Honest to God: Should religion be taught in schools, and if so, what kind of religion? Ian Harris canvasses the territory.
One of the quickest ways to get everyone's knickers in a twist in Godzone is to broach the topic of religion in our schools.
Some people will defend it as essential in the fight against moral decline.
Some will advocate more of it in the interests of a broad education.
Some will demand that it be totally shut out.
Rights, values, faith, reason, cultural sensitivity, tolerance, understanding, prejudice and ignorance jostle in unholy confusion.
Into this fraught arena the Human Rights Commission and Victoria University's religious studies programme now boldly stride.
After two years of discussion and consultation they issued this month a draft document, Questions and Concerns, clarifying the issues and offering guidance to schools and to parents caught in the middle.
Misconceptions abound.
Our state education system is secular, for example, but it is not secularist: secular means neutral in respect of religion, secularist means hostile.
Parliament legislated in 1877 for a secular system to cut through denominational power plays in the running of schools.
But a loophole was found: religious instruction could take place on a limited basis before schools officially opened for the day.
That was formalised in 1962 and still applies, as long as children whose parents object to their participation can opt out.
Further, the secular clause applies only to state primary schools.
Secondary schools can chart their own course, though always with a care to avoiding discrimination against any pupil or group.
Most private and integrated schools have a religious purpose at their core, so the secular clause does not apply to them.
It is critical to distinguish between religious observance, instruction and education.
The first two assume or encourage adherence to a particular set of beliefs.
They have no place in the compulsory secular curriculum but there is nothing to prevent voluntary participation at times when the school is officially closed.
Education about religion is another matter.
Though some educationists seem to think it is a school's duty to keep children ignorant of anything to do with religion, that would be to sell pupils grievously short.
Since time began, religion has played a huge role in human experience.
Much of a country's history, politics, culture, art, literature, even science is incomprehensible without reference to it.
Also, in the past half century New Zealand's culture and religion have become so much more diverse that it behoves all of us to have some idea of what makes our neighbours tick - Christians about Hindus, Muslims about Buddhists, atheists about Jews, all about each other.
Extend our neighbourhood and trading links to Southeast Asia, and you take in the world's biggest Muslim country, Indonesia, plus centres of Buddhism.
Partnerships run more smoothly when you know something about the people you're dealing with.
None of that detracts from Christianity's primary role in shaping New Zealand and its institutions, and it needs no special concessions to address that within the present social studies curriculum.
Indeed, every pupil should have the opportunity to be informed about it.
The new factor is that Christianity now sits within a broader cultural and religious context, so handling it requires more sensitivity all round.
Observance of religious festivals Easter, Yom Kippur, Ramadan, or Diwali raises other issues.
Should schools ignore, participate, or simply explain what they are about? What about parents and pupils who object?Three statutes require schools to balance different rights and freedoms.
The Education Act allows boards of trustees to decide whether religious instruction and observance are permitted at all, and gives children the right to opt out.
Boards would be wise to bring their communities into the discussion.
The Bill of Rights Act cuts both ways.
It protects freedom of religion and belief, including the right to teach a religion and to worship, both privately and along with others.
It also upholds freedom from discrimination, which the Human Rights Act reinforces by banning it outright.
The practical effect of this is that state primary schools can teach about the cross on hot cross buns this Easter in ordinary class time.
A religious observance, however, can take place only when the school is officially closed, with pupils free to opt out.
Maori observances will depend on content and context: that is, whether they are more religious than cultural, or vice versa.
All in all, the scope is wider than some people think.
•The Human Rights Commission and the booklet's author, Professor Paul Morris of Victoria University, invite feedback on the draft by June 30 to nzdiversity@hrc.co.nz or Paul. Morris@vuw.ac.nz
•Ian Harris is a journalist and commentator.
