How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
EDITORIAL NOTE *
This article quotes statements attributed to individual politicians which are reproduced as evidence of the discourse the author describes. One of the two quotations cited from the fact-checking source used by the author is recorded there as unverified, and readers are referred to that source. The article’s argument does not rest on the quotations.
ABSTRACT *
This article argues for interfaith religious education in the German school system as a means of building bridges between religious communities. Beginning from the increase in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents and from the observation that hostility towards other faiths often accompanies insecurity in one’s own, the author sets out a theoretical framework drawn from social identity theory and from Fiske’s five social motives of belonging, understanding, control, self-enhancement and trust. Herling’s four principles for the study of religion, namely self-consciousness, comparison, defamiliarization and empathy, are introduced as the pedagogical sequence. The article then examines the German situation, in which religious education is the only subject named in the Basic Law but is organised denominationally in most federal states, and analyses the evaluation of Bremen’s interfaith model, the only one of its kind in Germany. The challenges are addressed at length, in particular the paradox of religious inclusivity, by which an inclusive subject may exclude non-religious and strongly religious students alike, and the tendency to treat pupils as future citizens rather than as present persons. The article closes with proposals at federal, state and classroom level.
KEYWORDS *
Interfaith dialogue, religious education, Germany, social identity theory, Bremen, antisemitism, hostility towards Muslims, paradox of inclusivity, peace education, empathy, federalism, non-religious pupils
INTRODUCTION
Germany has become a country of high religious diversity, with over 150 religious groups and communities (Özoguz 2020). At the same time, the proportion of people without religious affiliation is rising. And how are people of these different faiths living together? Unfortunately, tensions between religious groups in Germany can be observed.
Resentment against Jews and Muslims in particular has increased, leading to more violence against these two religious groups. Antisemitic offences increased sharply after the attack by Hamas on Israel on 7 October 2023, with most such offences in Germany recorded as coming from right-wing extremists (Tagesschau 2024). At the same time, anti-Muslim sentiment has a long history in Germany. One of the most striking examples is the investigative approach and public discourse of the police in the murders committed by the right-wing extremist group Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund. Although witness reports pointed towards white perpetrators, for more than ten years the murders were framed by police and media as outcomes of organised crime (Ayata 2016: 215). While this could be considered a matter of general racist attitudes, the formation of the protest group Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes shifted the focus onto the religious identity of certain groups. These sentiments have now arrived in politics, especially in the AfD party (DIDE 2024). Some of the more radical party members have attracted attention with anti-Muslim, antisemitic and racist remarks, quotations of which are documented by fact-checking organisations, though not all attributions are verified (Hoffmann and Echtermann 2020).
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 explores the idea of implementing interfaith religious education in the formal school system. I argue that by strengthening the 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 difference in society. Addressing identity building is thus a crucial step in fostering interfaith dialogue.
The paper is structured as follows. First, a state of research is given on the literature on interfaith dialogue. Then the theoretical framework is explored, with definitions of religion and interfaith dialogue. Individual and social identity building is explained using the social identity theory of Tajfel and Turner and Fiske’s five social motivations. The importance of religious identity is established. After this theoretical part, I explore how interfaith dialogue can be fostered in the formal school system by reforming religious education classes, drawing on existing literature and on findings from Germany’s only interfaith religious education, in the federal state of Bremen. After addressing the challenges of interfaith religious education, I name actions for policymakers before drawing a conclusion.
MAIN CORPUS
Interfaith dialogue in academic literature
The literature on interfaith dialogue is extensive, ranging from interfaith dialogue at the macro level (Körs et al. 2020) to the outcomes of interfaith initiatives at the individual level (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 in a specific locality (Stamatović 2024; Alemany-Arrebola et al. 2024; Purnomo 2024; Hazaymeh 2024). It is striking that interreligious dialogue is researched particularly in regions with a violent political conflict, past or present. This applies in particular to the Middle East (Abu-Nimer et al. 2007; Driessen 2020; Kayaoglu 2015), the former Yugoslavia (Stamatović 2024; Admirand 2020), and other regions, and Islam is usually given special attention (Garrard-Burnett and Yildirim 2011; Voulgaraki-Pissina 2023). To counteract the perception of Islam as extraordinarily problematic and prone to violence, the bias of focusing on the violence of Muslim practitioners while neglecting the religious identity of Christian or Jewish perpetrators has been noted (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 single approach to interfaith dialogue, because of context sensitivity, it usually aims to improve three core competencies: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Knowledge refers to factual knowledge about one’s own and other religions; skills deal with 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 as well. Körs and Nagel (2018: 359) mention that measures of state and interfaith collaboration are on the rise. This may be traced back to immigration, especially to the refugee movements of 2015 and 2016. One example is the establishment of Germany’s first Muslim and 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. In particular, how interfaith dialogue is fostered within religious education classes is not a topic of research. Knauth (2007) wrote on developments in German religious education up to the attacks of 11 September 2001 and their influence on the debate on religious education in Germany. While interreligious and intercultural dialogue was discussed in the 1990s and has been recognised as an important factor in religious education (ibid.: 258), after 2001 the introduction of Islamic religious education in particular became contested. Other texts focus on the complexity of the German school system and on current analyses of religious education in German schools (Domsgen and Witten 2022). Challenges mentioned there include the plurality of organisational arrangements in the different federal states (ibid.: 18ff) and the alternative classes offered for non-religious students or for students of religions not covered by the denominational classes available at a given school (ibid.: 32ff). Most texts focus on Islamic religious education in German schools (Körs 2023; Weiße 2008; Mohagheghi 2010), mainly addressing questions of integration.
Definition of religion and interfaith dialogue
So far there is no standardised definition of religion. It is particularly noticeable that definitions differ depending on the focus and context of the research; discourse plays a leading role here (Gorski 2018). Furthermore, peace researchers sometimes criticise a restrictive understanding of religion in conflict research and analysis (Biess and Nolden 2021: 12). Brubaker addresses the complexity of religion in peace and conflict studies and calls for a qualified particularizing stance: “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 uses 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.” The phrase 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 or to practitioners with only limited understanding of the philosophical and theological content of their religion.
Biess and Nolden (2021: 11) set out an extensive model of five dimensions of religion: spirituality; symbols, rituals, and practices; a set of ideas; community; and institution. Spirituality refers to subjective experiences of the divine or transcendent and to personal motivations to believe. Symbols, rituals, and practices are often the visible part of religion, such as religious signs, buildings of worship, and forms of worship. 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, and official bodies as actors in public discourse. Finally, the community aspect refers to social groups, more specifically religious groups. This dimension is essential for social identity building, as 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 it from 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 or between religious groups.”
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 consist only of dialogues but can include other initiatives such as museums and art. The goals and skills developed by the initiative are more important than its format. Skills crucial in interfaith dialogue are developing the ability to listen, to respect the diversity of beliefs, and 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 guide to the study of religion (cited in 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 comparison, focusing on an academic and objective study of the practices, symbols and rituals of different religions. In the next step Herling introduces the principle of defamiliarization, used to learn that those things which are unfamiliar to us are not necessarily strange; they are simply unfamiliar (ibid.: 112). These three principles together lead to the fourth, which is at the same time 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’ perspectives” (ibid.). Empathy does not necessarily mean agreement, but rests on the intent of understanding and tolerating another person’s worldview, although it may differ completely from one’s own. Empathy is thus a crucial skill to develop in interfaith dialogue.
Identity building
As Johnson and Herling emphasise, 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 through five social motivations: belonging, understanding, controlling, self-enhancing, and trusting (ibid.: 305ff). If membership of a certain social group is considered beneficial, 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 of each other (ibid.: 306). The understanding of the ingroup must be shared, and at the same time what does not constitute ingroup behaviour or characteristics must be understood clearly. Fiske also mentions the importance of control (ibid.: 308). To feel secure, people need a certain level of control over their environment, and persistent lack of control is depressing and unhealthy (ibid.: 309). Self-enhancement motivates individuals to improve self-esteem through group identification. Trust, essential for social cohesion, is more easily extended to ingroup than to outgroup members. However, trust with outgroup members can be developed through successful interpersonal and intergroup contact (ibid.: 311).
On the basis of these five motivations, an individual composes their social identity. Social identity theory, mainly introduced by Tajfel and Turner (1986), begins with the premise that individuals define their own identities in relation to social groups, and that such identifications work to protect and bolster self-identity (Islam 2014). The aspect of protecting and bolstering self-identity is often coupled with favouritism towards ingroup members and derogation of outgroup members. In German discrimination research, group-focused enmity is studied as a result of social identity building. Antisemitism and hostility towards Muslims are specifically named as two elements of it (Möller 2023: 436). At its core is the conception of a hierarchical social order that elevates one’s own group and degrades outgroups, which can be based on religion.
If we consider the individual perspective, we can establish the importance of religious beliefs for the person. With an integrated identity-building model, four domains, namely ideology including politics and religion, occupation, the interpersonal domain, and mortality and mental health, can be identified as a foundation of identity building in individuals (Van der Gaag et al. 2020: 273). Religious beliefs, belonging to the first domain, address the purpose of human life (Johnson 2021: 110), and religious identity can also be linked to national identity. Especially where 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 it (Huang et al. 2024). This tendency can lead to majority groups discriminating against minorities, in line with the five social motives and the concept of group-focused enmity mentioned above.
Interfaith dialogue in the formal education system
The importance of implementing peace education approaches, of which interfaith dialogue is an example, has been established in the literature as well as by policymakers and other institutions (Brooks and 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 and Hajir 2020: 10). Peace education in formal schools is all the more important because 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 have a positive impact on identity, outgroup attitudes and forgiveness, with the potential to heal division and promote a less sectarian outlook (McGlynn 2011: 55f), integrated schools in Northern Ireland focus on dialogue between Catholics and Protestants, without specifically including students of religions other than Christianity. Not restricted to interfaith dialogue but concerned with intercultural dialogue in general, the Superschools project aims to contribute to peacebuilding, reconciliation, and intercultural learning and dialogue (RYCO 2024), and to help overcome the segregated school arrangements found, for example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Soetermeer 2023). Fostering intercultural and interfaith dialogue in the formal school system is thus an accepted model for peace education in Europe.
The situation in Germany differs from that in Northern Ireland and the Balkans. In Germany there is no history of public schools segregated on the basis of religious identity. However, developments in society, such as the rise of antisemitism and of hostility towards Muslims described in the introduction, show that conflict transformation is needed to prevent further escalation of tensions between social groups on the basis of religious identity. Yet interfaith religious education remains rare in Germany.
Religious education is the only school subject mentioned in the Basic Law. However, which approach should be implemented is debated (Spielhaus and Stimac 2018). According to the standing conference of education ministers (2024: 7), about a quarter of students from year one to year ten each participate in Catholic religious education, Protestant religious education, and ethics. Only 4.5 per cent of students participate in interfaith religious education, while 6.1 per cent do not participate in religious education or any substitute subject. Interfaith religious education is offered in three of sixteen federal states, namely Bremen, Lower Saxony, and Saarland (ibid.: 14). However, alongside its interfaith subject Values and Norms, Lower Saxony also offers Protestant, Catholic and Islamic religious education as well as philosophy. In Saarland, Protestant and Catholic religious education are offered alongside general ethics. Bremen is thus the only federal state that exclusively offers interfaith religious education. As education is a matter for the individual federal states, it is not always clear to what extent the respective programmes address other religious groups (Spielhaus and Stimac 2018). In general, religious education remains firmly focused on Protestant and Catholic provision. In Baden-Württemberg, for example, there has been a curriculum for Alevi, Old Catholic, Protestant, Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, Jewish, and Sunni Islamic religious education since 2016, but no primary school students taking part in Jewish or Orthodox religious education were recorded in 2024 (KMK 2024: 11f).
There are increasing calls for more interfaith religious education in German schools, for example from the youth organisation of the Green Party in North Rhine-Westphalia. It has demanded not only that all students in the state should take part in interfaith religious education covering at least the five world religions, but also that the peaceful use of religion should be strengthened. This includes breaking down prejudices, questioning uncritical role models, and analysing the potential for conflict, so that students are strengthened in their peaceful personal development (Grüne Jugend Nordrhein-Westfalen 2019).
Interfaith religious education brings many advantages. The main aspect 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 mentioned, some education authorities are trying to respond to the increasing plurality of religious groups in Germany. This comes with multiple challenges.
First, the infrastructure and logistics of offering classes for every religious group prove difficult. Religious education for Muslims in schools is particularly contested. On the one hand, with several million Muslims in Germany there is an evident need for Islamic religious education in schools where Christian religious education exists, not only in terms of integration but also because of the state’s neutrality and the freedom of religion laid down in the Basic Law (Bösing et al. 2023). However, implementing it is easier said than done. As an official school subject, certain criteria must be met, among them the training of teachers and the design of the syllabus. While actors involved in designing syllabi for Islamic religious education would like to work with Muslim organisations, there is often hesitancy because of concerns about extremism and political implications (ibid.). The increasing plurality is also mirrored within other religious groups. According to a survey of Catholic teachers, 91 per cent of respondents see differences between their own convictions and doctrinal positions (BKRG and VKR 2022). Islamic religious education is therefore not the only form in which the approach is questioned.
Interfaith religious education in the light of social identity theory
By offering interfaith religious education, some challenges in the current system can be addressed. Inclusive, interfaith religious education aims to bridge outgroup and ingroup tendencies. It should strive to create a social group that is diverse in religion. If religious education is offered denominationally, social identity is reinforced by membership of a particular religious group. However, if the new social group is the class itself, then the following logic applies. 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, 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 placed in a class when they enter school. Classes are usually diverse. Especially in larger towns and cities, students of different nationalities, ethnicities, and religions share the classroom. By learning together daily, having experiences such as school trips, and through community-building measures, students create a sense of belonging and notice that they are part of a group. Community-building in classes has been well researched (Nicholas 1997).
Understanding. When class members come together and discuss their social reality, including their religious convictions, mutual understanding can be enhanced. Interfaith religious education gives room for that. The teacher acts as a moderator and ensures that all students are treated with respect. Only if ingroup members understand each other will they agree to belong to the same group (Fiske 2000: 306). The understanding need not be that all students agree on the truth of one scripture. Rather, students in one class can agree that independently of their religion, every person should be treated respectfully and given the freedom to follow their own beliefs.
Controlling. Students should always feel safe and secure in their class. As Fiske notes, control means being able to anticipate the response of others to 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 other students deviates from what is expected, 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 relation to their class community and be proud to belong to it. This can and should be 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 trust new ingroup members from the first day, or even in the first week or month. Trust needs to be fostered. It should be developed not only in interfaith religious education; every day should be used by teachers to help students trust each other. Asking students to help each other or introducing group work can enhance trust. In interfaith religious education, discussions about personal religious experiences should not go too deep from the first class. Icebreaker questions and more general topics can help students gain confidence that others will not mock them because of their beliefs. This trust can significantly help in identity building, as there is room for inner freedom in which there is space for emptiness and for the unexpected and unplannable (Van Deursen-Vreeburg 2024: 218).
If all five social motivations are served, interfaith religious education will build a strong sense of community among students. As there has been a comprehensive evaluation of religious education in Bremen in 2023, the interfaith approach of that federal state can be analysed in the light of these five motivations.
The evaluation shows that while Bremen students overall like the subject (69 per cent) and learn something new in class (79 per cent), especially about other religions (84 per cent), the students do not feel that the questions discussed in class relate to their lives or have importance for them (59 per cent), and only about half of the students question their lives and beliefs as a result of the subject (46 per cent). While all students feel that they are taken seriously, the approval ratings for non-religious students (81 per cent) and Muslim students (80 per cent) are lower than for Protestant and Catholic students (91 per cent each) (Nelson 2023: 5ff). This result indicates that students can open up in class, that is, that at least the social motives of understanding, trust, and control are present. The other two motives are not directly addressed. The high approval rating for learning about other religions coincides with the teachers’ priorities of facilitating dialogue among students of different religions (98 per cent), of students learning about other religions (98 per cent), and of students learning to be tolerant towards other belief systems (98 per cent). When it comes to more personal involvement of the students, the teachers give somewhat lower priority but still strong approval. Teachers find it important that there is room in class for students’ personal questions about life and the world (95 per cent) and that they can contribute their convictions (88 per cent) (ibid.: 10), which is not mirrored in the students’ responses.
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 well, although mostly on a superficial level (Klinkhammer and 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). The subject can also lead to tensions in strongly religious families (ibid.: 26).
While the evaluation shows that religious education in Bremen schools is mostly accepted and positively regarded, there is still a gap between the curriculum, teachers and students. While the curriculum and the teachers want to include religious identity building, students focus more on interfaith learning. There is very little research on religious education in Germany, so it remains unclear what causes these different perceptions. Further research is needed.
While religious education in Bremen already strengthens interfaith dialogue and teaches students tolerance, the curriculum should be improved, as students of religious groups other than the world religions, such as Yazidi students, feel neglected. This can threaten their sense of belonging to the ingroup. Teachers should therefore either teach about every religious group to which students of the class belong, or involve students more in deciding which religions should be discussed in class.
Also, in comparison to the second evaluation of the Bremen curriculum, more students were withdrawn from the subject. The evaluation offers no explanation for that increase (Nelson 2023: 4). The increase shows, however, that interfaith religious education comes with challenges that need to be addressed.
Challenges in interfaith religious education
There are different challenges in offering interfaith religious education in formal schools. One of the greatest dangers is to create new forms of exclusion while striving for inclusion. This is what Moulin (2023: 270) calls the paradox of religious inclusivity. Bringing different religions together can cause practitioners of different faiths, or non-practitioners, to feel threatened in their security. On the one hand, if one assumes freedom of religion, one cannot compel people to engage with religions; on the other hand, a discussion of the Qur’an, for example, can place a Christian in a position of rejection if they regard the Bible as the only true scripture. This threat to identity arises because religions are in a sense exclusive (ibid.: 270f). Exclusive is ambiguous in this context. It can mean either that a practitioner denies the truth or even the right to exist of another religion or belief system, or, in a weaker form, that other religions are recognised but one’s own, with its practices and scriptures, is regarded as the best. At the same time, other practitioners may welcome the opportunity to study the scriptures of different religions and to find commonalities. Practitioners and non-practitioners cannot all be placed in one category. The degree of openness towards other faiths differs from person to person.
By offering interfaith religious education, non-religious and strongly religious students, or students from such families, may feel excluded: the former because they may feel obliged to engage with religious views and would form a minority in the class; the latter, or more particularly their parents, because they may not wish their children to study other religious scriptures and traditions.
Non-religious students could feel excluded for several reasons. If the subject is called religious education, they may feel excluded by the name alone. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, it is therefore discussed whether to rename the subject religion and worldviews (Strhan and Shillitoe 2022). Interviews with non-religious primary school students in English religious education show that they sometimes feel excluded, for example in discussions of whether one believes in a God. Some students were taken aback by this because they did not attribute much importance to those questions (ibid.: 265). Religious identity may not be important to everyone. If students have to engage with their religious identity, they may resent the subject 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 noted that the context of English religious education and interfaith religious education may differ, so the findings might not be applicable as a whole. It remains important, however, to keep in mind how non-religious students may feel when required to spend time discussing a topic that does not interest them. One could argue that all students have to take subjects they do not like, but if this disproportionately affects a particular group in the class, and cannot be attributed solely to individual preference, better inclusion of the affected group should be sought. The interviews also include positive findings. While non-religious students may not feel an incentive to explore their own worldview independently, 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).
A further challenge arises from the goal of interfaith religious education itself. Teachers may focus on students in their role as future citizens, wishing to raise responsible, open-minded, and tolerant adults. 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). The long-term goal should of course be that students develop values such as tolerance and respect. Still, pedagogical and didactic approaches should always be tailored to the age of the students and address them at their current level of maturity. Looking at the interviews with non-religious students, we can see that children already display respect and tolerance towards people of other religions and beliefs (Strhan and Shillitoe 2022: 266). Teachers should therefore focus on the students in front of them, not on their future influence as citizens.
Finally, while a class can form a social group, it is not detached from other social groups. Students remain part of their families and friendship circles, and the school community itself is a social group. The five social motivations should therefore not be considered only within the class. In order to implement interfaith religious education successfully in the long term, the social motivations operating in the family and in the school community must be taken into account. Strictly non-religious or strongly religious parents in particular may be wary of interfaith religious education. They should therefore be shown the reasons for it. Through information evenings, individual conversations, and joint projects with the students, parents can better understand why interfaith religious education is not a threat to their own religious identity. At the same time, teachers can respond to parents’ concerns through dialogue and address them in lessons or projects.
Implications for nationwide implementation
As education is a matter for the federal states, it is difficult to demand a nationwide solution. However, as there is a federal ministry for education, some impetus is conceivable. The federal ministry could refer to the special status of religious education, as it is the only school subject mentioned by name in the Basic Law. On this basis, nationwide objectives could be proposed. For example, instead of denominational education, as is the case in most federal states, the objective could be that religious education should be offered in interfaith form. 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 legislation (Articles 70, 73 and 74 of the Basic Law), the federal government does not have the right to legislate. The federal minister can therefore only advocate more interfaith religious education through appeals and other diplomatic approaches.
Another possibility would be to introduce the topic at the standing conference of education ministers, where the education ministers of the individual federal states come together. As the federal states can discuss and exchange ideas on equal terms there, it is conceivable that the advantages of interfaith religious education evident in Bremen could make pilot projects possible in other federal states. It should be borne in mind, however, that religion and its treatment is a sensitive topic that usually generates considerable discussion, and resistance is to be expected.
As changes are difficult to implement at the structural level, attention should be paid to what teaching staff can achieve. Teachers are close to their students and cultivate relationships with them. It is difficult to offer interfaith religious education throughout under a denominational curriculum, but teachers could, for example, consider project days on which students from different classes come together for interfaith dialogue. This could take the form of reflecting on one’s own beliefs following Herling’s approach, such as whether one believes in a god and how one imagines divinity. These reflections could then be discussed with other students following the comparison approach, and finally the whole group could visit different places of worship to introduce defamiliarization. It will probably not be possible to develop empathy within a few days. Still, it could be a first step towards making room for interfaith dialogue.
SUMMARY *
The article’s argument runs against the intuition that reducing hostility between religious groups means emphasising what they have in common. On the author’s account, hostility grows where identity is insecure, and the remedy is therefore to make religious identity more secure rather than less salient, so that difference ceases to be experienced as threat. The mechanism proposed is a shift of the operative ingroup from the denomination to the classroom, examined systematically against Fiske’s five motives. What distinguishes the paper is that it takes its own counter-evidence seriously: the Bremen data show students learning about other religions while not finding the subject relevant to their own lives, which is the opposite of what the theory predicts, and the paradox of religious inclusivity means that a subject designed to include may exclude the non-religious and the strongly religious alike.
CONCLUSION
This paper, like many scholars, politicians, and practitioners, identifies a need for more interfaith dialogue to reduce outgroup derogation between religious groups in Germany. With antisemitism and anti-Muslim discrimination on the rise, bridges between different religious identities must be built before tensions escalate further. Implementing interfaith religious education in the formal school system was identified as a suitable means to foster interfaith dialogue in Germany.
The paper further explains how religious and 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 limitations. As mentioned, structural and political change will be very difficult to achieve. And even where there is an incentive for change, the paradox of religious inclusivity is very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Policymakers, school leaders, and teachers must therefore be careful and mindful of others and of their perceived security of identity in order to achieve acceptance of interfaith religious education. Implementing it would require reform of the formal school system. While this paper has not focused in detail on implementation, it offers insight into how interfaith dialogue can succeed while keeping in mind the risk of the paradox of inclusivity.
It is also important to note that interfaith dialogue in religious education 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 present. 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, friendship groups, and social media influence their identities. Creating room for more interfaith dialogue in school is therefore only one step towards a more inclusive society.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The article’s mechanism deserves to be named by the literature that supports it, because doing so both strengthens the argument and specifies its conditions. What the author describes when the operative ingroup shifts from denomination to classroom is the recategorisation described in the common ingroup identity model, and it is one of the better established findings in intergroup research: where members of two groups come to see themselves as belonging to a single superordinate group, bias between them declines. The conditions under which contact produces this effect were set out by Allport and have been confirmed repeatedly: equal status within the situation, a shared goal, cooperation rather than competition, and the support of authority. A classroom satisfies all four more readily than almost any other setting an adolescent enters, which is the strongest argument available for the author’s proposal.
Two qualifications follow from the same literature and both are practical. Recategorisation that requires people to set aside their original identity produces resistance, and the arrangement that works is the dual identity model, in which the subordinate identity is retained and valued within the superordinate one. Applied here, the aim is not that students become simply pupils of a class but that they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Alevi, Yazidi or non-religious pupils of a shared class. That is precisely what the author’s insistence on strengthening rather than dissolving religious identity implies, and stating it in these terms answers the objection that interfaith education waters down belief.
The paradox of religious inclusivity is the article’s most honest passage and there is more to say about how it has been handled. The English shift toward religion and worldviews is one response, and the more instructive is the distinction now standard in that literature between learning about religion, learning from religion, and being taught religion. Only the third raises the difficulty the author identifies. A subject that teaches what adherents believe, why it matters to them, and what questions of meaning are at stake, without requiring any student to locate themselves on a question of truth, is available to the non-religious student and to the strongly religious family alike. The Bremen finding that students learn a great deal about other religions while not finding the subject relevant to their own lives is precisely what one would expect from a curriculum weighted toward the first mode, and it identifies where the reform should go.
Two additions belong here for readers of this journal. The article treats the parental dimension as an obstacle to be managed through information evenings, and the experience of comparable reforms suggests it is better treated as the primary site of the work: opposition comes from homes rather than from classrooms, and where religious communities were involved in designing the curriculum rather than consulted about it afterwards, withdrawal rates were markedly lower. That is a mediation task in the ordinary sense, conducted between a state authority and organised communities before any lesson is taught. And the finding that dialogue in Bremen remained mostly superficial is not a failure but the expected result of a subject taught in periods of forty-five minutes by teachers with no training in facilitation. Depth in interfaith conversation requires time, ground rules, and someone able to hold a room when a student says something that wounds another. Training religious education teachers in facilitation, which the field this journal serves knows how to do, would address the gap the evaluation identified more directly than any curricular change.
Finally, the article’s central claim is stronger than its own framing suggests and worth stating plainly. The alternative to teaching pupils about one another’s convictions is not neutrality; it is leaving them to acquire that knowledge from the sources the article describes in its opening paragraphs. Whatever the difficulties of interfaith religious education, they are difficulties of a curriculum, and curricula can be revised.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
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 Journal 103(4), 419 to 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 to 16.
Andrabi, A. A. (2020) Interfaith Dialogue: Its Need, Importance and Merits in the Contemporary World. International Journal of Advanced Academic Studies 2(3), 264 to 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 to 33.
Ayata, B. (2016) Silencing the Present. In: Ayata, B. (Ed.) Postkoloniale Politikwissenschaft: Theoretische und empirische Zugänge. Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, 211 to 232.
Biess, C. and D. Nolden (2021) Peace Education Meets Religion: Manual for Multipliers. Berghof Foundation.
Bildungsportal Niedersachsen (w.D.) Religions- und Ethikfächer. https://bildungsportal-niedersachsen.de/allgemeinbildung/unterrichtsfaecher/philosophische-faecher
BKRG and VKR (2022) Glaubhaft Zeugnis geben?! Wie Religionslehrkräfte ihren Dienst im Auftrag der Kirche erleben. https://bkrg.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Umfrage_BKRG_Web.pdf
Bösing, E., Stein, M. and V. Zimmer (2023) Staatlich verantworteter islamischer Religionsunterricht und bekenntnisorientierte Moscheeunterweisung. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
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 to 19.
Deutsches Institut für Demokratie und Entwicklung (2024) The End of Pegida and the German Far Right’s Shift. https://www.dinstitut.de/the-end-of-pegida-and-the-german-far-rights-shift/
Domsgen, M. and U. Witten (2022) Religionsunterricht im Wandel: Ein Überblick über Entwicklungen in Deutschland. https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/105846/1/10.1515_9783839457801-002.pdf
Driessen, M. D. (2020) Evaluating Interreligious Dialogue in the Middle East. Peace Review 32(1), 1 to 12.
Emmerich, A.-W. (2022) Negotiating Germany’s First Muslim-Christian Kindergarten: Temporalities, Multiplicities, and Processes in Interreligious Dialogue. Social Compass 69(4), 578 to 595.
Esposito, J. L. (2001) The Future of Islam. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 25(2), 19 to 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 to 322.
Garrard-Burnett, V. E. and E. Yetkin Yildirim (2011) Flying with Two Wings: Interreligious Dialogue in the Age of Global Terrorism. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge.
Gorski, P. (2018) The Origin and Nature of Religion: A Critical Realist View. Harvard Theological Review 111(2), 289 to 304.
Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html
Grüne Jugend Nordrhein-Westfalen (2019) Religionsübergreifender Religionsunterricht in NRW. https://gj-nrw.de/blog/2019/03/24/religionsuebergreifenden-religionsunterricht-in-nrw/
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 and Ideologies 23(69), 30 to 46.
Hoffman, L. and M. Thelen (2018) Interfaith Dialog. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-642-27771-9_809-2
Hoffmann, B. and A. Echtermann (2020) Die meisten dieser Zitate stammen von AfD-Politikern, einige sind aber unbelegt. Correctiv.
Huang, C., Clancy, L. and S. Austin (2024) Views on the Importance of Religion to National Identity. Pew Research Center.
Ipsos (2011) Global Share of People Who Believe in God or a Supreme Being, by Country, as of 2010.
Islam, G. (2014) Social Identity Theory. In: Teo, T. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Springer, New York.
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 to 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.
Knauth, T. (2007) Religious Education in Germany: Contribution to Dialogue or Source of Conflict? In: Jackson, R., Miedema, S., Weiße, W. and J.-P. Willaime (Eds.) Religion and Education in Europe: Developments, Contexts and Debates. Waxmann, 243 to 265.
Körs, A. (2023) Islamischer Religionsunterricht in Deutschland im Kaleidoskop empirischer Forschungen. In: Körs, A. (Ed.) Islamischer Religionsunterricht in Deutschland. 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 to 362.
Körs, A., Weisse, W. and J. Willaime (2020) Religious Diversity and Interreligious Dialogue. Springer, Cham.
Kultusministerium Baden-Württemberg (w.D.) Fächerliste Grundschule, Sekundarstufe 1, Gymnasium, Gemeinschaftsschule.
Kultusministerkonferenz (2024) Auswertung Religionsunterricht Schuljahr 2023/24.
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 to 72.
Ministerium für Bildung und Kultur Saarland (2020) Lehrpläne und Handreichungen Gemeinschaftsschule.
Mohagheghi, H. (2010) Islamischer Religionsunterricht aus Sicht der Muslime in Deutschland. In: Behr, H. H. (Ed.) Was soll ich hier? Lit Verlag, Berlin.
Möller, K. (2023) Konzepte, Ausmaße, Entwicklungen und Bedingungsfaktoren von Gruppenbezogener Menschenfeindlichkeit. In: Scherr, A., Reinhardt, A. C. and A. El-Mafaalani (Eds.) Handbuch Diskriminierung. 2nd edition. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 435 to 458.
Moulin, D. (2023) Religion and Worldviews Education and the Paradox of Inclusivity. Journal of Religious Education 71, 269 to 278.
Nelson, L. (2023) Bericht über die dritte Evaluation des Fachs Religion.
Nicholas, S. N. (1997) Community-Building in the Classroom: A Process. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development 35, 198 to 207.
Osbeck, C., Lilja, A. and N. Fancourt (2025) RE Teachers’ Ways of Balancing Children’s Existential Concerns and the Curriculum. 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, v to viii.
Purnomo, A. B. (2024) Art and Interreligious Dialogue: Knitting Harmony in the Indonesian Context. The Journal of Interreligious Studies 41, 49 to 61.
RYCO (2024) Meet the Superschools in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Senatorin für Bildung und Wissenschaft Bremen (2014) Religion Bildungsplan: Grundschule, Oberschule, Gymnasium, Jahrgangsstufen 1 bis 13.
Soetermeer, M. (2023) The Two Schools under One Roof System: Bosnia’s Challenges to Reconciliation.
Spielhaus, R. and Z. Stimac (2018) Schulischer Religionsunterricht im Kontext religiöser und weltanschaulicher Pluralität. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte.
Stamatović, A. (2024) The Works of Leonard Swidler as a Model for Interreligious Dialogue in Ex-Yugoslav Areas in the Twenty-First Century. Journal for the Study of Religion and Ideologies 23(69), 47 to 60.
Strhan, A. and R. Shillitoe (2022) The Experiences of Non-Religious Children in Religious Education. Journal of Religious Education 70, 261 to 272.
Tagesschau (2024) Antisemitismus in Deutschland nimmt zu.
Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner (1986) The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In: Worchel, S. and W. G. Austin (Eds.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 7 to 24.
Van der Gaag, M. A. E., De Ruiter, N. M. P., Kunnen, S. E. and H. Bosma (2020) The Landscape of Identity Model. Identity 20(4), 272 to 289.
Van Deursen-Vreeburg, J. (2024) Vacare: From Lectio Divina to Contemplative Reading. Journal of Religious Education 72, 203 to 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, 255 to 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 and Values 45(4), 689 to 712.
Voulgaraki-Pissina, E. (2023) The Dialogical Paths with Islam in the East: Homage to Arabic Christian Theology. Religions 14(11).
Weiße, W. (2008) Islamischer Religionsunterricht in Deutschland: ein Beitrag zur Integration?
Zembylas, M. (2018) Critical Peace Education as a Response to School Violence. In: Shapiro, H. (Ed.) The Wiley Handbook on Violence in Education. John Wiley and Sons, 577 to 594.
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751 to 783.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. Psychology Press, Philadelphia.
Jackson, R. (2014). Signposts: Policy and Practice for Teaching about Religions and Non-Religious World Views in Intercultural Education. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2007). Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching about Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools, Warsaw.
Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Articles 4, 7 and 141.
Commission on Religious Education (2018). Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward. A National Plan for RE, London.
Berghof Foundation, materials on dialogue facilitation and peace education in schools, Berlin.
