BENTE SANDVIG

SINCE THE beginning of the last century dissidents and other nonmembers of the Norwegian state church have had the right to exempt their children from their school's religious education. The main principle has been freedom of religion and because religious education is so closely linked to the state church and the Evangelical-Lutheran confession, it seemed natural that non-members should be excused. This right is now at stake.

For the last twenty-five years, there has been offered an alternative subject to the traditional religious education. The Human-Etisk Forbund has, among others, fought for this possibility. The situation today is that when religious education is on the agenda, some of the pupils go to another class to receive their non-confessional education. In these alternative classes humanists, Jews, non-believers, Buddhists and some Muslims take part on an equal basis. There are also some pupils who don't receive any religious education at all - either because their school doesn't have sufficient financial resources or teachers to establish it, or because their parents don't want them to attend.

On 3 May 1995, a committee appointed by the Minister of Church, Education and Science presented a government report which suggested that all pupils -- whether Christians, Muslims, Jews or humanists should receive a religious education which should be common for all. The committee was led by Mr Erling Pettersen, who was at the time, head of the Institute of Christian Upbringing. (And I may add: At a later stage -- January 1996 - he was appointed manager of the Church Council. Maybe as a token of appreciation from the Christian community for the good work of making seemingly good Christians of all Norwegian school children?)

The idea of joint education is not new in the debate on religious education. This is an option the Norwegian Humanists have been advocating for a long time. In fact, we see the alternative non-confessional classes as a good starting-point for joint education. There are, however, some important obstacles that must be overcome before this is possible to attain. First of all, the Christian-aim clause for the school in general must be altered. Secondly, the obligation to teach according to the Evangelical-Lutheran confession must be abolished. But maybe most importantly, the whole curriculum must be renewed and reflect the fact that there are different religious and non-religious views in contemporary Norwegian society. Thus ethics should be taught without necessarily always being presented in a specific religious context.

Without making any of these crucial changes, the committee and later the majority in the Norwegian Parliament decided to establish a Christian Evangelical-Lutheran subject in which all pupils are obliged to participate. This subject is meant to be introduced into the school-system as the only alternative from August 1997. From that date, there will no longer be a general right to exemption for any pupil - despite the fact that their family's beliefs differ from what is taught in school.

Only in a very small degree will there be the possibility of being excused when the class is taking part in religious practice, such as taking part in a ceremony or reciting creeds. The exemption must be agreed in advance in a close discussion between the school and the parents. And the exemption does not imply that the pupil in question is excused from knowing the contents of a ceremony, a confession, or a hymn. In other words: the majority has introduced a system of exemption which is practically non-existent and extremely difficult to maintain.

How is this possible in Norway today? It certainly did not happen without a massive protest from practically all religious and non-religious minorities outside the state church. And there were also important critical voices raised against the proposal from within the church itself. The most influential minorities consisting of the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Alternative Network (a New-Age umbrella organisation) the humanists, one of the teachers' unions, several unions of students and other groups, soon formed a campaign against the proposal.

20,000 postcards protesting against the new subject were handed over to the leader of the Parliamentary Committee that was handling the proposal. The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Children's Ombudsman claimed the proposed kind of education to be in conflict with the international obligations Norway has accepted by ratifying various human rights declarations and conventions. The proposal was passed in Parliament despite all these protests and serious objections.

The committee and the political majority seemed to claim that this new subject is the answer to practically all the problems in society, such as racism, ignorance, and social instability. Therefore it was actually possible to create a political alliance between the Social Democrats, the Christian People's Party, the Centre Party [conservative, rural) and to a certain extent the Conservative Party. The latter left the alliance at the second round in Parliament, accusing the other parties of not having taken into consideration the serious impact the new subject would have on parents' right to decide what sort of religious education their children should receive. As the spokesman for the Conservatives pointed out in the debate, it seemed that no one in the political majority was able to differentiate between the old and the new subject. Therefore, he claimed, the same possibility of exemption as was accepted in the old subject ought to prevail in the new one.

Finally, the majority admitted that they had not carefully considered all the different aspects of the matter and added a demand for the Minister of Church, Education and Science to give the problem a serious legal evaluation before any law on the exemption is passed. The matter will later be dealt with in connection with an imminent political discussion of the educational laws

But the rest of the alliance seems to live comfortably with a very differing view of what they have actually decided. When you listen to a Social Democrat describing the new subject, it sounds like she or he is in fact talking about the same non-confessional education that is being offered to non-church-members today. At the other end of the alliance the Christian People's Party's spokesman has expressed how pleased he is that the new subject is deeply rooted in the Evangelical-Lutheran confession and ensures that new generations will base their beliefs in the Christian faith. It is clear that they are talking about two different subjects, and only time will show which one the new subject will be.

So this is the situation today: Parliament has passed a proposal that no one really knows the consequences of, and they don't even seem to agree on what they have actually decided. The minorities claim that fundamental rights have been neglected and that if a law reducing the right to exemption will be passed later, it will be illegal. In that case the Norwegian Parliament will be ignoring the international obligations of human rights conventions. The last word has definitely not been said: the protests continue and the Human-Etisk Forbund is ready for the next battle.