be practically possible to give effect to some of the dictates of section 15 (2). I said also that if that is true, then the better approach may be to secularise state or state aided schools – which is of course different from advocating the complete removal of religious observances from the public domain.
I will, however, concede that my views here are pretty much academic given the content of section 15 (2).
I nominate Pastor Ray for a newly created portolio: “Minister of Religion.”
Pastor Ray has miraculously healed many people.
And offered loving counsel to Cmd Niehaus.
Andy, very good posts.
To Mike Atkins:
I think it is hard pressed to maintain that our society is homogeneous! I am almost tempted to ask rather cheekily which “homogeneous society” you are referring to. I have a few subjective and personal questions running through my mind anyway.
You make all sorts of artificial distinctions (we have religious observances, and then we have teaching of religion) and differentiations (“Where a school community is homogeneous… Where you have “mixed” school communities…“). Notwithstanding my call for the abolition of religion at school, and let us assume we’d like to have your model implemented, how do you propose to reach/achieve religious equality at schools based on your model i.e. given your above-mentioned distinctions and differentiations in a factually heterogeneous society?
You say „ If you remove religious observances [I take it you mean removing it from schools] then you send a message to children that religious faith is of lesser importance.” Given the fact that you call yourself a “right-wing Christian fundamentalist” (tags like these simply get my back up against the wall), I am merely postulating: why would you, in principle, send your child/ren to a public school anyway. Shouldn’t you be sending your child to a right-wing Christian school where right-wing Christian values are taught in a right-wing way you’d like it to be taught? Why do you expect right-wing Christian values to be taught in public schools? Descriptions and expressions like “right-wing Christian fundamentalists” and “truth” (in the context of broader societal interests) confirm the fact that the present section 15(2) should really be scrapped and replaced by ethics! – such scrapping would also close the door to any right-wing activities and religious abuse of our children at school.
A lot of the debate about this issue is on a fairly high intellectual level. While it is good that we can debate at that level it has very little meaning for my 7 year old who is getting indocrinated into Christianity at school.
At home we are non-believers who teach respect for people who are different from us in any respect including the religious. Freedom of choice is a nice ideal, but how will my young daughter go against the wishes of her teacher and say that in our house we don’t believe that Jesus died for our sins and she isn’t going to sing Bible songs?
The other argument that I should then put my child in a different school is also problematic. Please tell me about a decent school in Cape Town’s northern suburbs that is not overtly Christian.
I think the facts about different religions can be taught in schools if teachers can do so impartially, but religious practice has no place in a public school.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 23, 2009 at 10:15 am
He was (not sure if he still is) the spiritual advisor for the Proteas Cricket team. So his influence has been greater, than now when the Ruling Party (particularly its President) has been courting Rhema Church.
But at the topic at hand, it would be very difficult to implement any policy in terms of S15 when the religions which will be impacted has at its fundamental core the “spreading of the Good News” and “fisher of men” ideology (I am uncertain of the Islamic equivalent but sure that like all faiths, it is based on the recruiting and maintaining of followers). One would be hard pressed not to see this in the same fashion as Tobacco Companies who would vehement ally deny adverting geared at children.
Of course Paganism and other smaller religious denominations don’t even come into the picture – of which have announced objection to not having been added to the NICL.
Would this suggestion of rather teaching ethics, be compulsory?
This guy offers three options http://www.news24.com/Content/MyNews24/Letters/1050/8849c54110aa4782870bd7e3743b97dd/23-09-2009-10-00/Religion_in_schools_Three_options
and chooses option 3.
I would choose option 1, which is pretty much the current situation. I our school (the one my children go to – a public school since I cannot afford private facilities), where Christian religious observations are the order of the day, the sessions are attended freely and voluntary by all other religions (not due to peer pressure) and they all (especially Muslims, with the knowledge and support of their parents) heartilly participate in it. Again, I think it is a matter of choices. If one chooses to live right accross a Mosque, Christian School or other religious facilities where the religious observations are audially forced upon everyone in the vicinity, then it was your choice to do so. If you choose to enroll your child in a specific school, where the majority’s religion is something else than what you are at ease with, it is your choice. If you and your children are in addition given the option to opt out (not to participate in religious activities), then your freedom of choice is respected. I do however not see that every single school can make provision for each and every religion (or non-religion), except when choildren are taught about the different religions. How is an atheist going to be accomodated during a religious session – how is he/she going to be taught how not to believe? Therefore, the best solution would be to offer learners the option to sit out a religious meet, organize and hold their own, or watch TV, or spend time on the internet. The Ethos of a specific school is however very important to the majority of parents, and it must be respected as does our Constitution.
Andy,
I was not actually saying that I was “right-wing”. i was taking the mickey a little out of how people label others. This is a slanderous term applied by many to those who hold to the historical principles of the Bible. But if we can’t make fun of ourselves now and then, what use are our precious beliefs? Similarly, the term, “fundamentalist”, while in some ways being a technically correct description for those who hold to the inspiration and validity of the Bible, has also become totally twisted out of shape, often by association with Muslim fundamentalists of the violent persuasion.
But I digress… If you look at our Census data, you will find that religious affiliation in many areas of the country is somewhat homogeneous (as I said, outside of the W Cape, parts of KZN and Gauteng). And where you get large numbers of ZCC members or Shembe adherents, I feel that they would not greatly oppose a basic Christian ethos in their schools. Muslims make up 1.5% of the population, mainly in W Cape, KZN and Gauteng. In the more rural areas, the concentrations of those who describe themselves as Christian goes over 95% in many, many places. How would keeping religion out of schools there help out in the more cosmopolitan areas? We city-dwellers often ignore life in thecountry, even if massive concentrations of our people still live there.
I don’t see why you should assume that we must “reach/achieve religious equality “. I do not read this in the Constitution.
I think that if you read my post carefully, you will see that I am not in any way advocating religious or “right-wing” abuse of children. You see, as much as I am convinced of the truth of the Gospel (maybe a debate for another day), one of its key principles is that it cannot be imposed (in the sense of personal adherence or observances), and that you cannot manipulate people into being Christians (although, sadly, there are some churches that seem to do this, relying on psychological persuasion, rather than the “judicial” truths that make up the core of the Bible’s claims).
By the way, i do not expect government schools to all be overtly Christian. My criteria for selecting a school for my children are firstly educational quality, and then the religious ethos chosen by the particular community, along with things like the atmosphere at the school. As it happens, my children go to a private, Cathloic school very close to my home. However, two of the three government primary schools in my general area would also be acceptable to me. However, I also happen to favour co-ed schools for my children at high school, which is not available to us in government schools here in central Durban.
To Mike Atkins:
I’d probably accept your “somwhat homogeneous” statistics for the sake of not flogging a dead horse.
As to the absence of an explicit “equality” clause in the Constitution: laws have explicit but also implied provisions. It is implied in the interpretation and application of any law that equality or equity has to be the upper-guardian and guide of any legal provision.
It might be a good idea for us to probe the relative meanings of “equality” and “equity” (c’mon, Prof, give us some input here).
I would argue that the prohibition against unfair discrimination on the various grounds does not imply equality of all value systems, or moral equivalence of all lifestyle choices. While a mother who has a child out of wedlock should not be unfairly discriminated against (particularly for the sake of the child), we should not lose our sense that marriage is the best environment (with all of its problems) environment overall for the raising of children.
While there might be a mandate to make redress for the victims of past unfair discrimination, I do not believe that the Constitution has any imperative to create equality generally, or in an overly activist manner (at least in the more subjective areas of belief and lifestyle)..
While reading through the above, I was struck by one overwhelming, (depressing), realization: what hope is there of ever achieving that one goal which an idealist would see as central to ALL our constitutional aspirations and expectations – (that of creating a stable society, where cultural differences can be celebrated as healthy symptoms of human diversity … but where ALL cultural practices and symbols are deliberately and systematically phased-out from the environs of public institutions) – if adults are still this grimly rooted in debating concepts relating to religious freedom?? What hope is there of our children ever embracing a common African identity if their parents are still so obsessed with religious nit-picking and convoluted academic debate that revolves around the safeguarding, (and jealous preservation), of religious beliefs? Religious beliefs are a significant component within cultural values; those beliefs represent unnecessary but significant hurdles in the path to a mutual acceptance amongst the communities in this country. When religious divergence is structurally accommodated, highlighted and empowered within an education system – a system which strives, (no matter how imperfectly), to inculcate young minds with a broader sense of community than that which previous generations of South Africans had been exposed to- it sabotages the very concept of education. Mike Atkins is merely revisiting the same hoary theories of yesteryear – and marks his debate with the same desperate attempts at preaching ‘religious tolerance’; whilst knowing full well that this can only manifest as oxymoron within the sphere of public schooling. There is simply no reason why even ONE learner should have to be overtly or covertly subjected to the religious views of the majority at any particular school. It is precisely at this stage of their lives where learners should be presented with a worldview that is stripped of all cultural and religious ‘meaning’. Remember; culture and religion is acquired, culture and religion is taught – not genetically transferred. There is no reason why an education system should emphasize values which only serve to further consolidate the differences that reactionary and over-zealous communities try to instill within their respective groupings. Parents can add those particular components of culture and religion if they feel sufficiently motivated to do so; or, alternatively, send them to the safe, insular confines of a private-school — al la Mike Atkins.
Mike, not only should children at school not have to be burdened with your separatist concern that “…there is one position that is not tenable from a Christian’s point of view…”, they should also be encouraged to accept that the Christian belief-system, (and all other religious belief-systems), does not belong within a framework of KNOWLEDGE-transfer.
Andy, you are so obviously correct in everything you have contributed above … but one soon discovers the awful truth that religious sensitivities/ fervor/ fundamentalism trumps sound analysis… every time. I would, by the way, support your idea of a course in ethics, to replace any trace of religion at school-level.
Professor de Vos’s learned ambivalence regarding this issue is however most disappointing! Professor, it is always convenient to follow the ‘cop-out’ route by reducing a debate to the apparent intricacies of academic to-ing and fro-ing. I would expect a progressively-minded Constitutional expert to advocate the scrapping of those problematic sections of the law, rather than allow the issues to be submerged in a quagmire of ‘definitions’ regarding the parameters of one’s rights in exercising freedom of religion and conscience. Your example, concerning the ‘public’ observance of Muslim religious ritual, is so far removed from the ‘public’ sphere of educational matters at school level that it is simply embarrassing. One could be forgiven for thinking that you were possibly inconvenienced, and irritated by the presence of ‘non-believers’ while stuck in a traffic snarl-up in Beach Road?? If academics and intellectuals are so hamstrung by their own belief-systems, (or merely wary of alienating their constituencies??), that they find it impossible to unequivocally and objectively support the clear rationale of a secular school-environment within South Africa … who is ever going to provide the leadership on that front ?
Pierre – A little bit of topic, but: the link to Tweet this article doesn’t work. Please fix so I can retweet everything you write like crazy
Religion does divide us. At Newcastle High School, a former model C school followed Christian National Education. Students of different faiths were conpelled to attend Christian Praise and Worship. In 2005, a teacher, Mrs Van Wyk called a muslim student a terrorist and stated that all non christians will not go to heaven but to hell. Mr Yunus Kader, a parent approached Mr Jan Du Toit, the principal about his religious policy but Mr Du Toit said that it is the SGB that determines the religious policy. A year later, Mr Kader was part of the new SGB and asked the new SGB to review the religious policy to accommodate all religions. The newly elected SGB in the interim decided a moment of silence or a universal prayer would be good while they draft a final policy. This was met with resistance from the staff. Staff and White parents formed an organisation called the Christian Parents Initiative and took the SGB to court in February 2007. The SGB won the case. Ro regiliously narrow-minded people they belive that theirs is the ONLY TRUE RELIGION. Alec Hogg, a former pupil in the 1970s supported his almater against the SGB which for the first time had parents of different colour and religion.Mr Hogg wrote extensively on his website and newspapers attacking the SGB for chosing a Universal Prayer instead of a Christian Prayer. In schools, religion is pushed by glibly by satating that it promotes values. Experience has shown that you will be VICTIMISED!
Religion does divide us. At Newcastle High School, a former model C school followed Christian National Education. Students of different faiths were conpelled to attend Christian Praise and Worship. In 2005, a teacher, Mrs Van Wyk called a muslim student a terrorist and stated that all non christians will not go to heaven but to hell. Mr Yunus Kader, a parent approached Mr Jan Du Toit, the principal about his religious policy but Mr Du Toit said that it is the SGB that determines the religious policy. A year later, Mr Kader was part of the new SGB and asked the new SGB to review the religious policy to accommodate all religions. The newly elected SGB in the interim decided a moment of silence or a universal prayer would be good while they draft a final policy. This was met with resistance from the staff. Staff and White parents formed an organisation called the Christian Parents Initiative and took the SGB to court in February 2007. The SGB won the case. Religiously narrow-minded people believe that theirs is the ONLY TRUE RELIGION. Alec Hogg, a former pupil of Newcastle High (in the 1970s) supported his almater against the SGB which for the first time had parents of different colour and religion.Mr Hogg wrote extensively on his website and newspapers attacking the SGB for chosing a Universal Prayer instead of a Christian Prayer. In schools, religion is pushed aggressively in the guise of that it promotes values. Experience has shown that you will be VICTIMISED for promoting equality in religion!
George said:
I say: There is “no reason” why learners should be be overtly or covertly subjected to the religious views of the secular minority either. If you keep religion out schools, you covertly promote: “Religion is not important, religion should not be spoken about, do not think about religion.”
It’s like language and culture. We don’t say: “There are 95% Sothos in this school, and too few Zulus to teach in Zulu, so we should teach without using language.” We don’t say: “A few of our kids come from a culture which regard asking questions to older people impolite, so we will forbid our children from asking questions to teachers.”
It is totally ridiculous to believe an education could be value-neutral or religiously neutral. Children would always, in any school, be influenced towards some viewpoint on the matter. People who propose secular schools won’t get neutrality: He will get secular views covertly (and overtly) promoted. Any way of handling this will leave some children’s religious views marginalized.
I think the closest thing to a solution would be to marginalize as few kids as possible. I think that can best be done by letting parents discuss with teachers what religious policy is good for that school, while allowing minorities who think differently to not attend religious practices, or choose another school.
Maria said:
IMO, that is a bit like saying: “Ovens have no place in an environmentally caring society” and then saying “I want to buy at the shops that currently do have ovens, their bread is fresher. (But I’ll keep insisting that they ban ovens.)”