Germany has become a country of high religious diversity, with over 150 religious groups and communities (Özoguz 2020). At the same time, atheism is on the rise. In 2010, only 27 % of Germans believed in God or a supreme being (Ipsos 2011). And how are people of these different faiths living together? Unfortunately, tensions between religious groups in Germany can be seen.
Especially resentments against Jews and Muslims have increased, leading to more violence against these two religious groups. Anti-Semitic attacks increased exponentially after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, with most attacks in Germany coming from right-wing extremists (Tagesschau, 2024). At the same time, anti-Muslim sentiments have a long history in Germany. One of the most striking examples is the investigation method and public discourse of the police in the murders of the right-wing extremist group “Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund” (NSU). Although witness reports pointed toward white perpetrators, for more than ten years, the murders were framed by police and media to be outcomes of organised crime (Ayata 2016: 215). While this could be considered to be of a general racist attitude, the formation of the protest group “Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes” (PEGIDA; translation: Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West) shifts the focus on the religious identity of some groups. These sentiments have now arrived in politics, especially in the right-wing “AfD” party (DIDE 2024). Some of the more radical party members have attracted attention with anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic and racist comments such as: “Immerhin haben wir jetzt so viele Ausländer im Land, dass sich ein Holocaust mal wieder lohnen würde” (Grauf cited after Hoffmann & Echtermann 2020; translation: After all, we now have so many foreigners in the country that a Holocaust would be worthwhile once again) and “Ladet sie mal ins Eichsfeld ein, und sagt ihr dann, was spezifisch deutsche Kultur ist. Danach kommt sie hier nie wieder her, und wir werden sie dann auch, Gott sei Dank, in Anatolien entsorgen können“ (Gauland cited after ibid.; translation: Invite her to Eichsfeld and then tell her what specifically German culture is. After that, she will never come here again and, thank God, we will be able to dispose of her in Anatolia.). Gauland was speaking about Aydan Özoguz, the Integration Commissioner of the Federal Government at that time.
Why does religion divide society so much? Özoguz (2020: vii) states: “I think that the sometimes absurd perceptions of religion […] are also based on the fact that many people have become insecure in their own faith or cannot relate to religion at all – no matter what religion we are talking about.” Following this logic, this paper will explore the idea of implementing interfaith Religious Education (RE) in the formal school system. I argue that by strengthening religious identity of students in the formal school system, bridges between religious groups can be built in the long term. As Özoguz mentions, identity and being secure in one’s identity is crucial in accepting differences in society. Addressing identity building is thus a crucial step in fostering interfaith dialogue.
The paper will be structured as follows: First, a state of research will be given on the literature on interfaith dialogue. Then, the theoretical framework will be explored. A definition of religion and interfaith dialogue will be given. Individual and social identity building will be explained using the Social Identity Theory of Tajfel and Turner (cf. 1986) and Fiske‘s (cf. 2000) five social motivations. The importance of religious identity will be established. After this theoretical part, I will explore how interfaith dialogue can be fostered in the formal school system by reforming the RE classes, drawing on existing literature and findings of Germany’s only interfaith RE in the federal state of Bremen. After addressing the challenges of interfaith RE, I will name actions for policymakers before drawing a conclusion.
Interfaith Dialogue in academic literature
The literature on interfaith dialogue is extensive. Ranking from interfaith dialogue from the macro level (cf. Körs et al. 2020) to the outcome of interfaith initiatives on the individual level (cf. Visser et al. 2024). Interfaith dialogue and interreligious dialogue are often used as synonyms. Most research focuses on context-specific interfaith dialogue, for example, between different religions at a specific locality (cf. Stamatovic 2024, Alemany-Arrebola et al. 2024, Purnomo 2024, Hazaymeh 2024). It is striking that interreligious dialogue is being researched, particularly in regions with a violent (political) conflict (in the past). This applies in particular to the Middle East (cf. Abu-Nimer et al. 2007; Driessen 2020; Kayaoglu 2015), the former Yugoslavia (cf. Stamatovic 2024, Admirand 2020), and other regions, and Islam is usually given special attention (cf. Garrard-Burnett & Yildirim 2011, Voulgaraki-Pissina 2023). To counteract the perception of Islam being extraordinarily problematic and prone to violence, the bias of focusing on the violence of Muslim practitioners but neglecting the religious identity of Christian or Jewish perpetrators is mentioned (Esposito 2001: 24).
This bias shows that even while interfaith dialogue aims to build bridges, prejudices can still prevail. Still, interfaith dialogue initiatives in practice “are seen as promising sites for personal and societal growth” (Visser et al. 2024: 704). While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to interfaith dialogue because of context sensitivity, it usually aims to improve mainly three core competencies: (1) Knowledge, (2) skills, and (3) attitudes. Knowledge refers to factual knowledge about one’s own and other religions, skills deal with (self-)reflection and contextualization, and attitudes refer to opinions and attitudes towards one’s own and other religions (ibid.: 698ff).
Interfaith dialogue initiatives have been researched in Germany itself as well. Körs and Nagel (2018: 359) mention that “measures of state-interfaith collaboration are on the rise.” This may be traced back to immigration, especially to refugee movements in 2015 and 2016. One example is the establishment of Germany’s first Muslim-Christian kindergarten. This kindergarten, established in 2007, shows how the nexus of interfaith dialogue and governance can be managed from a local perspective (Emmerich 2022: 578). The role of interfaith dialogue in the formal school system, however, remains under-researched. Especially how interfaith dialogue is fostered within RE classes is not a topic of research. Knauth (cf. 2007) wrote on developments in German RE until the 9/11 attacks and their influence on the debate on RE in Germany. While interreligious and intercultural dialogue was discussed in the 1990s and “has been recognised as an important factor of [RE]” (ibid.: 258), with the 9/11 attacks, especially the introduction of Islamic RE was very contested. Other texts focus on the complexity of the German formal school system and current analyses of RE in German schools (cf. Domsgen & Witten 2018). Challenges mentioned in the text are, for example, the plurality of RE organization in different German federal states (ibid.: 18ff) and RE classes and their alternatively offered classes for non-religious students or students of other religions not covered in the denominational RE classes offered at the school (ibid.: 32ff). Most texts focus on Islamic RE in German schools (cf. Körs 2023, Weiße 2008, Mohagheghi 2010), mainly addressing the question of the integration of Muslims into German society.
Definition of religion and interfaith dialogue
So far, there is no standardised definition of religion. It is particularly noticeable that the definitions differ depending on the focus and context of the research; the discourse plays a leading role here (cf. Gorski 2018). Furthermore, peace researchers sometimes criticise a restrictive understanding of religion used in conflict research and analysis (Biess & Nolden 2021: 12). Brubaker addresses the complexity of religion in peace and conflict studies and calls for a qualified particularizing stance.
“[His] argument […] is that while none of the key violence-enabling modalities and mechanisms is uniquely religious, religious beliefs, practices, structures, and processes nonetheless provide an important and distinctively rich matrix of such modalities and mechanisms.” (Brubaker 2015: 7)
Following Brubaker’s understanding of the complexity of religious identity, this paper will use the following definition of religion by Johnson (2021: 109): Religion is a “more or less organized set of beliefs and practices that is concerned with how humans relate to the Divine, the sacred, the holy, or the transcendent.” “A more or less organized set of beliefs and practices” stresses the importance of internal coherence, although this coherence may not be visible to non-practitioners and practitioners with only little understanding of the philosophical and theological understanding of their religion. It also includes Atheism as a sort of religious belief. Biess and Nolden (2021: 11) elaborated an extensive model of five important dimensions of religion: (1) spirituality, (2) symbols, rituals, and practices, (3) set of ideas, (4) community, and (5) institution. Spirituality refers to subjective experiences with the divine or transcendental and personal motivations to believe. Symbols, rituals, and practices are often the visible part of religion, such as religious signs, buildings of worship, and worship ceremonies or practices. The set of ideas describes the philosophical part of religion, found in scriptures, including norms and values. The dimension of institution reflects the “official” or structural part of religion, for example, religious leaders, hierarchical structures or official bodies and/or committees as actors in public discourse. Finally, the community aspect of religion refers to social groups, more specifically religious groups. This dimension is essential for social identity building as the community involves interpersonal relations with other practitioners of the same faith and thus establishes a sense of belonging.
Hoffman and Thelen (2018) offer a definition of interfaith dialogue that distinguishes between interfaith and interreligious dialogue: “Interfaith Dialog is a specific type of interaction between religious and/or spiritual groups intended to build bridges and foster understanding between religious groups. […] Interfaith Dialog is intentionally more inclusive in that it can refer to dialogs within a religion (i.e., intrachurch dialog) or between religious groups (dialogs between sects or denominations).”
The goal of interfaith dialogue is thus that “people of different faiths [come] to a mutual understanding and respect that allows them to live and cooperate with each other in spite of their differences” (Andrabi 2020: 264). This shows that interfaith dialogue does not only include dialogues but can include other initiatives such as museums and art. The goal and skills developed by the initiative are more important than the format of the initiative itself. Skills crucial in interfaith dialogue are “developing the ability to listen, to respect the diversity of beliefs, […] to identify common religious experiences’, as well as “openness to difference and the predominance of ethics over dogmatism” (Vilà et al. 2020: 256).
How to approach interfaith dialogue is described in Herling’s text “A Beginner’s Guide to the Study of Religion” (cited after Johnson 2021: 110ff). Herling lists four self-reflective methodological principles for studying religion and reflecting on those studies. The first principle is self-consciousness, assessing one’s own religious identity. The next principle is a comparison and focuses on an “academic” and objective study of the practices, symbols, rituals, etc., of different religions. In the next step, Herling introduces the principle of defamiliarization. Defamiliarization is used to learn that “those things which are unfamiliar to us are not necessarily ‘weird’; they are simply unfamiliar” (ibid.: 112). These three principles together lead to the fourth principle, which is at the same time also an independent principle: empathy.
“The crucial importance of the development of empathy cannot be overstated, and this development is dependent upon our capacities to be self-reflective about our religious commitments, to take a comparative approach to religious beliefs and practices, and to be open to others’ ‘weird’ perspectives.” (ibid.) Empathy does not necessarily mean that one agrees with the next person but is built on the intent of understanding and tolerating another person’s worldview, although it may differ completely from one’s perspective. Thus, empathy is a crucial skill to develop in interfaith dialogue.
Identity building
As Johnson and Herling emphasize, (religious) identity plays a crucial role in social contexts. “At core, people are motivated to maintain affiliations and bonds with others” (Fiske 2000: 305). We build our social identity due to five social motivations: (1) belonging, (2) understanding, (3) controlling, (4) self-esteem/self-enhancing, and (5) trusting (ibid.: 305ff). If membership in a certain social group is considered profitable, people will want to become members of the group. To belong to a group, the second motivation must be fulfilled. Ingroup members “share a common understanding of the environment and each other” (ibid.: 306). The understanding of the ingroup must be the same, and at the same time, the knowledge of what is not ingroup behaviour or characteristics must be understood clearly. Fiske also mentions the importance of control (ibid.: 308). To feel secure, people need to feel a certain level of control over the environment, “and persistent lack of control is depressing and unhealthy” (ibid.: 309). Self-enhancing motivates individuals to improve self-esteem through group identification. Trust, essential for social cohesion, is more easily extended to ingroup members than outgroup members. However, trust with outgroup members can be developed through successful interpersonal and intergroup contact (ibid.: 311).
Based on these five motivations, an individual composes their social identity. Social Identity Theory, mainly introduced by Tajfel and Turner (cf. e.g. 1986), “begins with the premise that individuals define their own identities concerning social groups and that such identifications work to protect and bolster self-identity” (Islam 2014). Especially the aspect of protecting and bolstering self-identity is often coupled with showing favouritism towards Ingroup members while derogating Outgroup members. In German discrimination research, “Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit” (GMF; translation: group-related misanthropy) is researched as a result of social identity building. Anti-Semitism and “Islamfeindlichkeit” (hostility towards Muslims) are specifically named as two characteristics of GMF (Möller 2023: 436). At the core of GMF is the conception of a hierarchic social order that improves the own social group and degrades outgroups, which can be based on religion.
If we zoom into the individual’s perspective, we can establish the importance of religious beliefs for the individual. With an integrated identity-building model, the four domains (1) ideology (politics and religion), (2) occupation, (3) interpersonal domain, and (4) mortality and mental health can be worked out as a foundation of identity building in individuals (Van der Gaag et al. 2020: 273). Religious beliefs, thus belonging to the first domain of identity, address the purpose of human life (Johnson 2021: 110), and religious identity can also be linked to national identity. Especially if people belong to the main religious group of their nation-state, they “are more inclined to see that religion as a key part of their national identity than those who do not identify with said religion” (Huang et al. 2024). This tendency can lead to majority groups discriminating against minorities according to the five social motives and the GMF mentioned above.
Interfaith dialogue in the formal education system
The importance of implementing peace education approaches – which interfaith dialogue is an example of – has been established in the literature, as well as by policymakers and other institutions (cf. Brooks & Hajir 2020, Jäger 2014). “Peace Education in formal schools should ideally aim to produce caring, compassionate, critical, and civically engaged citizens who can advance cultures of peace” (Brooks & Hajir 2020: 10). Peace education in formal schools is even more important as schools are sometimes criticised for perpetuating forms of violence, including structural and cultural violence (ibid., Zembylas 2018: 577).
Interfaith dialogue in European schools is especially prominent in the model of integrated schools in Northern Ireland. While “research […] suggests that integrated education may impact positively on identity, outgroup attitudes and forgiveness, with potential to heal division and promote a less sectarian outlook” (McGlynn 2011: 55f), integrated schools in Northern Ireland focus on an interfaith dialogue between Catholics and Protestants only, not specifically including students of other religions than Christianity. Not necessarily restrictive on the focus of interfaith dialogue, but intercultural dialogue in general, the project “Superschools”, aims to “contribute to peacebuilding, reconciliation, and intercultural learning and dialogue” (RYCO 2024) and to overcome the segregated school system that is prominent, for example, in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Soetermeer 2023). Fostering intercultural and interfaith dialogue in the formal school system is thus an accepted model for peace education in Europe.
Of course, the situation in Germany differs from that in Northern Ireland and the Balkan states. Fortunately, in Germany, there is no history of segregated (public) schools based on religious identity. However, developments in society, such as the rise of anti-Semitism and hostility towards Muslims, as described in the introduction, show that conflict transformation and navigation are needed to prevent further escalation of tensions between social groups due to religious identity. However, interfaith RE is still extremely rare in Germany.
RE is the only school subject mentioned in the Grundgesetz, Germany’s Basic Law. However, which approach to RE should be implemented is debated (Spielhaus & Stimac 2018). According to the Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK; translation: conference of education ministers) (2024: 7), about a quarter of the students from Year one to ten each participate in Catholic RE, Protestant RE and Ethical education. Only 4,5 % of students participate in interfaith RE, while 6,1 % do not participate in RE or any substitute teaching. Interfaith RE is offered in three out of sixteen federal states only, namely Bremen, Niedersachsen, and Saarland (ibid.: 14). However, in addition to interfaith RE (“Values and Norms”), Niedersachsen also offers Protestant, Catholic and Islamic RE as well as Philosophy (Bildungsportal Niedersachsen w.D.). And in Saarland, Protestant and Catholic RE is offered as well as “General Ethics” (MBKSL 2020). Bremen is thus the only federal state that exclusively offers interfaith RE as a subject. As education is a matter for individual federal states, it is not clear to what extent the respective RE programmes focus on other religious groups (Spielhaus & Stimac 2018). In general, RE is still firmly focused on Protestant and Catholic RE. In Baden Württemberg, for example, there has been an education plan for Alevi, Old Catholic, Protestant, Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Jewish, and Sunni Islamic RE since 2016 (Kultusministerium w.D.), but no primary school students who took part in Jewish or Orthodox RE were recorded in 2024 (KMK 2024: 11f).
There are increasing calls for more interfaith RE in German schools, for example, from the youth organisation of the Green Party in North Rhine-Westphalia. In its demand, the organisation not only states that all students in North Rhine-Westphalia should take part in interfaith RE that cover at least the five world religions, but also that the peaceful use of religion in particular should be strengthened. This includes breaking down prejudices, questioning critical role models, and analysing the potential for conflict. Therefore, students should be strengthened in their peaceful personal development (Grüne Jugend Nordrhein-Westfalen 2019).
Interfaith RE brings many advantages, not only the ones mentioned by the Grüne Jugend Nordrhein-Westfalen. Of course, the main aspect of interfaith education is to build bridges between communities and to nurture open-minded, tolerant students who in turn will strengthen the democratic landscape of future Germany. As already mentioned, some education institutions, such as the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Education, are trying to react to the increasing plurality of religious groups in Germany. This comes with multiple challenges.
First, the infrastructure and logistics of offering RE classes for every religious group prove difficult. Especially RE for Muslims in schools is contested. On the one hand, with about seven million Muslims in Germany, about a quarter of the students under eighteen, there is an obvious need for Islamic RE in schools when there is Christian RE, not only to improve integration but also because of the state’s proclaimed neutrality and the freedom of religion laid down in Article 3 of the Grundgesetz (Bösing et al. 2023). However, implementing Islam RE sounds easier said than done. As an official school subject, there are certain criteria to be met. One of them is the education of teachers and the syllabus of the classes. While actors involved in designing the syllabi of Islamic RE would like to work together with Muslim organisations, oftentimes there is some hesitancy because of possible extremism and political implications (ibid.). And the increasing pluralism of religious groups is also mirrored within other religious groups. Thus, according to a survey of Catholic teachers, 91% of respondents see differences between their own (religious) convictions and doctrinal positions (BKRG & VKR 2022). Therefore, Islamic RE is not the only RE where the approach is questioned.
Interfaith RE following Social Identity Theory and Social Motivations
By offering interfaith RE, some challenges can be addressed in the current RE system. Inclusive, interfaith RE aims to bridge Outgroup and Ingroup tendencies. Thus, interfaith RE should strive for creating a social group that is diverse in religions. If RE is offered denominationally, social identity is manifested because of the membership to a certain religious group. However, if the new social group is the class itself, then the following logic can be applied. If students realize that their “direct” ingroup (“my class”) is just as diverse in religion as the “indirect” ingroup (“my nation”) the perception of the “indirect” ingroup can change. If members of different religions are in the ingroup (“my class”) it is more likely that students will accept members of other religions in their nation as well. As mentioned, social identity is built by five motivations.
Belonging: Every student is put in a class when they enter school. Classes are usually diverse. Especially in bigger towns and cities, students of different nationalities, ethnicities, and religions share the classroom. By learning together daily, having experiences like going on school trips, and by community-building measures such as different games or an extended school trip, students create a sense of belonging and notice that they are part of a group. Community-building in classes has been well-researched (cf. Nicholas 1997).
Understanding: When class members come together and discuss their social reality, including their religious convictions, mutual understanding can be enhanced. Interfaith RE gives the room for that. The teacher acts as a moderator and makes sure that all students are treated with respect. Only if ingroup members understand each other, they will agree to belong to the same group (Fiske 2000: 306). The understanding need not necessarily be the same as all students agree that the Bible is the only true holy scripture. Rather, students in one class can agree that independent of their religion, every person should be treated respectfully and should be given the freedom to follow their own religious beliefs.
Controlling: Students should always feel safe and secure in their class. As Fiske (2000: 39) mentions, control means being able to anticipate the response of others towards one’s actions. This means, for example, that students (can) expect a serious reaction when they comment on a topic. As soon as the reaction of the other students deviates from the expected reaction of the student, the student becomes insecure. This could be the case if students are laughed at because of their answer.
Self-enhancing: Students should have a positive connotation to their class community and be proud to belong to that class. This could and should be done based on values (Fiske 2000: 310). A positive self-image can be achieved when students can say that they are part of a tolerant, diverse, and open class.
Trust: Students will not be trusted from the first day, or maybe even the first week or month, towards their new ingroup members. Trust needs to be fostered. This trust needs and should be developed not only in interfaith RE, but every day should be used by teachers to make the students trust each other. For example, asking students to help each other or introducing group work can enhance trust. In interfaith RE, discussions about personal (religious) experiences should not go too deep from the first class. Icebreaker questions and more superficial topics can help the students to gain trust that other students will not mock them because of their religious beliefs. This trust can significantly help in identity building as there is room for “inner freedom in which there is room for emptiness and for the unexpected and unplannable” (Van Deursen-Vreeburg 2024: 218).
If all five social motivations are served nicely, interfaith RE will build a strong community sense within the students. As there has been a comprehensive evaluation of RE in Bremen in 2023, the interfaith RE approach of the federal state will be analysed according to these five social motivations.
The evaluation of RE in Bremen shows that while Bremen students overall like RE (69 %) and learn something new in class (79 %), especially about other religions (84 %), the students do not feel as if the questions discussed in class relate to their life or have importance in their life (59 %) and only about half of the students question their lives and beliefs due to RE (46 %). While all students feel that they are taken seriously, the approval ratings for non-religious (81 %) and Muslim students (80 %) are lower than for Protestant (91 %) and Catholic students (91%) (Nelson 2023: 5ff). This result indicates that students can open up in class, i.e., that at least the social motives of Understanding, Trust, and Control are present. The other two social motives are not directly addressed. The high approval rating of learning about other religions coincides with the teachers’ priority to facilitate dialogue among students of different religions (98 %), that students learn about “other” religions (98 %), and that students learn to be tolerant towards other belief systems (98 %). When it comes to more personal involvement of the students, the teachers give a somewhat lower priority but still strong approval. Teachers find it important that there is room in class for the students’ personal questions about life and the world (95 %) and that they can contribute their convictions (88 %) (ibid.: 10), which is not mirrored in the students’ responses in the evaluation.
In the qualitative part of the evaluation, teachers mentioned that although they try to address all students, this does not always succeed. Dialogue seemed to work out fine, although mostly on a superficial level (Klinkhammer & Spieß 2023.: 12f). Teachers appreciate their students opening up and speaking about their convictions and experiences (ibid.: 15). Yazidi students, however, perceive it negatively that their religion is not dealt with in class (ibid.: 22). Also, RE in Bremen can lead to tensions in highly religious families (ibid.: 26).
While the evaluation shows that overall, RE in Bremen schools is mostly accepted and positively connotated, there is still a gap between the education plan, teachers and students. While the education plan (cf. SfBuW 2014) and the teachers want to include religious identity building in RE, students focus more on interfaith education. Unfortunately, there is very little research on RE in Germany, thus it remains unclear what the cause of the different perceptions is. Therefore, further research is needed.
While RE in Bremen already strengthens interfaith dialogue and teaches students tolerance, the education plan should still be improved as students of religious groups different from the world religions, like the Yazidi students, feel neglected. This can threaten their sense of belonging to the ingroup. Therefore, teachers should either teach about every religious group the students of the class belong to or involve students more in the debate on which religions should be discussed in class.
Also, in comparison to the second evaluation of the education plan of interfaith RE in Bremen, more students were withdrawn from RE classes. The evaluation does not offer any explanations for that increase (Nelson 2023: 4). The increase of students being withdrawn from RE shows, however, that interfaith RE comes with challenges that need to be addressed.
Challenges in interfaith RE
There are different challenges in offering interfaith RE in formal schools. One of the greatest dangers is to create new forms of exclusion by striving for inclusion. This is what Moulin (2023: 270) calls the “paradox of religious inclusivity” (PIRI). Bringing different religions together can cause practitioners of different faiths or non-practitioners to be threatened in their security. On the one hand, if one assumes freedom of religion, one cannot force people to deal with religion(s); on the other hand, a discussion of the Koran, for example, can put a Christian in a position of rejection, as they could regard the Bible as the only true holy scripture. This threat to identity comes about because religions are naturally exclusive (ibid.: 270f). Exclusive is ambiguous in this context. Exclusive can either mean that a practitioner negates the truth or even the right to exist of another religion, faith, or belief system or, in a weaker form, that other religions, faiths, or belief systems are recognised, but one’s religion with its practices, scriptures and other distinctive features is regarded as the “best” religion. At the same time, it should be mentioned that other practitioners may very much like the thought of studying scriptures of different religions to find more commonalities. Practitioners and non-practitioners cannot all be put into one category. The degree of openness towards other faiths always differs from person to person.
By offering interfaith RE, especially non-religious and highly religious students or students coming from these families may feel excluded. Non-religious students as they may feel forced to be confronted with religious views, and they would make up a minority in the class, which could feel uncomfortable to them. And highly religious students, or more so their parents, may not like their children to study other religious scriptures and traditions as they may categorically deny the right of other religions to exist.
Non-religious students could feel excluded for several reasons. If the class itself is called “Religious Education” they could feel excluded by the name alone. In some countries, like the United Kingdom, it is therefore discussed whether to rename RE “Religion and Worldviews” (cf. Strhan & Shillitoe 2022). Interviews of non-religious primary school students in English RE show that the students sometimes feel excluded, for example, in discussions on whether one believes in a God or not. Some students were taken aback by that because they did not attribute much importance to those questions (ibid.: 265). Hence, religious identity may not be important to everyone. If students have to engage with their religious identity, they may resent RE because it simply does not matter to them. Interestingly, the non-religious students emphasised the importance of tolerance towards people of different religions (ibid.: 266). It should be mentioned that the context of English RE and interfaith RE may differ and thus the findings of the interviews might not be applicable as a whole. It is still important, however, to keep in mind how non-religious students could feel when put into a situation in which they must spend much time discussing a topic they are not interested in. The indifference shown by some students towards engaging in their religious identity shows that the core goal of interfaith RE can be off-putting for non-religious students. One could argue that all students have to take subjects they don’t like, but if it disproportionately affects non-religious students, i.e. a certain group in the class, and cannot be attributed solely to individual preferences, better inclusion of the affected group should be sought. The interviews also mention positive findings. While non-religious students may not feel the incentive to explore their religious identities on their own, they might still find it helpful to learn about non-religious perspectives. “Learning about non-religious perspectives can give students a vocabulary through which to be able to express their worldviews in a way that is currently not happening for many” (ibid.: 267). Thus, they might still profit from RE by learning about their own religious identity, even though they may not find it very important.
A further challenge arises solely from the goal of interfaith RE. Teachers may focus more on the students in their role of future citizens. They may want to focus on raising responsible, open-minded, and tolerant future citizens. This “carries the risk of neglecting the present child, who is not being recognised in their own right, as a ‘human being’, but is rather treated as a ‘human becoming’” (Osbeck et al. 2025: 16). Of course, the long-term goal should be that students develop values such as tolerance and respect. Still, the pedagogical and didactic stimuli should always be tailored to the age of the students and address them at their current level of maturity. Looking at the interviews of non-religious students in RE, we can see that children already display respect and tolerance towards people of other religions and beliefs (Strhan & Shillitoe 2022: 266). Therefore, teachers should focus on the students in front of them, not on their future influence as citizens of legal age.
Last but not least, while an RE class can form a social group, it must be noted that the class is not detached from other social groups. Students are still part of their families and their friend circles. Also, the school community itself is a social group. Thus, the five social motivations should not be considered in the class only. In order to successfully implement interfaith RE in a school in the long term, the social motivations in the social groups of the family and the social group of the school community must be taken into account. Especially strictly non-religious or highly religious parents may be wary of interfaith RE, as already mentioned. They should, therefore, be shown the reasons for interfaith RE. With general information evenings, individual dialogue opportunities, and joint projects with the students, parents can better understand why interfaith RE is not a threat to their own religious identity. At the same time, teachers can respond to parents’ concerns through dialogue and possibly address them accordingly in lessons or joint projects.
Implications for nationwide implementation of interfaith RE
As education is a matter for the federal states, it is difficult to demand a nationwide solution. However, as there is a Federal Ministry of Education and Research, some impetus is conceivable. The Federal Ministry of Education could refer to the special status of RE, as it is the only school subject mentioned by name in the Basic Law. On this basis, nationwide RE objectives could be proposed. For example, instead of denominational education, as is the case in most federal states, the objective could be that RE should be offered as interfaith RE. The Federal Ministry could provide a basis for this. Nevertheless, significant resistance from the federal states is to be expected, and since general education is neither an area of exclusive federal legislation nor an area of concurrent federal legislation (Art. 70, 73, 74 GG), the federal government does not have the right to enact laws. The Minister of Education can, therefore, only refer to more interfaith RE based on appeals and other diplomatic approaches.
Another possibility would be to introduce the topic of interfaith RE at the Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs. This is where the education ministers of the individual federal states come together. As the federal states can discuss and exchange ideas at eye level here, it is conceivable that the advantages of interfaith RE that are evident in Bremen could also make pilot projects possible in other federal states. However, it should be born in mind that religion and the treatment of religion is a sensitive topic that usually causes a lot of discussion. Here, too, it is conceivable that there will be resistance, especially from the CDU, which is already committed to Christianity by name.
As changes are difficult to implement at a structural level, attention should be paid to the efficacy of the teaching staff. Teachers are very close to their students and cultivate relationships with them. Of course, it is difficult to offer interfaith RE throughout according to a denominational education plan, but teachers could, for example, consider project days on which students from different RE classes come together and meet for an interfaith dialogue. This could, for example, take the form of reflecting on one’s own beliefs as part of Herling’s approach (cf. Johnson 2021), such as whether one believes in a god and how one imagines divinity. Next, these reflections could be discussed with the other students according to the comparison approach, and finally, the whole class could visit different places of worship to introduce defamiliarization. It will probably not be possible to develop and foster empathy within a few days. Still, it could be a first incentive to make room for interfaith dialogue.
Conclusion
This paper, as well as many other scholars, politicians, and activists, identifies a crucial need for more interfaith dialogue to decrease Out-group derogation between religious groups in Germany. With anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim discrimination on the rise, bridges between different religious identities must be built before the conflict escalates even more. Thus, implementing interfaith RE in the formal school system was identified as a suitable means to foster interfaith dialogue in Germany.
Furthermore, the paper explains how (religious) social identity is built and perceived and how addressing this identity-building for students in the formal education system can help foster interfaith dialogue. However, this paper also has shortcomings. As mentioned, structural and political change will be very difficult to reach. And even if there is an incentive for change, PIRI is very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Thus, policymakers, school leaders, and teachers must be careful and mindful of other people and their perceived safety of identity to achieve the acceptance of interfaith RE. To implement interfaith RE, a reform of the formal school system would be needed. While this paper has not focused too much on the implementation of the proposed RE approach, it still offers crucial insight into how interfaith dialogue can be successful while, I hope, keeping in mind the risk of falling into the trap of PIRI. Thus, with this paper, policymakers and school leaders may see the advantages of interfaith RE.
Additionally, it is important to note that interfaith dialogue in RE is not a universal remedy for religious discrimination, especially against Jews and Muslims. Strengthening the religious identity of students can help to nurture tolerant citizens; however, current negative sentiments towards religious minorities will still be prevalent. Furthermore, even if the proposed methods were ‘perfectly’ implemented, other challenges would remain. The formal school system is not the only social environment in which students engage. Their homes, friend groups, and social media influence the students’ identities. Thus, creating room for more interfaith dialogue in school is only one step towards a more inclusive society.
Sources
– Abu-Nimer, M., Khoury, A. and E. Welty (2007) Unity in Diversity: Interfaith Dialogue in the Middle East. United States Institute of Peace Press: Washington D.C.
– Admirand, P. (2020) Building Bridges among Bridge-Destroyers: Post-Conflict Interfaith Dialogue after the Bosnian War. Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal103(4), 419-448.
– Alemany-Arrebola, I., Gallardo-Vigil, M. Á., Ortiz-Gómez, M. del M., and R. Vilà Baños (2024) Intercultural and Interreligious Dialogue Competences in Adolescents in Barcelona and Melilla (Spain). Religions, 15(2), 1-16.
– Andrabi, A. A. (2024) Interfaith dialogue: its need, importance and merits in the contemporary world. International Journal of Advanced Academic Studies 2020 2(3), 264-271.
– ap Siôn, T., Cullen, S., Danner, S. Kappelhoff, B. and E. Kodácsy-Simon (2024) “Covid made me think about…” What really matters in RE: a European research project. Journal of Religious Education 72, 19-33.
– Ayata, B. (2016) Silencing the present. In: Ayata, B. (Ed.) Postkoloniale Politikwissenschaft – theoretische und empirische Zugänge. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 211-232.
– Biess, C. and D. Nolden (2021) Peace Education meets Religion: Manual for Multipliers. Berghof Foundation.
– Bildungsportal Niedersachsen (w.D.) Religions- und Ethikfächer, [online] https://bildungsportal-niedersachsen.de/allgemeinbildung/unterrichtsfaecher/philosophische-faecher. (11.03.2025)
– BKRG and VRK (2022) Glaubhaft Zeugnis geben?! Wie Religionslehrkräfte ihren Dienst im Auftrag der Kirche erleben, [online] https://bkrg.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Umfrage_BKRG_Web.pdf. (05.03.2025)
– Bösing, E., Stein, M. and V. Zimmer (2023) Staatlich verantworteter islamischer Religionsunterricht und bekenntnisorientierte Moscheeunterweisung, [online] https://www.bpb.de/themen/infodienst/517598/staatlich-verantworteter-islamischer-religionsunterricht-und-bekenntnisorientierte-moscheeunterweisung/#node-content-title-0. (05.03.2025)
– Brooks, C. and B. Hajir (2020) Peace education in formal schools. Why is it important and how can it be done?.
– Brubaker, R. (2015) Religious Dimensions of Political Conflict and Violence. Sociological Theory 33(1), 1-19.
– Deutsches Institut für Demokratie und Entwicklung (DIDE) (2024) The End of Pegida and the German Far Right’s Shift, [online] https://www.dinstitut.de/the-end-of-pegida-and-the-german-far-rights-shift/. (28.02.2025)
– Domsgen, M. and U. Witten (2022) Religionsunterricht im Wandel. Ein Überblick über Entwicklungen in Deutschland, [online] https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/105846/1/10.1515_9783839457801-002.pdf. (11.03.2025)
– Driessen, M. D. (2020) Evaluating Interreligious Dialogue in the Middle East. Peace Review 32(1), 1-12.
– Emmerich, A.-W. (2022) Negotiating Germany’s first Muslim–Christian kindergarten: Temporalities, multiplicities, and processes in interreligious dialogue. Social Compass, 69(4), 578-595.
– Esposito, J. L. (2001) The Future of Islam. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 25(2). 19-32.
– Fiske, S. T. (2000) Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(3), 299-322.
– Garrard-Burnett, V. E., and E. Yetkin Yildirim (2011). Flying with two wings: Interreligious Dialogue in the Age of Global Terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
– Gorski, P. (2018) The Origin and Nature of Religion: A Critical Realist View. Harvard Theological Review, 111(2), 289-304.
– Grundgesetz, [online] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html. (14.03.2025)
– Grüne Jugend Nordrhein-Westfalen (2019) Religionsübergreifender Religionsunterricht in NRW, [online] https://gj-nrw.de/blog/2019/03/24/religionsuebergreifenden-religionsunterricht-in-nrw/. (05.03.2025)
– Hazaymeh, O. M.-A. A. Dialogue between Islam and Christianity in the Twenty-First Century in Light of Leonard Swidler’s Vision of Interreligious Dialogue: Is It a Luxury or a Necessity? Journal for the Study of Religion & Ideologies 23(69), 30-46.
– Hoffman, L. and M. Thelen (2018) Interfaith Dialog, [online] https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-642-27771-9_809-2. (08.03.2025)
– Hoffmann, B. and A. Echtermann (2020) Die meisten dieser Zitate stammen von AfD-Politikern – einige sind aber unbelegt, [online] https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/politik/2020/02/05/die-meisten-dieser-zitate-stammen-von-afd-politikern-einige-sind-aber-unbelegt/. (28.02.2025)
– Huang, C., Clancy, L. and S. Austin (2024) Views on the importance of religion to national identity, [online] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/01/18/views-on-the-importance-of-religion-to-national-identity/.
– Ipsos (2011) Global share of people who believe in God or a supreme being, by country, as of 2010, [online] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273004/global-belief-in-god-or-a-supreme-being/. (12.03.2025)
– Islam, G. (2014) Social Identity Theory. In: Teo, T. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Springer, New York, NY.
– Jäger, U. (2014) Peace Education and Conflict Transformation. Berghof Foundation Handbook.
– Johnson, N. (2021) Humanities Perspectives in Peace Education: Re-Engaging the Heart of Peace Studies. Information Age Publishing.
– Kayaoglu, T. (2015) Explaining Interfaith Dialogue in the Muslim World. Politics and Religion, 8(2), 236-262.
– Klinkhammer, G. and T. Spieß (2023) Qualitative Evaluation „Implementierung Bildungsplan für den RU“. In: Nelson, L. (Ed.) Bericht über die dritte Evaluation des Fachs Religion, [online] https://www.transparenz.bremen.de/metainformationen/mitteilung-nr-219-2023-ergebnisse-der-evaluation-zum-fach-religion-anlage-193312. (11.03.2025)
– Knauth, T. (2007) Religious Education in Germany: Contribution to Dialogue or Source of Conflict? A Historical and Contextual Analysis of its Development since the 1960s. In: Jackson, R., Miedema, S., Weiße, W. and J.-P. Willaime (Eds.) Religion and Education in Europe. Developments, Contexts and Debates. Waxmann, 243-265.
– Körs, A. (2023) Islamischer Religionsunterricht in Deutschland im Kaleidoskop empirischer Forschungen: Einleitung und Überblick. In: Körs, A. (Ed.) Islamischer Religionsunterricht in Deutschland. Islam in der Gesellschaft. Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
– Körs, A., and A.-K. Nagel (2018) Local ‘formulas of peace’: Religious diversity and state-interfaith governance in Germany. Social Compass, 65(3), 346-362.
– Körs, A., Weisse, W. and J. Willaime (2020) Religious Diversity and Interreligious Dialogue. Cham: Springer.
– Kultusministerium (w.D.) Fächerliste Grundschule | Sekundarstufe 1 | Gymnasium | Gemeinschaftsschule [online] https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/,Lde/LS/BP2016BW/ALLG. (08.03.2025)
– Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2024) Auswertung Religionsunterricht Schuljahr 2023/24: Teilnehmende Schülerinnen und Schüler allgemeinbildender Schulen in öffentlicher Trägerschaft nach Schularten (aufgegliedert nach Religionsunterrichten, Ethik und weiteren Ersatzunterrichten) für den Primar- und Sekundarbereich I, [online] https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/Statistik/Dokumentationen/AW_Religionsunterricht_II_2023_24.pdf. (08.03.2025)
– McGlynn, C. (2011) The Contribution of Integrated Schools to Peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. In: Power, M. (Ed.) Building Peace in Northern Ireland. Liverpool University Press, 53-72.
– Ministerium für Bildung und Kultur Saarland (MBKSL) (2020) Lehrpläne und Handreichungen Gemeinschaftsschule, [online] https://www.saarland.de/mbk/DE/portale/bildungsserver/unterricht-und-bildungsthemen/lehrplaenehandreichungen/lehrplaeneallgemeinbildende/gemeinschaftsschule/gemeinschaftsschulen_node. (11.03.2025)
– Mohagheghi, H. (2010) Islamischer Religionsunterricht aus Sicht der Muslime in Deutschland. In: Behr, H. H. (Ed.) Was soll ich hier?: Lebensweltorientierung muslimischer Schülerinnen und Schüler als Herausforderung für den Islamischen Religionsunterricht. Berlin: Lit Verlag.
– Möller, K. (2023) Konzepte, Ausmaße, Entwicklungen und Bedingungsfaktoren von ‘Gruppenbezogener Menschenfeindlichkeit’ und Pauschalisierenden Ablehnungskonstruktionen. In: Scherr, A., Reinhardt, A. C., and A. El-Mafaalani (Eds.), Handbuch Diskriminierung. 2. Auflage. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 435-458.
– Moulin, D. Religion and worldviews education and the paradox of inclusivity. Journal of Religious Education 71, 269-278.
– Nelson, L. (2023) Bericht über die dritte Evaluation des Fachs Religion, [online] https://www.transparenz.bremen.de/metainformationen/mitteilung-nr-219-2023-ergebnisse-der-evaluation-zum-fach-religion-anlage-193312. (11.03.2025)
– Nicholas, S. N. (1997) Community-Building in the Classroom: A Process. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development 35, 198-207.
– Osbeck, C., Lilja, A. and N. Fancourt (2025) RE teachers’ ways of balancing children’s existential concerns and the curriculum: mirrored through established RE approaches. Journal of Religious Education.
– Özoguz, A. (2020) Foreword: The Role of Religion for Living Together in a Diverse Society. In. Körs, A., Weisse, W. and J. Willaime (Eds.) Religious Diversity and Interreligious Dialogue. Springer. pp. v-viii.
– Purnomo, A. B. (2024). Art and Interreligious Dialogue: Knitting Harmony in the Indonesian Context. The Journal of Interreligious Studies, 41, 49-61.
– RYCO (2024) Meet the Superschools in Bosnia and Herzegovina – Exchange and Mobility of High School Students in the Western Balkans for Reconciliation and Better Regional Cooperation, [online] https://www.rycowb.org/meet-the-superschools-in-bosnia-and-herzegovina-exchange-and-mobility-of-high-school-students-in-the-western-balkans-for-reconciliation-and-better-regional-cooperation/. (05.03.2025)
– Senatorin für Bildung und Wissenschaft (SfBuW) (2014) Religion Bildungsplan. Grundschule – Oberschule – Gymnasium Jahrgangsstufen 1-13, [online] https://www.lis.bremen.de/schulqualitaet/bildungsplaene-15219. (11.03.2025)
– Soetermeer, M. (2023) The “Two Schools under One Roof” System: Bosnia’s Challenges to Reconciliation, [online] https://www.fomoso.org/en/mosopedia/essays/the-two-schools-under-one-roof-system-bosnias-challenges-to-reconciliation/#. (05.03.2025)
– Spielhaus, R. and Z. Stimac (2018) Schulischer Religionsunterricht im Kontext religiöser und weltanschaulicher Pluralität. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, [online] https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/apuz/272109/schulischer-religionsunterricht-im-kontext-religioeser-und-weltanschaulicher-pluralitaet/.
– Stamatović, A. (2024) The Works of Leonard as a Model for Interreligious Dialogue in Ex – Yugoslavic Areas in the Xxi Century (From Nationalism to Interreligious Dialogue). Journal for the Study of Religion & Ideologies, 23(69), 47-60.
– Strhan, A. and R. Shillitoe (2022) The experiences of non-religious children in religious education. Journal of Religious Education 70, 261-272.
– Tagesschau (2024) Anti-Semitismus in Deutschland nimmt zu, [online] https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/anti-Semitismus-straftaten-102.html. (28.02.2025)
– Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup conflict. In Worschel, S. and W. G. Austin (Eds.) Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 7-24.
– Van der Gaag, M. A. E., De Ruiter, N. M. P., Kunnen, S. E. and H. Bosma (2020) The Landscape of Identity Model: An Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Aspects of Identity Development. Identity 20(4), 272-289.
– Van Deursen-Vreeburg, J. (2024) Vacare: from Lectio Divina to Complentative Reading. Making space for the personal formation of secondary school students. Journal of Religious Education 72, 203-213.
– Vilà, R., Freixa, M. and A. Aneas (2020) Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue in Education. Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society 6(2020), 255-273.
– Visser, H. J., Liefbroer, A. I. and L. J. Schoonmade (2024) Evaluating the learning outcomes of interfaith initiatives: a systematic literature review, Journal of Beliefs & Values 45(4), 689-712.
– Voulgaraki-Pissina, E. (2023) The Dialogical Paths with Islam in the East: Homage to Arabic Christian Theology. Religions 2023, 14(11).
– Weiße, W. (2008) Islamischer Religionsunterricht in Deutschland – ein Beitrag zur Integration? Religionspädagogischer Kommentar mit Bezug zu Alternativen in Deutschland und Europa, [online] https://archiv.zmo.de/muslime_in_europa/pressekit/material/Islamunterrichtveranstaltung/Vortrag%20Weisse.pdf (11.03.2025)
– Zembylas, M. (2018) Critical Peace Education as a Response to School Violence: Insights from Critical Pedagogies for Non-violence. In: Shapiro, H. (Ed.) The Wiley Handbook on Violence in Education: Forms, Factors, and Preventions. John Wiley & Sons, 577-594.
