Italian school: the religion hour

First posted: 10 september 2009

A day in September I was fooling around the web and, by chance, I found one of the latest interviews of the italian minister of education and school, Gelmini, who was talking about the issue of Catholic (Christian) doctrine in schools. She was referring to the teaching of this Catholic faith in schools, expecially asserting that christian doctrine should be predominant and exclusive.

The minister, one of the least appreciated by the students and not overrated or “rated” at all, (students probably would see her as a full time worker in a fast-food) underlined, how much important is to teach the Christian doctrine in schools as one of the most important subjects.

I quote (similar to the original text) in synthesis some of her phrases (compositions abandoned to the law of inertia), just to give you an idea:

1. “It’s not correct or advisable to teach comparative history of religions in schools; we have to focus just on the Christian/Catholic faith and doctrine”.

2. The minister added that comparative studies of religions isn’t attended in Muslim school system; and our religion isn’t just a faith or a doctrine, but a cultural principle and moral value”, (and we can say that we can’t be bothered to listen to this kind of words anymore)

3. “because in our country the Catholic religion cannot be compared to the other religions. It has a greater significance, it’s practiced by the majority of the population and it has got a valuable and worty tradition. We can’t make it equal to the other religions, which they must be respected” (to following a religion as a practice: does it mean treating the garden plants, making the Swedish square or biblical hermeneutics, which are things that require some practice?).

Currently the hour of religion as far as I can see, watch and learn from some other sources (for ex. high school students who still follow this lesson) is limited to an hour time completely abandoned to random disquisitions about teenagers subjects, suitable for stereotypes and recurrent positive themes (such as ex. “if you’re a teenager then it’s a right thing to be in a group, arguing with mom and dad or not, sitting up in some place all day long, thinking about  problems that appears to be unbearable, but in reality they aren’t, and things like that, included going to discoes, having fun, etc, we can say that “Junior Woodchucks Guidebook docet”), or similar issues that, at the best hypothesis, are referred to religious matters in general or are slightly connected to civic and ethical principles or sentimental education; often they turn to be  monologues of teachers chatting. We don’t talk about religion whether Catholic or not, but mere banalities related to everyday life (“human, all too human”).

Now I wonder, why did Gelmini intend to use the religion of Islam as a comparative field to make our own religion (Catholic and Christian) rise over other doctrines? I should think that here, in my country, the Muslim religion is not understood and it is degraded to serve as a simple point of reference (to adfirm the predominance of Christian faith). Perhaps because there are, in her extensive knowledge of philosophy, only these two religions and did the others decay in the filaments of the cobwebs in the attic? How many religions does she consider? And what about the new age and the new cults (included the self-made religions, crossbreeding, melting pot)? Why so much obstinacy?

A true fact is that “the Catholic religion strongly influenced our culture” but in the past, not now (we can notice it by looking around our selves: when do we study or practice or follow the religious teachings in everyday life? and in which way?).

At this point it could originate a new article parallel to this one so I’ll try to avoid it here, maybe I’ll do it in another post. For the moment I invite you to look for an answer.

Why did we have to discriminate students, who for a personal choice or for their family, decide to defend the right not to attend at the religion hour, depriving them of the opportunity to gain credits or any benefit, in the final text, about the examination and the average mark signed by the religion teacher?

Perhaps a solution could be found in what the Gelmini throws away, that is an equal education of the various religious currents (carried out by competent teachers and through a right training process) introduced like a philosophy rather than an unnecessary and confused belief (if you haven’t got a faith).

How much could be interesting, for example, if religion professor started to talk about not only our religion but also the oriental ones, finding the differences and similarities, facilitating to understand how all religions are somehow linked.

Moreover, why in the traditional high schools, for example, where there are classical matters with their possibility to face in the original language and, in detail, the cultural context of the periods like pre-Christian, Catholic, Christian, more and more often, this historical period, at the best, underestimated or skipped, and generally overlooked?

It’s absurd and senseless that in a branch of studies like that where we can find the instruments to face the culture, the development and specific origins of the greek-roman origin of the Christian religion the teachers don’t invite their students to investigate these main themes.

We should stop imposing the religion lesson as a set of dogmas and faith principles, offering, instead, a course about the comparative history of religious movements understood as cultural systems and ethics, soaked with ideals and prospects of an education to civility.