No man-made system is etched in stone. Changes are inevitable. Changes are necessary. A system of continuing and continuous assessment and evaluation of programmes and policies outlined and implemented is of paramount importance.
The Department of Education needs to be commended and complimented for their sterling efforts of evaluating, assessing, reviewing and then revising programs in order to create a system of education, which aims to create a 'whole individual': an individual who understands who he/she is; an individual who knows what he/she wants; an individual who appreciates his/her surroundings; an individual who respects those around him/her; an individual who is an asset to his/her community, country and the world at large.
The intention of familiarising learners with issues regarding the various religions and religious diversity is in essence an essential aspect in the education of a child who must learn to co-exist in harmonious relationships with those around him. Religion Education, as part of the Life Orientation/Life Skills learning areas should therefore be acceptable to most people. However the method of integrating it into the envisaged learning areas as well as certain other issues need to be carefully examined in order that such an exercise not become counterproductive or even harmful.
It is a matter of great comfort that the aim of the policy of religion in education is “designed to support unity without uniformity” (Discussion Document: for Public Comment Policy: Religion in Education, p. 25 Department of Education, 2003), and “unity is not uniformity”(ibid. p. 24). It is also pleasing to note that the policy identifies that “ Religion Education does not suggest that all religions are the same. Nor does it try to select bits and pieces from different religious traditions to build a single religion. Religion Education is not a project in social or religious engineering designed to establish a uniformity of religious beliefs and practices. Any attempt to establish religious uniformity would violate the values of the constitution and the integrity of religion education.”(ibid. p. 24).
It is encouraging to note that the policy makes the clear distinction between the concept of 'Unity' and 'Uniformity' since these two are often confused. It somehow seems that certain practical aspects would indicate a clear misunderstanding of this distinction. The envisaged manner of substituting single faith prayers at assemblies by a multi-faith prayer is an example of this. The multi faith prayer is based on the principle of uniformity and would conflict with the religious freedom of an individual not to be part of the prayer of another faith. Since all faiths are united on the principle of prayer as a concept, we suggest a moment of silence rather than a multi-faith or multi-religious prayer.
The policy also states that “the constitution has worked out a careful balance between freedom for religious belief and expression and freedom from religious coercion and discrimination”(ibid p.7), and that “the constitution explicitly prohibits the state from unfair discrimination on grounds that include religion, belief and conscience.”(ibid. p.7). It further states that “public schools cannot promote religious interests within their programs of formal education. Public Schools are enjoined against any form of religious instruction, indoctrination, propaganda, catechism, conversion or confession... when they are practiced in public schools they violate the constitution by introducing religious discrimination into a public institution that serves a religiously diverse society.”(ibid. p.11). One may, however, ask the question whether the present policy document doesn't at the very least allow for the possibility of the violation of the constitutional rights of the individual.
While we may not be able to comment on each and every clause of the Discussion Document, we would like to acknowledge the sincere intentions and the spirit of the document on the part of the Department in general, as it raises issues of great concern to us. Since there would be a difference between implementation of the policies and what is being laid down on paper, we would like to highlight a number of issues itemised below. We would also request that we be allowed to make oral submissions to relevant committees on the issues of concern.
Hereunder follow the issues that we are concerned with:
1. The proposed policy on religion in education could instead of causing religious and cultural diversity rather establish, through assimilation of religious and cultural beliefs and traditions, a type of pluralistic society where the individual religious and cultural identities of each group is lost or diluted. This could escalate further, in the long term, into a system where students reduce religion to a mere universal code of ethics, rather than a God-ordained, divine belief system rooted in faith and conviction.
2. The possibility of creating a situation where the constitutional rights
of a learner are violated would exist. Learners would be compelled to sit in
classes where they are forced to learn the religious traditions of other religions.
In addition there could be religious instruction, indoctrination, propaganda,
etc on the part of the teacher, who belongs to a certain faith group and whose
presentation or manner of presentation would be affected by his/her belief
system. At the very least traces of his/her conviction could filter through
to students. Since learners have the right to freedom of expression and as
such may attempt to persuade their peers about religious and other issues,
religious indoctrination and propaganda could become a part of the formal education
program of a learner. This could also, together with other aspects, contribute
to subtle coercion on a learner to accept views or beliefs of another group.
3. Conflict and confusion that could arise in the mind of the younger students.
The learners of the foundation and lower intermediate phase are not in the
position to distinguish for themselves with regard to issues of religion.
They cannot even fully grasp concepts. At such tender ages, where the learner
is obtaining certain education and information at home, it is counter productive
to provide him with information which might be either directly conflicting
or not exactly the same, in content or approach. We therefore strongly suggest
that the program should not be introduced to students under the age of twelve
(12).
4. The issue of the clergy being unable to make a contribution in the field of the religion is ironical. Religion is the specialty of the clergy. Education is the pre-occupation of the clergy. The clergy are professional educators. To state that “nothing in their religious education or training would necessarily have prepared the clergy to be teachers in religion education” is untrue and also begs the question of whether anything in the training of the Mathematics, English or even the Life Orientation teacher has prepared him/her for the teaching of religion education. The clergy have a definite role to play in religion education, whether it be as guest facilitators for students, whether it be in the preparation of material or whether it be in the training of “professional educators” in religion education.
5. If multi-faith based prayers are introduced, then learners would be coerced into practicing the traditions of other faiths. A solution to this could be a moment of silence where no individual or collective religions' prayers are recited.
The Jamiatul Ulama reiterates its position that it is available to assist in any way possible and would like to request the opportunity of making contributions, on the subject at hand, as well as request that it be invited to discussions or forums relating to all aspects of education.
Thanking you.
Yours sincerely,
Ayyub Kachwee
Secretary