Candidate level

1. Subject related to a specific language (10 ECTS)

2. Religion and religion-related topics in Europe, past or present (10 ECTS) 3. Religion and religion-related topics outside Europe, past or present (10

ECTS)

4. Religion and Communication (10 ECTS)

5. Master’s Th esis (30 ECTS) (any subject within the study of religions program as defined by the above mentioned subject areas).

“Religion and Communication,” earlier “Religion-related didactics,”

used to serve only students who intended to become Religion teachers.

Today, though still comprising this, it includes theory and practice of communicating, representing or presenting knowledge of religion in various electronic and printed media, in public debates, etc.

Christianity still “stands out” as if something special not included in “Comparative Religion,” and the religion that takes up most time.18 _In

this it matches what is the case in the school subject. Th ere are several less good reasons for this special treatment, but also some good ones. It is the largest religion in the world and no doubt the most influential

18) _{For the special status of this religion at the departments for the study of religions in} Denmark, cf. Jensen 2001.

and powerful, not only in Europe and Denmark but also in the US, Latin America and probably also in Africa. Besides, this religion has had a dominant influence on the study of religions and it is still influencing the students’ thinking about religion. Th erefore, it is logical that more time is devoted to Christianity than the other religions in a study program such as this, and it must be considered a major progress that much of the time teaching Christianity nowadays is used teaching about different kinds of Christianity and teaching about Christianity in a normal study of religions way.19

As for “religion-related philosophy,” this element has slowly emanci- pated itself from a theological-philosophical approach. Focus now is on political philosophy relevant also to contemporary public discussions, and on the thinking about religion of important European philoso- phers. Part of this is reflected in the requirements from the Ministry quoted above, and it is a little bit strange that religion-related philoso- phy has become marginalised in the current Executive Order for Reli- gion. But, cf. below, it is most likely because teaching about Islam has

become obligatory.

*

Th e RS based RE I advocate is not significantly different from the Dan- ish model, even if improvements can be imagined, of course. Let me, however, add a few remarks regarding various issues.

As can be seen from the quoted curricula, teaching about Islam has now become obligatory in Religion, and in Odense Islam also has been

allotted more time. Good reasons can be given for this, but it does, of course, create problems. Given that one of the guiding principles for a selection of core contents, is the size, spread and impact of religions as well as the degree to which they are seen as important in regard to what is considered central cultural and political issues in today’s world, Islam must be dealt with in more detail, not least if you want to teach more about this religion than what may be related to headscarves, circumci-

19) _{In Odense, a historian and a sociologist of religion, both specialised in aspects of} Christianity, have taken over the positions traditionally held by theologians. As I see it, it is, at least in Odense, but a matter of a few years before this religion is classified under “Comparative Religion.”

sion, gender and terror. But more time to Islam is less time to every- thing else, for instance to all those other religions past and present, the study of which makes it possible for a religion scholar to treat Islam (as well as Christianity) as a religion next to other such.

Besides, while teaching about Hinduism or Buddhism (or Judaism) is required, the tendency is to pay less attention to these religions. With the focus on contemporary issues, including European and Danish forms of Islam, the risk is that Europe, “we,” RS and RE (once again) become provincial, and that students do not “meet” a suffi cient number of religions, including so-called illiterate peoples’ religions, until 2005 part of the core contents also of RE. Introductions to more religions, not least religions of the past, are a strong desideratum, especially in times where the public and political focus is on contemporary religion, including the contemporary plurality of religions.20 _{Also with regard, as}

indicated above, to the utility of RS and RE. It is a prerequisite for exactly that distanced, historical, comparative ‘relation’ to, analysis and understanding of religion in general as well as of current religious affairs which is so sorely needed — and which pupils, religious or not, their parents, society, and the media cannot provide for themselves.

As for questions on the “representation” of the religions in RE, I agree that there is a need to find ways, in classroom teaching, via the textual sources and the textbooks used, to deconstruct and de-reify reli- gion and religions. Th e very question about the concept and notion of religion as well as of representation must be made part of the core cur- riculum. An RS based RE must find ways to share these key didactic and methodological issues with the pupils, regardless of their age.

Talking about “big questions,” I find it essential to a quality RE and the up-dating of an RS based RE that the famous so-called “existential” big questions, by some even held to be the essence of religions — and of RE — be deconstructed and if not totally abandoned at least sup- plemented by another series of big questions: Why is “there” religion in the first place? Why is it still here? What functions may it serve? Th ese are questions that cannot be raised in today’s RE if the teacher does not find ways of introducing also recent efforts to answer them, e.g. with

20) _{Cf. Jensen 2003 for a discussion of this and recent developments in RS in Den-} mark.

reference to biology, evolution and cognition. RE teachers and RS scholars must help each other to find ways to tailor such complicated matters to the various age groups.

An intensified teaching about the concept and notion of religion and the big questions is central to one of the key tasks of an RS based RE, what I have termed “de-familiarizing religion” (Jensen 1997, 1999), something as important as making pupils familiar with religion(s). Most pupils, religious or not, have notions of religions influenced by religions and by public discourse on religion. Th ey are in this way quite often all too familiar with religion(s). De-familiarizing religion is there- fore part of the job of RE, and relating questions about religion to biol- ogy, ecology, evolution and cognition may be helpful also in that regard. Besides, it may help pave the way for more and new kinds of interest in RE and religion.

Fundamental to teaching about the concept, notion, and representa- tion of religion, of course, is the teaching not only about the different scientific approaches to religion but also about the different approaches to religion in education, in RE. Aspects of the didactics of RS based RE must be an integral part of the subject. Not just because it is part of the teaching about religion, and because a scientific approach must always question itself, e.g. by way of a critical elucidation of its history and genealogy, and by way of discussions of alternative ways of teaching and

studying religions. No, it must be an integral part also to prevent that an RS based RE approach to religion may be accused by opponents for constituting yet another hegemonic “discourse,” no longer capable of meeting the mentioned requirements to a compulsory school subject.

In light of what has just been said about the need to make notions of religion, and ways of studying and teaching religion a central part of RE, it once again is evident that it will be hard to find any other aca- demic basis than RS for this kind of RE. Only at the departments spe- cialising in various kinds of “naturalistic” approaches to religion can you find the desired (congenial) descriptions, balanced interpretations and critical explanations, as well as the open-ended, non-normative definitions and theories of religion suited for an open, democratic and secular society and the public school. Th is is where you find those crit- ical and self-reflective approaches upon which a compulsory RE must be based.

Besides the fundamental training of methodical, critical reading of different kinds of texts and other materials, time must be found also for some teaching about field work methods, not least if visits to religious institutions are part of the teaching.

As for the element “religion-related philosophy,” no longer part of the core contents of Religion though part of the quoted standard require-

ments for RE teachers and also of the RS study program, I want to add but this: A critical teaching about the RS based RE approach includes teaching, one way or the other, about the genealogy and history of the study of religions. Western philosophical traditions, including philoso- phers’ views of religion, are part and parcel thereof. Furthermore, since the teaching about religions past and present cannot escape touching upon general characteristics of a religious ethics as well as religious “answers” to contemporary discussions pertaining to what is called eth- ics, teaching about non-religious, philosophical ethics is very useful. Besides, this very element of RE is an important means to a balanced teaching about past and present European values and attitudes to reli- gion. Th ey are not and never have been just Christian or otherwise religious. Another reason, of course, for including this subject-area in RE is to make it more difficult for those who propagate it as an alterna- tive to RE.

So much for curriculum contents. Who, then, is going to construe and decide the contents of an RS based RE? In my opinion the opti- mal way, with a view to RE as a normal and qualified school subject, is for a Ministry of Education or the school authorities in charge to del- egate the drafting of it to professional experts, RE teachers and RS scholars. I am, needless to say, not in favour of — in the name of mul- ticulturalism or anything else — involving “representatives” from local or national religious groups,21 _{parents or other amateurs, sometimes}

termed “stakeholders.”22

21) _{As is the case in e.g. England.}

Epilogue

At the beginning of this article, I referred to a recommendation from a Council of Europe seminar on “Studying religion in social sciences at school” (Palmer 1995). Recommending the Toledo Guiding Principles,

Haynes (2007b) admits that he has been involved in that report. I have to admit that I was there, at the Council of Europe seminar, and that may be one reason why I prefer that recommendation to that of the

Toledo Guiding Principles. I quote it time and again:

. . . .we. . . . recommend that each country should have formal professional time- tabled non-confessional Religious Education. . . . By “Religious Education” we mean teaching about the diversity of faiths and diversity within faiths; about core teachings and local variations; about key beliefs and cultural manifestations of religion. It should include sensitivity to beliefs but also a critical edge. It should also ensure space for proper handling of issues related to minority groups — both minority faiths and minorities within faiths . . . . .To implement this (viz “ . . . .the teaching of religions as cultural and social facts and value bases, the analysis and understanding of which is necessary for an understanding of the past, present and future”) we suggest that experience and modules developed in Religious Studies Departments and/ or History of Religion in Universities be shared with those responsible for teacher training and thus for the development of formal Religious Education. . . .

Th is document, contrary to the Toledo Guiding Principles, leaves no

doubt as to its preference for RE as a separate RS based school subject. I am certain that the main reason the teachers present recommended the RS departments to be the basis for the RE recommended was that they had no doubt that this was the only thing to do if the RE they envi- sioned could be taught in a professional way. However, I also think that it is possible that my presence at the seminar and my efforts to influence the recommendations may have played an ever so modest role.

Th is brings me to my final remarks. According to the Danish Univer- sity Act of 2003, it is part of the job of university scholars to “share knowledge” with society at large. Th ere are many ways of sharing, and some scholars have been busy sharing for years, writing books on reli- gion for a wider public, writing articles to dailies and magazines on religion related issues, giving interviews and functioning as expert- scholars to the media, and giving lectures on religion to the police, sol- diers, businessmen, nurses, doctors, social workers, teachers etc. Some

scholars, e.g. in Germany, have come together to serve the wider society via a platform like REMID, and some scholars, e.g. in Denmark, once established their own private consultancy. Sometimes serving the wider community has become a part of the services of the “learned societies,” like the national associations for the study of religions, providing the media with lists of scholars specialised in this or that.

Applying RS to the education of RE teachers, writing textbooks to be used in RE, arranging in-service training, being engaged in drafting the curriculum and being engaged in the development of an RS based RE is another way of sharing knowledge. In Denmark this has been the busi- ness of the departments and many religion scholars for more than 25 years, and the beginnings of the close relationships can be traced back to 1912. As I have written elsewhere in more detail about this (Jensen 2007a), suffice it to say that I am in total agreement with Armin W. Geertz (unpublished manuscript) who comments upon the linking of the then Christian Studies study programs to the History of Religions

chair in Copenhagen in 1912 by saying that this became “one of the most significant factors in the economic and institutional success of the study of religions in Denmark.”

What I want to add is that there can be no doubt either that the academic study of religions has been one of the most significant factors in the success of Religion. A success that shows, e.g., in the fact that Religion in 2005 entered the exclusive “class” of subjects taught not

only at an obligatory C-level but also at the B-level as an elective. At this level, Religion is taught for some 120 60-minute lectures (on top of

the obligatory 75).

While sharing knowledge by way of “going public” may, as D. Wiebe has warned time and again and as the present author has learnt in the wake of the Muhammad cartoons, be a risky business and even put the credibility of the study of religions at risk,23 _{sharing by way of RE cer-}

tainly is less risky. It has been interesting to see how RE has been put on the agendas of recent IAHR24 _{and EASR conferences, and it is equally}

interesting that an issue of NUMEN is devoted to discussions about RE and RS. Hopefully more scholars discover RE as an interesting field or subject-matter for the study of religions, and hopefully some scholars

23) _{Cf. Wiebe 2000, 2005; Jensen 2007b, 2008.} 24) _{Cf. Pye, Franke et al. 2006.}

can see engagement in RE as a possible and appropriate way of promot- ing the academic study of religions and carving out more space for a study of religions approach to religion in the public sphere.

References

Alberts, Wanda. 2006. “European Models of Integrative Religious Education.” In Pye, Franke et al. 2006:267–278.

———. 2007. Integrative Religious Education in Europe. (Religion and Reason 47.)

Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Andersen, Peter B. et al. 2006. “Hvor får de det dog fra? Religiøs holdningsdannelse i gymnasieskolen.” In Religion, skole og kulturel integration i Danmark og Sverige,

ed. P.B. Andersen et al., København: Museum Tusculanum/Københavns Univer- sitet, 359–371.

Cush, Denise. 2007. “Should Religious Studies be Part of the Compulsory State School curriculum?” British Journal of Religious Education 29(3):217–227.

Haynes, Charles C. 1990. “Religion in American History, what to teach and how.” Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Avail- able at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=6250 (accessed 29 December, 2007).

———. 2007a. “Americans don’t know much about religions, but does it matter?” First Amendment Center, 18.03.07. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ commentary.aspx?id=18295 (accessed 29 December, 2007).

———. 2007b. “To advance religious freedom, teach about religion.” First Amend- ment Center, 12.09.07. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary. aspx?id=19421 (accessed 29 December, 2007).

Jensen,Tim (ed.). 1994. Islam i skolen. (Københavnerstudier i tosprogethed 20.)

Copenhagen: Danmarks Lærerhøjskole.

———. 1996. Th e Case for a Secular, Non-Confessional Religious Education. (Unpub-

lished manuscript).

———. 1997. “Familiar and Unfamiliar Challenges to the Study and Teaching of Religions in an Increasingly Religious and Multireligious Context.” In Th e Famil- iar and the Unfamiliar in the World Religions: Challenges for Religious Education Today, ed. Nils. G. Holm, Åbo: Åbo Akademi University, 199–223.

———. 1999. “Religion and Religious Education in a Europe of Conflicting Trends.” In Into the Th ird Millenium, ed. Niels-Åke Tidmann. Malmö: Föreningen Lärare

i Religionskunskap, 142–159.

———. 2001. “Den kristne religion i de religionsvidenskabelige uddannelser i Dan- mark.” In L. Buck et al. (ed.), Kristendomshistorie på tværs, Copenhagen: Institut

for Religionshistorie,75–88.

———. 2002. “Religious Education in Public Schools — A Must for a Secular State: A Danish Perspective.” CSSR Bulletin 31(4):83–89.

———. 2003. “From History of Religions to the Study of Religions: Trends and Tendencies in Denmark.” In Th emes and Problems of the History of Religions in Contemporary Europe (Collana di studi storico-religiosi 6), ed. Giulia S. Gasparro,

Cosenza: Edizione Lionelli Giordano, 183–208.

———. 2005a. “European and Danish Religious Education: Human Rights, the Secular State, and ‘Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality.” Journal of Reli- gion & Education 32(1):60–78.

———. 2005b. “Religionsundervisning i et multi-kulturelt, multi-religiøst, sekulært eller religiøst samfund?” At http://trappe13.dynamicweb.dk/Default.asp?ID=188 (accessed 29 December, 2007).

———. 2007a. “Th e Study of Religions and Religion in Denmark.” Nederlands Th e- ologisch Tijdschrift 61(4):329–342.

———. 2007b. “From Respected Religion Expert to Cartoon: Th e Fate of a Religion Scholar Going Public? A Report from the Cultural Battlefields of the Kingdom of Cartoons.” CSSR Bulletin 36(4) (forthcoming).

———. 2007c. “La Educación Religiosa en las escuelas públicas como necesidad en un Estado secular: Una perspectiva danesa.” BANDUE 1:135–153.

———. 2008. “In the Wake of the Cartoon Crisis: Freedom of Expression of Aca- demics in Denmark.” In Th e Study of Religion and the Training of Muslim Clergy in Europe: Academic and Religious Freedom in the 21st Century, ed. W. B. Drees

and P. Sjoerd van Koningsveld, Leiden: Leiden University Press, 243–274. Jensen, Tim, and Mikael Rothstein (eds.). 2000. Secular Th eories on Religion: Current