Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

Hie quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 Nortn Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313.'761-4700 800/521-0600 DEMOCRATIC EDUCATION? THE STATE'S ROLE IN INSTITUTIONALIZING

CHRISTIANITY AS A CIVIL RELIGION IN A GERMAN CHRISTIAN

PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM AND ITS EFFECT ON

JEWISH AND ISLAMIC IDENTITY FORMATION

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

Dana Lee Simel, B.A., Ed.M.

*****

The Ohio State University

1995

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Michael Berkowitz

Erwin Epstein

Robert Lawson Advisor College of Education Department of Educational Policy and Leadership UMI Number: 9526087

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 to Raffi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I express sincere gratitude to my advisor, Professor Robert

Lawson, and to my doctoral committee members, Professors Michael

Berkowitz and Erwin Epstein, for their support, encouragements, and

time spent reviewing my work. I am also indebted to Professors

Mary Leach, Brad Mitchell, and Alan Beyerchen, who provided input

during the initial stages of my work. I also express gratitude to

Jan Dow, who offered encouragement at every stage.

The generous support of the Melton Center for Jewish Studies

and the Phyllis Krumm International Studies Scholarship allowed me

to conduct research in Germany, and for this I am appreciative.

I express my deepest gratitude to Randy White, without whom I would not have met my new friends, Helmut and Alice Wendlinger, who made both my and my son's stay in Germany possible and all the more

fun.

I also wish to acknowledge the support of the following people, whose friendship allowed them to tirelessly listen to my narratives of the work's progression: Bill and Peggy Amdur, Slava

Karpov, Rob Leonard, Elena Liskovsaya, Pam Simmons, Randy White, and Professor David Whitfield.

I also wish to thank my grandmothers, Esta Simel and Mae

Kornbluth, both of whom passed away during the completion of this

iii work, and whose own identities, while different from each other, provide a glimpse of the history and sociology of ethnic identity formation in the United States.

Most importantly, I thank my best friends, my parents, who have given me and my son unconditional love and support, and without whom none of this would have been possible.

Lastly, I thank my littlest fan, my inspiration and son,

Raffi, who already has a wonderful sense of his own identity. VITA

December 15, 1960 ...... Born - Lawton, Oklahoma

1982...... B.A., The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

1987...... M.Ed., Boston University College of Education

1990...... Teaching Certificate, Principal's Certificate, The University of North Carolina, Greensboro

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Comparative Education (Faculty: Robert Lawson, Erwin Epstein)

Jewish History: Professor Michael Berkowitz German History: Professor Alan Beyerchen The History of United States Schooling: Professor Mary Leach The Schooling of Women and Girls: Professor Mary Leach Educational Administration: Professor Brad Mitchell Educational Philosophy: Professor Richard Pratte

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii

VITA ...... v

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES...... X

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

Objective of the Study...... 4 Discussion...... 7 Organization of Chapters...... 14

II. THE HISTORICAL LEGACY OF THE BONDS OF THE CHURCH AND THE SCHOOLS: 1794-1945...... 19

Section One: From the Promises of the Enlightenment to the Practices of Romanticism: 1794-1871 ...... 22

Confessional Schooling and the Jewish Population Unfulfilled Promises Stemming from the Enlightenment: 1794-1871...... 37

Section Two: 1871-1914: The Laying of the Groundwork of the Distinction between "Approved" and "Tolerated" Religious Communities and Religious Influence in the Schools...... 46

The Kulturkampf: Doomed from the Start...... 46

Conservative Fear of Social Democracy: 1871-1914...... 50

The Fragmentation of the Left: 1871-1914...... 53 The Emergence of Political Romanticism . 55

The Jewish Response...... 56

Section Three: Religious Instruction in the Weimar Years: No Significant Changes .... 66

Jewish Instruction in Weimar ...... 73

Section Four: The Nazi Y e a r s ...... 76

Jewish Schools during the Third Reich . . 84

III. THE CHURCH LIVES ON IN POST WORLD WAR TWO GERMANY ...... 96

Christianity as the Basis for the New Civil Religion...... 104

Christian Civil Religion in the Public S c h o o l s ...... 117

Bavarian Schools and Church Influence . . . 134

Legal Challenges to the Interpretation of the Grundgesetz and the Bavarian Constitution as Concerns the Public Schools as Christian Institutions ...... 143

Jewish Identity Formation in a Christian Civil State ...... 146

Muslim Identity Formation ...... 172

IV. METHODOLOGY...... 188

Solicitation of Sample...... 196

Ethical Considerations...... 197

Interview Process ...... 198

Possible Threats to Validity...... 200

Possible Threats to External Validity . . . 200

Possible Threats to Internal Validity . . . 201

The Analysis of Responses Representing Current Minority Positions on Religious Influe nce...... 202

vii V. FINDINGS 204

Legal Situation of Religious Instruction. . 204

New Classes for Foreign Students...... 212

Organizational and Financial Obstacles to Offering Religious Instruction to Religious Minorities...... 216

Instruction in Ethics ...... 219

The Purpose of Catholic and Protestant Religious Instruction ...... 221

Tolerance Has its B o r d e r s ...... 224

Opportunities for Minority Identity Fo r mati on ...... 241

Differences of Opinion...... 251

The Future of the Christian Public Schools. 253

Conclusion...... 257

VI. CONCLUSION...... 261

Relevancy for Democracy ...... 266

Possible Areas for Further Study...... 273

APPENDIXES ...... 275

A. Letters Soliciting Participants to be Interviewed...... 275

B. Sample Consent Forms for Participation in Social Science Research...... 286

C. Sample Interview Questions ...... 290

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 307

viii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Numbers of Jewish Schools in Prussia: 1830-1922 . . 60

2. School Type in Germany During the Nazi Era...... 82

3. Decline of German Jewry: 1925 - 1945 ...... 87

4. Numbers and Percentages Jewish School Age Children: 1933 - 1939...... 87

5. Election Results: 1949-1965...... Ill

6. Survey on Church Influence: 1954 ...... 112

7. Jewish Population by States - 1939, 1946, 1950. . .153

8 . Sample...... 193

9. Minimal Confirming or Disconfirming Sample...... 194

ix LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Photograph of a billboard which hung in Munich Subway Stations during January, 1994...... 225

2. Child's Drawing of a School May Pole...... 233

3. A Page of a Student1s Notebook from Religion Class...... 240

x CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Contrary to individual efforts of church men and women, the Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany up until 1945 were not immune from racism or nationalism. Additionally, the

Catholic and Protestant churches promoted disunity in Germany due to religious and political particularism (Albisetti, 1983;

Ardagh, 1987; Carsten, 1980; Helmreich, 1959; Lamberti, 1989;

Stern, 1961) . It has been widely acknowledged since World War

II that the churches have been less important a factor in these areas because of the secularizing tendency of German society (Ardagh; Spotts, 1973) . The legitimacy of the claim that there has been a secularization process rests on how one defines "secularization" and "religiosity". If defined from a sociological perspective, the contention that German society has become secularized does not tell the whole story because

"While some analysts of the secularization process have pointed to a decline in traditional religious beliefs, others have suggested that secularization (has) involved the replacement of old forms of religion with new ones" (Macionis,

1989, p. 451; McGuire, 1987).

Although the role of the churches in the every day lives of most Germans has changed, it is not true that the extent of their involvement in the every day lives of Germans has changed. One of the leading historians of German history,

Gordon Craig, has said that "despite the secularizing tendencies that have affected all Western countries in the industrial age, religion has remained a vital force in

Germany" (1982, p. 83). Christianity in post-World War Two

Germany has assumed something comparable to its historical role by having been institutionalized, or legitimized, through provisions granted by the state. The churches have thus continued to be a part of the culture of the majority in

German civil life inasmuch as they have transcended religious particularism and have aided in Germany's establishment of what some sociologists refer to as a civil religion (Bellah,

1967).

Writing about civil religion in the United States, Bellah claimed that civil religion transcends differences of race, ethnicity, religiosity, gender, and socio-economic class, and that it excludes few from the rights and obligations to the state. According to Bellah, civil religion in the United

States is based on Christian precepts and rituals which are no longer "assumed" by the majority to be Christian, but which all may share. Bellah's critics have pointed out that the transcendental concept of civil religion is a problematic one

(Glasner, 1977; Beckford, 1989; Macionis; McGuire, 1981;

Robertson, 1987). The ideal that a society can formulate a civil religion in which all may participate with minimal conflict is at the heart of the controversy. Scholars have attempted to apply the concept of civil religion to other countries, and many have concluded that the conflict may be less in societies such as the United States, which has laws regulating the strict separation of church and state, and where civil religion is appropriate for the public sphere while one's individual religion is appropriate for the private sphere (Bellah, 1975; Moodie, 1975; Mosse, 1966; Robertson,

1978; Shils & Young, 1953) . However, in societies, such as in

Germany, where the church and state are officially interwoven,

"there are less obvious cases of civil religion because they are so closely linked with particular religions" (McGuire,

1981). The very nature of the less obvious forms of civil religion makes it that much more difficult for those of the majority to understand why minority group members can not adhere to it. Conversely, the less obvious presence of civil religion may also make it more difficult for minority groups to articulate their concerns.

In Germany, for instance, the majority Christian population has given the basis of this civil religion such a

"matter of fact" legitimacy that it can hardly distinguish between culture and religion. The minority religious communities, however, do not view this civil religion as being a "matter of fact", and many view themselves as being excluded 4

from the rights and obligations of civil life, inasmuch as

civil life and laws are based on Christian precepts and

rituals to which they do not adhere.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

This qualitative research study has been designed to

systematically explore the Bavarian state1s role in

institutionalizing Christianity as a civil religion through

its continued support of church influence in the public school

system in post-World War II Germany, and the effects on the

identity formation of religious minorities, specifically Jews

and Muslims.

There have been countless studies on the effects of

identity formation in state school systems which separate

students according to race1; however, studies such as this

one, which seek to determine the effects of minority identity

formation in state school systems which separate students

according to religion, are almost nonexistent. I have framed

the study with historical insights in order to determine why

aSee works by James Coleman; Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma:__ The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy^ and The Effects of Segregation and the Consequences of Desegregation: A Social Science Statement, appendix to Appellants' Brief filed in the School Segregation Cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1952, in John Bracey, August Meier, and Elliott Rudwick, eds., The Afro-Americans: Selected Documents (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1972), pp. 661-671. and how the Bavarian public schools have a Christian influence, what this says about the concept of a civil religion, and how this has and is affecting religious minorities. Nevertheless, this is not an historical study per se, as I have used a sociological model of the concept of civil religion to draw conclusions. The combination of historical and sociological techniques allows one to make conclusions, and ultimately, to use those conclusions comparatively.

Specific research questions include the following:

(1) What is the current status of religious instruction

as it is provided in the schools?

(2) How did the provisions for religious instruction

come into being (addressed in Chapter II and in

post- World War Two study of legal provisions) and

how, based on the responses of religious group

leaders, do members of religious minorities think

about that status?

(3) What curricula issues arise from religious

instruction? What groups of people express these

concerns and how do they express them? What

actions, if any, has the educational establishment

taken to address these concerns?

(4) Are there concerns about segregating students for a

portion of the week based on the students' religion? What groups of people are expressing these concerns and how are they expressing them?

Have their concerns been addressed by the educational establishment?

To what extent do religious majority group members have a sense of identity with their religious peers and to what extent can that be attributed to the religious instruction which they receive in the public schools? What does this say about the possibility for minority group members to identify with members of their own religious groups? How do religious minority groups address the need for identification with their own religious group if religious instruction in the public schools is not available to them?

Have minority religious groups opened religious schools due to the unequal provisions provided for religious instruction? Would these schools close if religious minorities had the same instructional provisions as do majority groups?

What would religious minority groups think would be the ideal? What will be the result if provisions for minority religious instruction do not change?

What would be the result of a change in provisions? Which results are acceptable and to whom? Which

are not and to whom?

DISCUSSION

Frederic Spotts, in The Churches_and_Politics in Germany,

claimed that after World War II:

The position religion and the churches had for centuries occupied in Germany was . .. buried beneath layer upon layer of social change. By the end of the 1960s the age-old concept of the spiritual and secular as two overlapping realms - which had given rise to the century of tension between religion and politics and of the conflict between church and state . . . largely disappeared from the public consciousness {p. 359).

Spotts further wrote that the "triumph of secularization" which occurred after World War II has been partly responsible for the destruction of the historical "defacto 'apartheid'" which has traditionally separated Protestants and Catholics

(pp. 359-360). Spotts warned that the uniquely privileged position of the churches in Germany, as compared to churches in other parts of the world, would increasingly be called into question, and that:

If the Evangelical church should join the Catholic church in seeking to purvey outmoded moral and social concepts rather than fearlessly challenging all forms of social repression and injustice, including those arising from accepted convention, both will well deserve the strictures Marx pronounced upon all moralists who fail to relate their ideals to social conditions (p. 363). It is my contention that the churches, more than twenty years after Spott's commentary, have indeed related their ideals to social conditions in the form of a civil religion based on Christian precepts, rituals, and doctrines, which because of the claim of being based on precepts and/or values, if shared by all, will be of benefit to the polity ("for the people"). In short, the churches have retained most of their privileges by transcending religious doctrine, and with state institutionalization, have created a Christian civil religion.

This civil religion, based on assumed common precepts of both the Catholic and Protestant churches, is viewed as being in step with what Spotts refers to as the "triumph" of secularism.

Civil religion has been defined as "any set of beliefs and rituals, related to the past, present, and/or future of a people ("nation") which are understood in some transcendental fashion" (Hammond, 1976, p. 171). It includes all practices, rituals and symbolisms which hold a nation together, which give the people of the nation a sense of cohesiveness and unity.

German historical divisiveness of the Catholic and

Protestant churches in pre-World War Two Germany has been well documented (Ardagh; Glenn, 1989; Helmreich; Spotts; Lamberti,

1989; Pinson, 1966; Spotts). Indeed, the catastrophes leading to the rise of Nazism precluded a unified German culture which could transcend religious, ethnic, political or economic differences.

What had unified Germany during the Nazi Era, National

Socialism, could certainly not be the basis for a unifying

ideology in post-World War Two Germany. Some historians claim

that one of the few political or social institution which

survived somewhat intact after World War Two were the churches

(Glenn; Helmreich; Spotts). However, due to their historically divisive role in German society, the churches, in order to preserve privileges, needed to redefine themselves as being a harbinger of a reconstituted ideology which could transcend issues of religious, ethnic, economic, political, and ideological differences. In what appears at first to be conflicting claims, some historians hold that the church fills this unifying role, while at the same time claim that civil life in post-World War Two Germany has become secularized

(Ardagh; Spotts).

Historians making the claim that post-World War Two Germany has secularized may be viewing it in part from the perspective of doctrinary particularism. According to this view of

"secularization" then, it does seem to be the case that

Spott's claim that the historical "defacto apartheid" of the

Protestant and Catholic churches has been reduced and/or eliminated. Additionally, these historians may conclude that decreased

participation in religious life is tantamount to increased

secularization; however, as sociologists point out, the terms

"secularization" and "religiosity" are difficult to

operationalize {Beckford, 1989; Berger, 1967; Glasner;

Hammond; Macionis; McGuire, 1981; Robertson, 1987). Viewed

from a sociological perspective, "secularization" and

"religiosity" can not be quantified merely as the percentage

of people who claim to be members of a particular church, who

claim to believe in a divine spirit, who attend church

service, or who give money to religious causes. As Macionis

points out, there may be reasons other than one's

"religiosity" for engaging in such activities, such as the

need for identification, the need to socialize, the need to

alleviate personal guilt through contributions, or the need to

increase one's standing in the community.

Shupe and Bromley (1985) argue that "Social science lacks

the capacity to forecast the ultimate course of

secularization," and instead "argue that the most important

issue on the sociological agenda should be investigating the process by which transcendent symbol systems are created and

sustained" (p. 58) . This would lead one away from the

"secularization hypothesis ...premised on long-term, post factum observation rather than on theoretically based prediction" (p. 58) . In short, "secularization" and "religiosity" would not be determined based on unidimensional statistics such as how many people regularly attend church the number of people who claim to believe in God, or the number of people who say they are affiliated with a religious body.

Rather, "secularization" and "religiosity" would be based on such multidimensional characteristics as the extent to which transcendent symbol systems are created and sustained.

Viewing "secularization" and "religiosity" in terms of transcendent symbol systems helps clarify the claim on the one hand that the churches in Germany fulfill a unifying role, while on the other that civil life has been secularized.

Viewed from this perspective, German civil life has not secularized to the point claimed by historians, since

Christian symbols and rituals are still abundant in civil life, and are indeed part of the every day school experience of children attending German public schools.

When a Christian - or any civil religion based on religious precepts, doctrine, symbols, or rituals - civil religion is supported by symbols, rituals, and privileges in any one country, it assumes an air of matter-of-fact legitimacy which the majority may see as secular and as a reflection of its acceptance of pluralism in that all members of society are encouraged to participate because of its assumed transcendental nature. This supposed transcendental nature of the civil religion may be problematic to a society's 12

minorities, insofar as symbols and rituals supporting the

civil religion exclude minority participation.

In Bavarian public schools, rituals of a Christian nature

are considered by the Christian majority to be of a secular

nature because civil religion is based on ideologies which are

supposed to transcend differences of religion and because

"Typically, in societies with relatively homogeneous meaning

systems (or what are thought to be homogeneous meaning

systems), belonging to the group means taking its world view

for granted" (McGuire, p. 45).

Members of religious minorities, however, may feel excluded

from the Christian civil religion, inasmuch as the rituals which are meant to unify the population are based on Christian ritual, and inasmuch as these religious rituals incorporate members of the group by reminding them of the meaning and \ obligations of being "one of us" (McGuire, p. 179):

Ritual both reflects and acts upon the group's meaning system. Too often we tend to think of ritual as being empty and a matter of 'going through the motions'. Even going through the motions can promote a sense of unity, but in many groups the content of ritual is highly meaningful and especially successful in creating a sense of oneness (McGuire, p. 71).

However sincere the invitation to join and be "one of us," inasmuch as ritual is based on Christian ritual, religious minorities may feel excluded from the rights and obligations that come with an acceptance of and participation in this

Christian civil religion. 13

This conflict over the acceptance of civil religion based on Christian ritual is the conflict that Bellah {1967) failed to adequately address. It is perhaps a conflict of all societies which are heterogeneous. Even when that society claims to have embraced pluralism, there are still elements of every society which, through laws, dominant ideology, or privileges, gives a matter of fact legitimacy to that society's world view: "Come join us. Be one with us. These rituals have nothing in them that will exclude you. The belief in a divine spirit is shared by all. Our cross - by regulation hung in most public school classrooms - is merely a representation of that divinity and has no religious particularism attached to it." And often the minority response is somewhere along the continuum of joining, thus giving up their own rituals and meaning, or privatizing, which

apparently results from problems of meaning and integration for many individuals... Privatization implies problems in legitimating oneself. Identity becomes problematic. Sources of order, meaning and community have been undermined (McGuire, p. 243).

This work analyses the conflict of meaning and understanding of this civil religion in the German context of public schools. This conflict of meaning and understanding between minority and majority groups is perhaps present in all societies. However, one distinguishing factor of German civil life and schooling is the extent of the institutionalization of the Christian civil religion in theory and in practice in 14 a compulsory school system where minority group privatization

seems to be the only alternative other than to accept for

oneself the legitimacy of social forms derived from the

Christian religion, or to pretend to accept them.

The resolution of this conflict will not rest on a de facto

study of the secularization process which, as noted, would

lead one to conclude that there has been a weakening of the church-state relationship and that all may therefore comfortably participate in the civil religion. Rather, the resolution involves the acceptance of pluralism:

It would be a mistake to see these conflicts as merely church-state issues; the very process of their resolution reflects the pressure of an increasingly pluralistic situation, in which no single religious world view is granted legitimacy (McGuire, p. 234).

The concept of pluralism, in which no single world view is granted legitimacy, is especially significant during an age in which the very meaning of democracy and of democratic education rests on the level at which any society and its schools pursue activities which lead its citizens and students to an acceptance of pluralistic world views.

ORGANIZATION OF CHAPTERS

This qualitative research study has been designed to systematically explore the state's role in institutionalizing

Christianity as a civil religion through its continued support 15 of church influence in the school system in post-World War II

Germany, and the effects of that legitimization on identity

formation of Jews and Muslims.

Chapter Two includes a literature review of pre-World War

II Germany, and describes the historical role of the state in

institutionalizing Christianity as played out in the schools

from 1794 to 1945. Chapter Two, Section One, includes a literature review of

secondary documents concerning religious instruction and religious influence in German schools from 1794 to 1871. This reveals both the state's historical role in institutionalizing religious influence in the schools, as well as the effects of the state's role on Germany's then most visible minority, its

Jewish population.

Chapter Two, Section Two, highlights the different agendas of those who were in favor of nonconfessional schools and those in favor of confessional schools from 1871 to 1919.

This section also includes a discussion of the provisions for

Jewish instruction as compared to the provisions for Christian instruction from 1871-1919.

Chapter Two, Section Three includes a discussion of the changes in thinking about confessional schools, but not their practice, during the Weimar Years. Using secondary documents, debates are highlighted to determine, once again, the 16

intentions of those wanting a continuation and those not

wanting a continuation of confessional schooling.

Chapter Two, Section Four, includes a discussion on the

change in thinking regarding the church influence in the

schools during the Nazi years. This section includes a

discussion of the Nazi mandate for a unified civil religion

devoted to the Reich and not to church, and therefore the

abandonment of religious instruction in the schools. This

section also includes a discussion of the legal situation for

the Jewish population.

Chapter Three. using secondary sources, legal briefs,

documents, and policy statements, includes a discussion of the post-World War Two Allied as well as the German rationale to

allow provisions for religious influence in the public schools

from 1945 to the present, as well as the legal and practical

condition of that influence up to the present day.

Additionally, this chapter includes a survey of research on identity formation of the Jewish and Islamic minority in light of unequal provisions for religious instruction for these groups.

Chapter Four outlines the methodology employed in the research of Chapter Five.

Chapter Five includes an analysis of results from interviews with religious leaders and educational policy 17 makers, and which were confirmed and/or disconfirmed by parents, students, and school administrators, as to whether:

(1) religious minorities view the provisions for

minority religious instruction as being unequal to

provisions for religious majority group members;

(2) members of religious minorities view the segregation

of minority students for a portion of the day as

hindering their desired integration into German

society. (The assumption is not that all minority

group members want to integrate; this only concerns

those who may want to integrate, but who may be

hindered from integrating due in part to the

separation of students for a portion of the day.);

(3) religious minorities view religious instruction, as

it is currently provided, as not meeting their

needs relative to the needs of majority groups;

(4) the opening of religious schools by religious

minorities is due to the unequal religious

instruction provided for minorities in the public

schools; and

(5) majority religious group members' religious ties are

fostered by religious instruction, and whether

minority group members feel that the climate of the

school is not therefore conducive to minority group

identity formation. Chapter Six concludes on the relevancy of the findings concerning pluralism and democracy and on implications of that for democratic education in Germany. This chapter will also highlight the comparative implications of this work, in addition to areas for further study. CHAPTER II

THE HISTORICAL LEGACY OF THE BONDS OF THE CHURCH AND THE SCHOOLS: 1794-1945

There were many possible turning points which could have been taken regarding church influence in the schools, which

suggests that viewing German history from a linear approach may be misguided. The approach that many historians have

taken toward German history, notably in looking at the nature of that history, and pointing to exact moments as being the time that everything went wrong, has been questioned by

Blackbourn and Eley (1989). For instance, according to Eyck

(1968), the liberals failed to cement their leadership in

1848. By the time of Bismarck’s departure from the scene,

"the sense of freedom and individual independence, of justice and humanity, had been lamentably weakened by 'Realpolitik' and 1Interessenpolitik1" (p. 323). This 'Realpolitik' would, in several years, be replaced by 'Weltpolitik,' leading to catastrophic tragedies for the world and for Germany itself.

Implicit in Eyck's theory is the assumption that the Liberals had no other opportunities for reform after their failed 1848 revolution, that after the failed revolution the course of history could not be changed, or that there was a continuation

19 20

of history which denies the free will of human beings, "The

German bourgeoisie's failure to seize power in 1848, to carry

through its own revolution in the manner of the British and the French, has been described by historians of all shades of opinion as the pivotal event - or non-event- for the entire

future course of German history" (Blackbourn & Eley, p. 43).

Eley questions the interpretation that there was only one possible turning point for liberal aspirations, and Blackbourn

suggests that attempts at reform did not come about through a linear development.

In line with Blackbourn and Eley's argument, Klaus Schwabe

(1990) views the linear approach to history as being unacceptable, because the result would allow for an apologetic view of the two world wars that might go like: "Once we started we were on a roll. We couldn't stop. There was no other opportunity for us." Additionally, this linear approach to history can have only two results:

Either Germans will have to see the new German nation-state as entirely unrelated to Bismarck's Germany, which seems unrealistic because a historical tradition cannot be wiped out and because one cannot simply ignore the psychological and structural continuities that connect the Federal Republic with Bismarckian Germany. Or, Germans will have to rehabilitate the whole of Germany's national history, including the Nazi era. Such an apologetic view would be contrary to the historical record of the Nazi horrors and would provide grist for right-wing die- hards in Germany (Schwabe). 21

Instead, a broader interpretation of history is called for which would "view German history from the perspective of contending strata that have run through it" (Schwabe).

The presence of different agendas of the conflicting strata in society shows that there were many possible turning points.

To view the two world wars as inevitable because of a linear development of history is an apologetic view that Blackbourn is not willing to take. Instead, his question about the continuation of history is not 'whether' but 'in which ways'

(p. 29). Since schools, in all societies, reflect the societies in which they function (Dewey, 1937; Epstein, 1992; Jones, 1991;

Lawson, 1965; Ringer, 1979; Schriever, 1988; Spring, 1990), educational historians could also benefit from this approach to viewing the German schools as having evolved not through a linear development but through the result of conflicts among the competing strata within German society.

It is from the perspective of competing strata in German society that this account of the schools, and the church influence in them, is written. It is also written from the perspective that there was more than one possible turning point, more than one occasion, for schools to disentangle themselves of their bonds with the churches, and that these missed occasions had sometimes negative results for religious minorities. Only with a systematic study of those missed 22 occasions, and of those groups in favor of church influence and those opposed to it, of what the influence has entailed, of whether the influence still continues, and the results of the church influence in schools on religious minorities, can one evaluate a state's establishment and maintenance of a religious civil religion in a public school, its consequent effect on religious minorities, and its relevancy to democratic education.

SECTION ONE: PROM THE PROMISES OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT TO THE PRACTICE OP ROMANTICISM: 1794 to 1871

The abolition of confessional schools from 1794 to 1871 was not to be realized. There is a generalization which aptly describes the attitude toward religious instruction in the school system in German lands from 1794 to 1871. When there were increased hopes that ideals acquired from the

Enlightenment would translate into school policy, enlightened members of religious minority groups moved toward promulgating secular schools, while at the same time, conservatives of those same minorities held fast to the confessional nature of schooling. Conversely, when there were fears that ideals acquired during the Enlightenment were to be realized, members of the religious majority advocated more church interference in the schools (Prestel, 1989). Upon German unification, church influence in German schools continued as it always had, 23

with only minor revisions, although not without controversy.

Given the promises held out to minority groups, and the fears

which those promises engendered in majority groups from 1794

to 1871, the differing approaches to continued church

influence in the schools upon unification is not surprising.

It is to an understanding of those differing approaches that

this account now turns.

The history of German culture can be viewed in terms of

Zerrissenheit, or "torn condition" (Pinson, p. 3), which

increasingly became a part of German thought at the turn of

the 19th century. The Enlightenment, which was characterized by a belief in natural law, reason, and progress, sparked the

French Revolution. Paradoxically, the Revolution also marked

the birth of the Romantic Movement in Germany. From the outset German intellectuals supported the Revolution in principle, but also saw that the defense against the 1806

French invasion of Prussia was to "fight fire with fire," or rather, to fight the Revolution with reform. Prussian

Chancellor Karl von Hardenberg felt "It is an illusion to think that we can resist the revolution effectively by clinging more closely to the old order" (in Pinson, p. 33) , and advocated the liberation of Jews, the abolition of serfdom, and more freedom of movement to peasants. The aristocracy, still clinging to the Romantic traditions of the past for authority, was forced to allow some influences from 24 the Enlightenment to enter into popular culture in order to preserve its traditional authority. It was no wonder that "As soon as the French revolutionary armies began to extend their domain outward, these universal humanitarian aspects (of the

Enlightenment) began to lose their meaning" (Pinson, p. 28).

Not only was this the case in the administration of territories, but also true with school policy.

In 1794 Prussia passed the Allgemeine Landrecht which, despite its bold declaration that schools and universities were to be henceforth state - and not church - institutions, had little effect on the actual practices of schools in the nineteenth century. Schooling in Germany was, and is, a state affair, but the codification of Prussian legislation was followed by other German states.

Despite this legislation, schools remained organized along confessional lines: Protestant schools were staffed by

Protestant teachers and attended by Protestant students;

Catholics schools were staffed by Catholic teachers and attended by Catholic students. This was the same as with

Jewish schools and with the schools for other religious minority members. Schools were still to be inspected by clergy of the same profession, and clergy still had it within their power to hire and fire teaching staff. This law forbade the exclusion of any child from a school based upon his/her religious orientation, and it excused children of 25 religious minorities from classes in religious instruction, provided that their parents instructed them in their religion at home. These elements of the law were not to be realized until the post-World War Two era in Germany.

The Allgemeine Landrecht was to have put the state in the dominant role over the command of the school system vis-a-vis the church, and as such, to have separated the administration of the schools from the church. This too, was not to have been realized throughout the nineteenth century. Minster

Wollner, head of the Prussian schools, was unsure of the extent to which the Prussian authorities were willing to allow the schools to be reformed. He issued an edict to teachers in

1794, the same year in which schools were to have been separated from church control, "reminding them that indifference and skepticism had raised havoc in the schools, and that they should remember it was their duty to educate the children to be Christians" (Helmreich, p. 35). Furthermore,

Gymnasium (secondary school) teachers had to declare an oath before assuming their teaching positions:

I ______, promise and swear solemnly before God the omnipresent that after I have been made teacher at the school of ______by His Majesty, my most gracious Lord, and by my superior, I will take it on my conscience as my holy and constant duty at all times to avoid carefully everything through which I might strengthen the youth in disdain for the Christian religion, Holy Writ and public church service, and, needless to say, to avoid leading them to this; but even more to contribute with all my power to the end that love for religion, submission to its 26

precepts and true godliness shall ever more rule among youth. I promise especially; that I, neither in or outside my teaching hours, in writing or orally, either directly or indirectly, will introduce anything against Holy Writ, against the Christian religion, or against the provincial ruling and ordinances in religion and church matters (in Helmreich, p. 35).

On the one hand, the Allgemeine Landrecht, in establishing

that the state, and not the churches, was to be the dominant

authority in school affairs, confirmed the influences of the

Enlightenment; on the other hand, the influences from the

Enlightenment were acceptable only if the old order could

remain intact and if these influences did not threaten the

status quo. The school system was made a de jure institution

of the state, but remained a de facto institution of the

church (Lamberti, 1989, p. 13) due to the religious

instruction and upbringing which took place in the schools, clergy inspections of the schools, and the religiously homogeneous make up of students and teachers.

Influenced by the age of the Enlightenment in which they lived, educational reformers such as William von Humboldt and

Friedrich August Wolf began to argue that schools should reflect the new Humanism, and inasmuch, should emphasize that reality could be understood through reason. By definition, humanists placed less emphasis on religious orthodoxy, and more emphasis on secular schooling. Humboldt and Wolf argued unsuccessfully for the freeing of universities and Gymnasien from the influence of the church. Frederick Schleiermacher, an educational reformer in

Berlin, also questioned whether religious instruction should be taught in the schools, thinking instead that instruction was the duty of the church and the home (Helmreich, p. 48).

Even he favored the inclusion of the church's continued presence in schools, however, reasoning that "it was necessary to have a tie between more advanced scientific learning and religious education" (Helmreich, p. 48) . Nevertheless, he did not want schools to be confessional, and instead advocated the teaching of pan-Christianity, or rather, codes upon which all

Christians, regardless of sect, could agree. Schleiermacher was influential in the abolition of religious examinations for the Abitur (school leaving exam) in Prussian Gymnasien, but this exam was reintroduced in 1834.

In Nassau too, reforms were under way. As a result of the

Napoleonic War, the two duchies of Nassau-Usingen and Nassau-

Weilburg were consolidated and joined the Confederation of the

Rhine. Two relatively homogeneous populations become one religiously heterogeneous population. A school edict of 1817 decreed that schools should not be organized along confessional lines. These nonconfessional schools were to have united the population and to bring uniformity to school administration. These new schools, to be called

Simultanschulen, had Protestant and Catholic students and teachers, the number according to the percentage of students 28

from either religion. These Simultanschulen, in which

children were to receive general instruction together but were

to be separated for religious instruction based on the

students' religious orientation, became the model for many

school systems in post-World War Two Germany.

The introduction of this new school type "instead of

solving the problem of the relationship of church, state, and

school, only increased its complexity" (Helmreich, p. 41).

Debates as to the appropriateness of the Simultanschulen in

Nassau began almost immediately after their establishment, and

in various forms, have continued in post-World War Two

Germany. The Simultanschule was advocated by reform-minded humanists who insisted that this school type would create tolerance in the heterogeneous population. However, this school type was also advocated by those who feared too many influences from the Enlightenment, namely, the Princes, who saw in the Simultanschulen a way to unite the population in its feelings of loyalty to the state. Additionally, many members of religious minorities were in favor of these schools, since attendance at them was often more readily accessible than was attendance at a school of one's same confession (Helmreich, 40).

Church authorities defended confessional schools, fearing that the presence of Simultanschulen would translate into a diminished role for the churches in school affairs. 29

Additionally, they argued that certain portrayals of history,

for instance, the Reformation, would be taught from a perspective which might anger some parents, and that "The

Simultanschule above all disrupted the common spirit which

ought to pervade all instruction" (Helmreich, p. 40).

The Simultanschule, although permitted in Baden in 1834,

and parts of Poznan, Hesse, Bavaria and Alsace-Lorraine after

1871, did not remove religious instruction from the schools, nor did it damage the confessional nature of schooling, as

those in favor of confessional schooling dominated the discussions up until the Third Reich's attack on the churches.

Although Prussia took a theoretically different approach

toward the role of the churches in school affairs, the result was that the practice remained as it always had. When

Prussian Chancellor Karl von Hardenberg merged the departments for church and school affairs upon his establishment of the

Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs in 1817, he effectively acknowledged that in Prussia a separation of church and school functions could not be made (Lamberti, p.

14) .

The Chancellor appointed Karl von Altenstein to the

Ministry, who immediately introduced reforms. Between 1817 and 1840, his years in office, he was able to meet the increasing demands of teachers to professionalize their field through reforms in teacher training and the implementation of 30

a teacher certification process. Despite Von Altenstein's program, his reforms fell short of threatening the status quo,

as from the outset he made it clear that reforms which would threaten the status quo, in this case a move to Simultan

schooling, would be allowed only as the exception. On April

27, 1822, he gave state legitimacy to the confessional school

system which had always been the practice:

Experience has taught us that in the interconfessional schools the principal element of education, religion, is not properly fostered, and it lies in the nature of these schools that this can not happen. The aim of promoting greater tolerance among diverse religious believers through such schools is seldom or never achieved; rather any tension which breaks out among the teachers and the parents of the school children degenerates too easily into religious dissension, which often tears an entire community apart (in Lamberti, p. 16; in Ronne, 1855, p. 360).

Simultanschulen were, however, allowed in Poznan, and in West

Prussia, where the Polish nationality had been ruled by

Prussia since the late eighteenth century. When Provincial

Governor Eduard von Flottwell of Poznan argued that confessional schooling undermined his efforts to create in the population a sense of loyalty to Prussia, von Altenstein declared in a July 20, 1834 directive that Simultanschulen were to be allowed in this region, but still as "never more than the exception."

The Provincial Governor of West Prussia, Theodor von Schon, also supported a petition against von Altenstein's directive for confessional schools, stating that having to separate 31

Catholic and Protestant school children, in a district where over half the schools were Simultanschulen, would increase

school maintenance costs. Additionally, he declared that confessional schools were: an unfortunate regression for the culture of the province because the schools that unite the youth without distinction in respect to religion have happily served to tie more firmly the bonds of love and harmony among diverse believers of the Christian faith, to enliven tolerance and mutual trust, and to ensure that these salutary fruits of education are carried over later into civic life (in Lamberti, p. 17).

Despite such convincing arguments for the continuation of interconfessional schooling in Poznan and in West Prussia, von

Altenstein did not back down on his 1822 directive that interconfessional schools could only be the exception and not the rule. In maintaining the confessional nature of schooling, the school administrators were able to prevent the development of private and parochial schools, and thus ensured that the schools would, then and in later years, suit the needs of the state.

The practice of clergy inspections, a practice which was increasingly under fire from the newly professionalized teachers, was crucial to the protection of confessional schooling. Clergy inspections of schools were criticized because, rather than concentrating on pedagogical techniques, the clergy limited its concern to religious instruction and to the teachers' moral character (Lamberti, p 14) . Additionally, 32

school facilities were more often than not inadequate, as the

clerical inspectors feared that requests for increased school

funds to improve these facilities would be met with anger from

their parishioners. Despite the inadequacies of clerical

inspection, von Altenstein did not change this practice, as it

"was the conviction that the church was an indispensable

influence of social order and political stability in the state

and that the purposes that the state and the church sought to

accomplish in the schools could not be considered as

different" {Lamberti, p, 16) . Equally important to the

continuation of clerical inspections was that the state was

unwilling to allocate funds for lay inspectors. Instead, von

Altenstein was intent on strengthening their qualifications.

Hence, while acknowledging that the clerical inspectors and

clerical teachers were inadequate, by a 1842 decree,

candidates for clerical office had to prove their ability to

teach religion and other subjects in schools. Two years later teachers, including clergymen, were required to attend a normal school for six to eight weeks.

For a long time teachers had agitated for higher pay, the professionalization of teaching (with a consequent decrease in the authority of the non-professional clergy), a halt to school inspections by clerical authority, and a subsequent halt to the practice of having their conduct reported upon by these clerical authorities (Lamberti, p. 27) . Teachers 33 consolidated their demands for reforms in these areas at the

National Assembly on April 26, 1848, and at the National

Assembly on July 21, 1849. Teachers, many of them Democrats, urged that henceforth the schools should be institutions of the state, that the state should supervise the schools, and that lay people should be responsible for their inspection.

Six hundred petitions, signed by mostly Catholic parents in the Rhine Province and in Westphalia, influenced the delegates of the National Assembly not to adopt this school policy

(Lamberti, p. 28).

In 1848 Heinrich von Miihler and Ferdinand Stiel, councillor in the Ministry of Education, wrote that the "state's interest in the education of its citizens were too vital to permit an unrestricted liberty for private instruction. . . " (in Lamberti, p. 30) . The government dissolved the National Assembly before these issues had been decided upon.

The elections of February, 1849, resulted in a conservative majority in Parliament, and therefore increased the influence of Catholics. In a revised constitutional draft of September

28, 1850, Minister of Education Ladenberg, having been convinced that nonconfessional schooling would not be supported by Catholic parents, argued that nonconfessional schools would "prevent a unified development of the school system and (would) remove a large part of the popular education from the influence of the state, would make the plan 34 to exclude religious instruction from the school to appear inexpedient and questionable even if other reasons did not speak against it" {in Lamberti, p. 30).

In an 1850 draft of a school bill, the state's dominant role in the schools was reaffirmed, but the school authorities were to have complied with church authorities in curricula matters. Additionally, the state was to have had the right to appoint lay teachers and inspectors. This was to have been a victory for religious minorities, in that this draft included a stipulation that in districts with over sixty children of the same faith, confessional schools had to be established and maintained at public expense. Protestants accepted this draft. Catholics did not. The result was that the revised draft died before having ever been introduced to the National

Assembly, and Ladenberg, under intense fire from the

Catholics, resigned.

Teachers in the Progressive party, who had for a long time advocated the abolition of church influence in the schools, were said to be among the causes of Germany's problems.

Echoing this sentiment was Frederick William IV, who in 1850, while addressing Prussian teachers, proclaimed that:

All the misery which has come to Prussia during the past years is to be credited to you and only you. You deserve the blame for the godless pseudoeducation of the common people which you have been propagating as the only true wisdom and by means of which you have destroyed faith and loyalty in the minds of my subjects and turned their hearts away from me... These 35

[teachers'] seminaries, every one, must be removed from the large cities to the small villages, in order that they may be kept away from the unholy influence which is poisoning our times... I am not afraid of the populace, but my bureaucratic government... is being undermined and poisoned by these unholy doctrines of a modern, frivolous, secular wisdom (in Stern, 1961, p. 75) . Thereafter, it was the Conservative Party's view that the

state and church had to work together to restore the moral

standard to public life, a moral standard which Romantics

increasingly felt had been absent for a long time in German

society. In 1858, Moritz von Bethmann Hollweg, the newly appointed

Minister of Education, announced to the House of Deputies that a new school law would be enacted. The Progressive Party, which consisted of mostly urban professionals, demanded that this new school bill should be rid of church influence in the schools. Among the members of the Progressive Party, Rudolph

Gneist argued that the society was no longer homogeneous, and that continued domination of church influence in the schools would further divide the population:

Under the name of religious instruction the ecclesia militants should not enter the school in order to reproach and fight other religious believers who are compelled by the state to send their children to these institutions (in Lamberti, p. 34).

Von Bethmann Hollweg, under increased fire from the conservatives, resigned in March, 1862, having failed to bring about his promised school law. Conservative Heinrich von Miihler, von Bethmann Hollweg's

successor, decided not to present a school law until he had been assured that the influence of the Progressives had waned and until he had established that Prussia would have domination over legislation. The time came with the North

German Confederation in 1867. Von Miihler1 s school bill made

it clear that schools would continue to be confessional and that clerical inspections would continue. Miihler argued that

"any attempt to dissolve the intimate relationship between education and religion, the school and the church, in our nation would be an impossibility" (in Lamberti, p. 37). The

Progressives revised the school bill, but by the time that they sent it back to the legislative committee, the legislative session had ended.

The result of the failures to enact a school law after decades of attempts, was that upon unification in 1871, the traditional relationship which had existed between church and state in school affairs was never seriously threatened - and this was true despite the Allgemeine Landrecht of 1794, which officially affirmed the dominant role of the state in school issues. Upon unification, confessional schooling remained as it always had, despite concerns raised by progressive-thinking reformers that confessional schooling did not unite the population and instill tolerance among the population. And confessional schooling remained, despite concerns of advocates of the old order, who thought that schools should cater to the states' interests of unifying the population. Inasmuch as they knuckled under to church authorities, who threatened that parents would opt out of public schools by opening private parochial school, which would not have suited the needs of the state, the upholders of the old order were the harbingers of

Bismarck's Realpolitik. And with the accession of

Realpolitik, the promises of the Enlightenment were dimmed by an increasingly restive population which clamored for a return to an idealized time before progress, before rationality, and before urbanization, all of which were seen to have been brought on by the Jewish population.

Confessional Schooling and the Jewish Population: Unfulfilled Promises Stemming from the Enlightenment: 1794-1871

Provisions for Jewish confessional schools were not much more unequal than were provisions for small minority Christian sects (Helmreich, p. 46) . However, because the Jewish minority was Germany's most visible, and because actions against the Jewish population prior to and during the

Holocaust were so extreme, the researcher has concentrated on the effects of confessional schooling and religious instruction on the Jewish minority up until post-World War Two

Germany. 38

The Jewish community in Germany had positions which ran

along the continuum between total assimilation and total

separatism. An examination of these positions reveals the differing approaches toward confessional schooling along this

same continuum, and will lead to some generalizations which

can be made about the Jewish population's attraction to and

rejection of confessional schooling upon unification.

By the late eighteenth century, as Napoleon began extending his influence outward, the world for the Jews in Germany and elsewhere seemed to be changing for the better. As Jews welcomed what they inferred would be a triumph of the

Enlightenment, many moved toward assimilation, but still others wanted to remain separated from German society,

"Everything pointed toward liberation and integration, exhilarating to free spirits and appalling to the orthodox

(Gay, 1992, p. 118) . The move toward secularization left more orthodox Jews fearful that "Communal organization, the ceremony of circumcision, secular education, the prevalence of

Yiddish - indeed, the very survival of Judaism as a religion - were put into question" (Gay, p. 118).

Historian Ragins (1980) wrote of an "emancipation ideology" which was not merely a reiteration of the Enlightenment, but was an ideology which reform-minded people attempted to apply directly to the question of German Jewry. The ideology dealt with the "claims for civil emancipation based on universal 39

reason and the necessity for restructuring Jewish life in

order to create a new kind of Jew who would be able to merit

and enjoy emancipation.. (p. 3).

Moses Mendelssohn, typical of those adhering to the

'emancipation ideology,1 "thought that its realization would

occur when Jews were given a secular education - when they

acquired 'an improvement in manners morals and taste,' along

with the retention of 'tradition.' This would allow for the

'achievement of the dignity requisite to operate within the

educated gentile society'1' (in Berkowitz, 1993, p. 3).

Wilhelm Dohm argued that "the restrictions placed on Jews

squeezed them into commerce as their only means of livelihood,

into social isolation, separate school systems, and hence

alienation from society" (in Gay, p. 102) . The acceptance of

the "emancipation ideology" by a large segment of the Jewish

population resulted in lessened Jewish demand for equitable

schooling.

David Friedlander, expressing the hopes of the

Enlightenment to a preposterous level, argued that the Jewish and Christian religions were not that different and that

therefore Judaism should be considered a branch of

Christianity. Thinking that only the rituals and customs of

Jews and Christians were different, Friedlander, together with

Isaak Daniel Itzig, opened the judische Freyschule (Jewish

Free School) in Berlin in 1778, with the objective to teach Jews how to participate in Christian culture. The curriculum

of the school, decidedly secular, included lessons in French,

German and Hebrew, history and handwork. Handwork was taught

so that students could enter professions heretofore forbidden

to Jews. The Emancipation Proclamations (1811 in Frankfurt,

and 1812 in Prussia) notwithstanding, it must be noted that

"Da den Juden die meisten handwerklichen Berufe vershlossen blieben, ergriff ein GroEteil der Schuler einen kaufmannischen

Beruf" (Prestel, p. 61).2 The school increasingly came under parental fire for emphasizing handwork. Many thought

that "die Juden keiner profanen Bildung bedurften, da sie von

den meisten Berufen ausgeschlossen waren" (Prestel, p. 68).3

By 1817, the school had increased its Christian students to sixteen out of eighty-nine students, most of whom attended because it was free (Prestel, p. 61). The school closed in

1825 due to financial difficulties. Nevertheless, it had provided an example of "die Bildung einer Briicke zur Aufnahme der Juden in die christliche Gesellschaft" (Prestel, p. 61).4

The establishment of other secular Jewish schools soon followed the establishment of the jiidische Freyschule -

2Because most Jews were closed out of handwork jobs, most of the students entered commercial professions.

3The Jews did not need a profane general education, since most professions were closed to them.

4"the building of a bridge to the acceptance of the Jew in Christian company". 41

Breslau, (1791); Dessau (1799); Seesen (1801); and Kassel

(1809). The schools tended toward secularization through the

teaching of secular subjects and handwork, and for this reason were criticized by the orthodox Jews who feared assimilation.

The schools were to have helped the Jewish child be "worthy"

of the new tolerance of assimilated Jews.

For all the promises held out by the Enlightenment, most

Jews at the turn of the nineteenth century could not foretell

that "As soon as the French revolutionary armies began to extend their domain outward, these universal humanitarian aspects began to lose their meaning (Pinson, p. 28). It was the struggle to contain the French Revolution, and so too the

ideas of the Enlightenment, that encouraged "German

Romanticism (which) became an ideological weapon against the foreigner, against French nationalism, and against the revolutionary spirit" (Pinson, p. 40) . Romanticism was a movement against the Enlightenment; it represented an emphasis on fate, destiny, God, unreason, and tradition. As such,

Romanticism was to become the bulwark of German nationalism and unity, and the ideological weapon against the integration of Jews, who were seen as the beneficiaries of the French

Revolution, and who were therefore increasingly made the scapegoats for unwanted progressive and urban influences.

The Prussian edict of March 11, 1812, which officially granted equal legal status to Prussia's Jews, did not resolve 42 the educational concerns of the Jewish population. Paragraph

39, "indicated that the government preferred for the present to postpone 'the necessary regulations regarding the ecclesiastical status of the Jews and the improvement of their education'" (Meyer, 1980, p. 101).

The idea that the secular schools should bridge a gap between the religious and secular world for Jews, in part through the Jews' acquaintance with non-Jewish students, was not to be allowed. Jewish schools in Prussia, for instance, were recognized by law as being entitled to public support on

June 23, 1847. However, this public support would only be provided if attendance at Jewish schools was limited to Jewish children. This provision was clearly a step backward for tolerance, as the Prussian Allgemeine Landrecht of 1794 had years earlier stated that no child could be denied admittance into a school because of his or her religious belief. Parents of children attending Jewish schools were not obligated to pay school taxes for the state school system.

Many parents did send their children to public schools, either because establishing a Jewish school was an impracticality in places where there were few Jews, or because of the parents' integrationist philosophy. Sending one's child to public schools was problematic for the Jewish parent because provisions for Jewish instruction were not on equal footing with provisions for Christian instruction: 43

where the Jewish community had not erected its own schools, Jewish children attended the regular Christian public schools. Nowhere were they obligated to attend religious classes, but on the other hand they were supposed to receive equivalent religious instruction either at home or through the Jewish congregation (Helmreich, p. 47).

Whereas Christian instruction was state supported, Jewish

instruction was not, and the Jewish community was compelled to

provide and support that instruction.

Not only were there economic problems facing the Jewish

parents in sending their children to public schools while

being compelled to provide religious instruction outside of

school. There was also the problem that the public schools

were, by law, to have a Christian basis. The problem for

Jewish students in confessional Vorschulen in Berlin was

expressed by Moritz Veit in November, 1840:

Alle Lesebucher, also auch die Leseubungen sind religios, meist wird Bibelgeschichte gelesen, aus der auch der Stoff zu Aufsatzen entlehnt wird. Es werden christlich religiose Lieder gesungen, christlich religiose Lieder und Bibelstellen, meist neutestammentliche, werden, zur Ubung des Gedclchtnisses, auswendig gelernt (in Prestel, p. 218) .5

And in some schools, teachers acted as Christian missionaries,

and children of minority religions were forced to participate

in Christian instruction (Prestel, p. 218) . Jews could attend

5All the reading material, indeed, all of the reading exercises, are religious; mostly Bible stories are read; also stuff borrowed from stanzas. Christian religious songs are sung, Christian religious songs and Bible postures, mostly from the New Testament, to practice memorization and to learn by heart. 44

Simultanschulen, but in almost all cases, despite that these

school were officially nonconfessional, they were confessional

by the very fact that the majority of teachers and students

were of the same religion.

After the Revolution of 1848, hopes were raised from all

quarters of the German-Jewish community that equal rights

would free Jews from the burden of community rule, and

therefore of community taxation - a taxation which, as has

been noted, forced the Jewish communities to maintain their

own schools, whereas Christians did not have to maintain their

own schools. Echoing the sentiments of much of German-Jewry,

Rabbi Leopold Stein declared:

We are and want only to be Germans! We wish for no other fatherland than Germany! We are Israelites only by faith; in every other respect and in the deepest sense, we belong to the state in which we live (in Gay, p. 152).

Such sentiments notwithstanding, the question of Jewish rights

was thrown back to the individual states with Friedrich

Wilhelm's refusal to rule by the will of the people over a united Germany. The result was that Jews in Prussia were granted "legal equality" in 1850. However Prussia, where two

thirds of German-Jewry lived, was officially a Christian

state, and Jews were still officially prohibited from serving as civil servants, university professors, and army officers until 1871. Few of the other states were willing to grant 45

immediate equality to the Jews who were considered to have, in

part, instigated the Revolution and/or benefitted from it.

As 1871 approached, there had been an almost century-old

debate about church influence in the schools, and about

confessional schooling in general. The result of these

debates leading up to 1871 reveals that the Jewish minority

did not have the same self-determination along the continuum

between assimilation and separatism as did the Christian

population, and in light of the church influence in the

schools. The more frightened the general population became

that progressivism, modernity, rationality, and urbanity - all

aspects of the Enlightenment - would translate into school policy, the more church authorities, the Catholic population, much of the Protestant population, and Orthodox Jews

successfully coveted the confessional nature of the schools.

The more that "Enlightened citizens" - Jews aspiring toward assimilation, and progressives made up mostly of the professional classes, including teachers - felt that progress toward a tolerant society was imminent, the more they clamored

for the secularization of the schools and for a loosening of the schools from church influence. Conservative leaders, for the most part made up of the Prussian aristocracy and Junkers, supported the close relationship between the church and the state, and were willing to introduce reforms only to the extent that they would help to maintain the status quo. With 46

Bismarck at the helm, many conservatives increasingly began to believe that loyalty to the Catholic Church and loyalty to the

state represented opposite allegiances. By 1871, the newly- unified Germany was ripe for the Kulturkampf, and by

definition for a new relationship between the church and the

state. Many factions which resisted the Kulturkampf were ripe

to target scapegoats for all of Germany's ills. A discussion

of the competing strata over school policy vis-a-vis the

churches' influence in the schools from 1871-1914 will follow.

SECTION TWO: 1871-1914: THE LAYING OF THE GROUNDWORK OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "APPROVED" AND "TOLERATED" RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES AND RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE IN THE SCHOOLS

The Kulturkampf:__ Doomed from the Start

As the Kulturkampf illustrates, the continued influence of religion in the German schools can not be seen merely as a continued mandate from "above" in its battle against Social

Democracy, as some historians (Meyer, 1976; Nichols, 1958;

Rohl, 1967; Titze, 1973) have maintained. While this was a critical element to the continued religious influence, other factors included the intense religious feelings of many

Germans at the time and the prevalent role of the church in political society (Field, 1980; Lamberti).

The conflicts about schools can be viewed as mirroring the fragmentation in politics and in society as a whole from 1871 47

to 1914. The conflicts were, in part, rightly stated by historian Pinson as being between supporters of "revolution

from above" and supporters of "revolution from below"; however, by viewing class and political membership during a

time in which party membership multiplied from 1871 until

1914, one observes that this viewpoint does not tell the whole

story. It was often the case that, due to religious particularism, loyalty to political parties transcended class

interests, nowhere more so than in the battles over the

churches' role in the schools.

The Second Reich's establishment in 1871 posed new problems

for the unification of school forms and content among the different Lander, whose school types until this time had

reflected the diversity of the individual states themselves.

With unification however, many "from above" began to view the

institutionalization of a unified school system to be a potential unifying force toward Germany's greatness.

Nevertheless, not all Lander were to have an equal voice

concerning the terms of unification:

the Constitution, signed on January 18, 1871, was drafted for Bismarck with little input from the Prussian Ministers. Additionally, the state formed in 1871 was not a truly national state in the sense that the nation as a whole was the bearer of the political life of the country. What happened was that the old Prussian state was enlarged to include all the other entering states and the rule of the Prussian army and bureaucracy was extended to this larger domain (Pinson, p. 157) . 48

Hence, in the enlarged Germany, "Parliamentarianism was absent" (p. 164). Now the conflicts over school content centered on the spectrum of political parties, whose conflicts had been urged on by Bismarck's intrigues. Two Vatican declarations provided the catalyst for an attack on the

Catholic church from Bismarck and both the National Liberals and Progressives. The first declaration was the Vatican Decree of Papal

Infallibility of 1870. It is highly probable that Bismarck was not greatly disturbed by this decree (Eyck). Always more concerned with international rather than with domestic affairs, Bismarck probably used the fear of many of Germany's conservatives that the Decree of Infallibility challenged the allegiance of German Catholics to the newly-formed German

State. The Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) was Bismarck's main motivation for his attack on the church. France was the protectorate of the Vatican, and in combating the German

Catholics, he could combat the Vatican and so too France.

Bismarck needed to make a strike "at the German Catholics and through them at the Vatican, (because he) believed he could bring about the isolation of clerical France and the sealing of friendship with Russia and Italy" (Pinson, p. 187).

In an article which appeared in the Conservative Party newspaper, Kruez-Zeitung, Jesuits were accused of having begun the Franco-Prussian War and of having a heavy hand in the 49

decree of Papal Infallibility. In January of 1872, Bismarck

ordered the dissolution of the order of the Jesuits, and the

banishment of all Jesuits from German soil.

The Kulturkampf was nowhere more played out than in the

schools. Bismarck felt strongly that a unified school system

was needed to maintain the authority of the state over the

church. When Bismarck appointed an official in the Ministry

of Justice, Adalbert Falk, to the task of unifying the school

system, Falk asked the Chancellor, "What am I expected to do?"

Bismarck replied, "To re-establish the rights of the State in

relation to the Church, and with as little fuss as possible"

(in Eyck, pp. 206-207) . After a series of laws enacted

against the church, Bismarck was beginning to see that his

attack on the churches was making martyrs of the Catholics and was strengthening the Catholic Center party, whose membership

transcended socio-economic class lines, mainly over the issue of religious influence in the schools. Additionally, and perhaps of more importance to Bismarck, the Franco-Prussian war had ended, and the original goal to isolate France was no longer a viable reason for his continued attack on the

Catholic church. Furthermore, Germany was in alliance with predominantly Catholic Austria, and did not want to incur the wrath of Austrian Catholics.

But perhaps the most significant reason for Bismarck's retraction of his attack had to do with political alliances. Bismarck, in perhaps the biggest blunder of his political

career, simply miscalculated the intense religious loyalty of

Conservatives to their own Protestant church, and to the role

of the churches in the schools. Rather than strengthening the

Conservative Party, the Kulturkampf had succeeded in

strengthening the Catholic Center Party and Liberals, which

had not been the intended result. Bismarck needed the Center

Party's support, and called a truce in the Reichstag session

of December 3, 1884. The state, by attacking the churches and

then retreating from that attack, increased the legitimacy of

the role of church influence in the schools. This influence

would be strengthened even more due to the Conservative agenda

in the years of Wilhelmian Germany (1890-1914) .

Conservative Fear of Social Democracy: 1871-1914

Bismarck's resignation in March 1890 cleared the way for

the Prussian cabinet's authorization of a school law in

November of that same year which, had it passed, would have made "the elementary schools useful in counteracting the

spread of Socialist and Communist ideas" (Lamberti, p. 157).

On December 4, 1890, Kaiser Wilhelm II addressed a Prussian

conference of educators. His address had three issues: The

first was that "the secondary schools had failed to adapt to

the changing needs of industrializing Germany and thus were 51 not providing the coming generation with adequate training for what he called 'the current demands of our world position'".

The second issue was that the '"excess of mental work'" was not producing a "'robust generation who can also serve as the intellectual leaders and officials of the nation,'" and that

"'I (Kaiser Wilhelm II) am looking for soldiers'" (in

Albisetti, p. 3) ! Thirdly, Wilhelm II wanted to "'make German the basis for the Gymnasium; we should raise young Germans, not young Greeks and Romans'" (in Albisetti, p. 3).

At first glance this bold initiative to catapult the schools into the more technologically-advanced late nineteenth century seemed to be in conflict with the oft-quoted decree of

1892, which proclaimed the Christian orientation of the schools:

We consider the confessional Christian Volksschule the foundation of the education of the people and the most important guarantee against the increasing degeneration of the masses and the progressive dissolution of all bonds of society. We oppose the often forward-pushing and divisive Jewish influence on our Volksschulen. We demand for a Christian people a Christian government and Christian teachers for Christian pupils (in Helmreich, p. 66).

There is, however, no conflict inherent in these decrees. The first was to have established that secondary schools, for the children of the elite, would aid Germany in preparing to assume its greatness on the world stage. The second decree was meant for the elementary schools, attended by the masses, and about whom a ministerial advisor, Munchmeyer, said, "Where there is no desire for reading, don't stimulate it! It is not desirable that peasants read newspapers" (in Field, p. 44).

The Free Conservative and National Liberal Parties, being advocates of secularization, praised the school bill because it omitted mention of the traditional confessional nature of the schools and did not require that school teachers be of the same confession as their students. Because of the secular tone of the Bill, the Center Party saw it as a return to

Bismarck's Kulturkampf. The Bill's passage was dependent upon the alignment of the Conservatives, who objected to "the standards used in levying communal taxes, (and) the assessment of the state tax on incomes and property" (Lamberti, p. 158).

In the end, the dissatisfaction of both the Center Party and the Conservatives caused the Minister of Education to resign and the Bill to be withdrawn, to be replaced by a bill more amenable to the Center Party. This new bill, designated the

Zedlitz School Bill, after the newly-appointed Minister of

Education, was designed to make peace with the Catholics by stressing the confessional nature of the schools, in return for the Center Party's support of the army bill and trade treaties. The Conservative Party's response to the bill was, naturally, positive since it would create a stronger military.

The Free Conservatives and National Liberals successfully applied pressure on the government in 1892 to repeal the bill since it would cause further ideological fragmentation among 53 the middle parties. The battle over the school Bill had taught the parties of the middle and right that "at a time when the government had to unite all sections of society loyal to the monarchy against Social Democracy, the enactment of the

school law did not serve the interests of the state"

(Lamberti, p. 165).

The Fragmentation of the Left: 1871-1914

Not only were the parties of the middle and the right ideologically fragmented; so too were the parties of the left, and in school issues, remained in the background from 1871 to

1914. The School Bill Compromise of 1904 between the

Conservatives, Free Conservatives, and Center Parties called for church representation on local school boards, and children to be taught by a teacher of the same confession. In return for this concession to the Center Party, maintenance of the schools would favorably impress the Free Conservatives and

Conservative Party. Protests against this new bill came mainly from the Progressive Party. Among the Social

Democrats, the working classes took little interest in the school bill. Opposition to the increasingly confessional nature of the schools which "should" have come from the Social 54

Democratic Party6, given its strong view of secularization,

was absent because "Socialist and communist mothers often

affirmed that, though they themselves did not go to church

anymore, they wanted their children to learn the Ten

Commandments and the Catechism" (Engelmann, 1945, p. 13) .

Instead of concentrating their influence in parliamentary

debates on school matters, which they felt they could not win

anyway, the Social Democrats "concentrated their energies on

the creation of educational alternatives to the Volksschule, with youth groups, cultural clubs, lecture programs, party and

trade union schools and extension courses for Arbeiterbildung"

(Lamberti, p. 199) .7

That the Social Democrats did not initially concern

themselves with school policy is hardly surprising since it was the prevailing view that the institutional moderation of capitalism, including the moderation of schools, was an impossibility (Luxemburg, 1988, p. 37) . By the time the

Social Democrats had organized resistance to the confessional nature of schools, "Practice and popular preference had made the confessional school the norm in Prussia before the party

6When the party was founded in August of 1869, among the list of its party program was "the separation of church and state and the secularization of the schools" (Pinson, p. 205) .

7The Left's establishment of non-public school organizations to propagate its theories was not unlike the Right's establishment of nationalistic youth groups such as the Wanderbund and the Wandervogel (Pinson, p. 272). politicians legally fixed it as the rule" (Lamberti, p. 209).

The shift in Social Democratic ideology from Rosa Luxemburg's theory of revolution to Eduard Bernstein's theory of evolution8 came too late to affect school policy prior to

1919. Had Bernstein's shift come earlier, the schools could have been used as tools for the reformists. As it stood, the

Social Democrat's refusal to institute a school policy from

1871 to 1914 contrasted with the school policy of the

Conservatives, who kept in place a school system heavily controlled by the influence of the churches and designed to keep the masses away from Social Democracy: "the legislative tightening of Volksschulen was guided by the belief that the

Volksschule was a crucial locus of the class struggle and that to implant Christian principles was the best deterrent against revolutionary politics" (Field, p. 45). More than anything else, the fight against Social Democracy dictated school legislation after 1890.

The Emergence of Political Romanticism

The latter part of the nineteenth century was a chaotic one for many Germans. Picturesque landscapes began to be covered

“According to Bernstein's theory of Evolution, the schools could have been used as tools for reformists to certify the masses in their quest to be like capitalists. 56 with industrial debris; increased urbanization led to feelings of social dislocation; rapid changes in technology and commerce led to confusion. Yet, with all of these changes, old institutions remained intact - the church, the monarchy, the traditional class structure. The average citizens looked around for something comforting and known, and felt that coveted institutions were being attacked by foreign elements -

Jews and Social Democrats. Both of these were, in the eyes of many Germans, and to the advantage of political parties, mostly the Conservatives, the embodiment of all that the population hated and feared: the prototype of the urban man who was unattached to the Germanic soil which the peasant so glorified, non-Christian in his beliefs and "genetic makeup", and forever clamoring for equal rights.

The Jewish Response

On April 16, 1871, by an edict affecting the entire Empire,

Jews were to have received legal status equal to that of the entire population.9 Few could foretell that within a decade an even more frightening anti-semitism would emerge in the form of political anti-semitism. Before unification, it was

9This official stamp of legal equality was not put into practice. Throughout the wilhelmian age, Jews continued to be barred from high-ranking civil service posts, were not permitted to enter into the officer's corps, and Jewish teachers were scarce. 57 the prevailing view of many Jews and most Christians that if

Jews would only change their behavior and act like Christians that they would be worthy of enjoying equal status among the

German nation. Typical among the non-Jews who held this opinion was Fichte, one of the early founders of German nationalism, who in 1793 had written that "The only way I can see to give (the Jews) civil rights is to cut off their heads in a single night and equip them with new ones devoid of every

Jewish idea" (in Ragins, p. 11; and in Meyer, 1967, p. 70) .

As frightening as such a sentiment was, it nevertheless reflected the vague notion that if Jews would change their beliefs and so too their consequent behavior, that anti semitism would cease to exist: "For Christianity, in short, the Jew was not ineradicably or perpetually doomed for exclusion and degradation" (Ragins, p. 11).

The Jewish understanding of emancipation was not to be realized upon emancipation10 because:

For the Jews, entering German civil society meant being accepted as full and equal participants in a secular state in which religious affiliation and belief were completely separated from the duties, rights, and privileges of citizenship. A secular state was one that had been dechristianized and was fully neutral with regard to religious matters, and in such a state, the Jews believed, they could legitimately preserve and express their separate religious identity (Ragins, p. 15).

l0Whether it has been realized in post-WWII Germany will be readdressed in Chapters III and V and VI. 58

Nevertheless, Treitschke, National Liberal and anti-semitic spokesperson, had a different interpretation of emancipation and:

emphasized that this did not mean the removal of Christian influence from public affairs. Christianity- still had to be the foundation of the state by acting as a moral and educational force suffusing all areas of life with religious self consciousness. The separation of church and state was defended by them [National Liberals] as a means of strengthening Christianity, of deepening it and allowing its influence to pervade the life of every citizen {Ragins, p. 17) ,11

In 1879 Treitschke wrote that the Jews posed a threat to the

German nation because of their "national" traits which were alien to the German nation (Ragins, p. 15). Treitschke's attack was powerful because it came from within the liberal circle, and as such, he made anti-semitism acceptable in

Protestant liberal circles. Additionally, his attack was made on the emancipated Jew, the one who had acculturated the emancipation ideology.

The Protestant liberal notion that there should be a separation of church and state but that Christianity should nevertheless "pervade the life of every citizen" dealt a death blow to the traditional alliance which had existed between

“This Protestant liberal notion, that Germanic culture can not and should not be separated from Christianity - and indeed that Christianity should be infused in all social institutions - is a common theme in post-WWII schooling. This theme, and its results for religious minorities in post-World War II German schools, will be readdressed in Chapters III, V, and VI. 59 Protestant liberals and Jews. Dating back a century to

Mendelssohn and earlier, the Jewish interpretation of emancipation was that the separation of church and state would mean having the same rights and obligations as had Christian citizens while at the same time having the right to maintain

Jewish distinctiveness. But even Protestants who were generally not sympathetic to Trietschke did agree with him that there was no longer cause for Jewish distinctiveness.

The 1880's was to see a different wave of anti-semitism - racial antisemitism - and, because of its virulence and politicalization, was much more threatening to the Jewish population than had been previous forms of anti-semitism.

These "racial" anti-semites had a spokesperson in Paul de

Lagarde, who, in 1887, wrote of the Jews that "One does not negotiate with trichinae and bacilli, nor does one educate trichinae and bacilli; they are exterminated as speedily and as thoroughly as possible" (in Stern, p. 63).

Adolf Stocker, founder of the far right Christian Social

Movement, was able to arouse popular support for his anti- semitic platform:

I have emphasized that the social revolution has to be overcome by healthy social reform, built on Christian foundation...I do not want culture that is not Germanic and Christian. That's why I am fighting against Jewish supremacy (in Massing, 1949, p. 41).

Stocker's election to the Reichstag raised new fears within the Jewish community. In 1893 the anti-semitic party of 60

Nurnberg and the surrounding area was founded. By 1913 there was a total of seventeen anti-semitic parties in Germany

(Prestel, p. 53). Despite the politicalization of anti-semitism, Field argues that by viewing the decreasing numbers of Jewish schools from the 1830s to 1922 (Table 1) , one can conclude that many still held to the emancipation ideology (p. 66) .“

Table 1 - Numbers of Jewish Schools in Prussia: 1830-1922 Year Number of Schools 1886 318 1901 244 1911 219 1921 153 1926 96

Helmreich noted that "on the whole the educational opportunities for Jews steadily improved in the years after

1871," and "That there was some discrimination against them

(the Jews), notably in the appointment of teachers, was inevitable in school systems which legally and historically were organized on a confessional Christian basis" (p. 66).

“Comparisons of Jewish schooling during interwar Poland provide credence to Fields' correlation. The more that one believed that the "emancipation ideology" would be a reality, the more likely were one's children to attend non-Jewish schools. Conversely, orthodox, and Zionist schools were established to withstand the consequences of the emancipation ideology being carried out, or in the event that it was not (Simel, 1991). Despite the hopes that the emancipation proclamation would grant full equality for Jews, this was not realized. By an

1886 decree, religious instruction for Christian minority public school students was made compulsory if there were at least twelve minority students in one school. This Christian instruction would be funded by the state. There was no such provision for Jewish instruction. The Jewish population was still responsible for the religious instruction of its children, and although some funds for this came from public money, the majority of schools were funded by the Jewish community itself.

In 1898, three board members of the Deutsch-Israelitischer

Gemeindebund, the representative body of Orthodox Jewry, met

Ministerial Director Dr. Kiigler, head of the Education

Department of Prussia, to petition for a change in the status of Jewish instruction. Kiigler reminded the Jewish representatives of the Jewish community's obligation, based on the 1847 decree, to provide and maintain Jewish instruction for Jewish children. While acknowledging that this obligation would certainly be a hardship, especially for distressed

Jewish communities in rural areas, Kiigler added that "I have no means at my disposal for subventions to the Jewish communities to hire religious teachers" {in Birnbaum, 1980, p.

163) . On the one hand Prussian legislation made religious instruction obligatory; on the other hand it was only willing 62

to support Protestant and Catholic instruction, while at the

same time acknowledging that the financial burden of

instructing Jewish children represented a hardship for Jewish

communities. Ktigler did, however, propose that in rural areas

where there were at least twelve Jewish children, that

Christian school societies voluntarily teach Jewish

instruction to Jewish children, despite that regulations and practice had prohibited Jewish teachers form teaching

Christian children secular as well as religious subjects.

Kuger's proposal shows the unwillingness of Prussian

authorities to place Jewish instruction on an equal par with

Christian instruction:

The decree displays the hypocrisy typical of the Prussian government. It insisted on the different treatment of Jewish and Christian religious minorities in the schools and while professing the will to help, imposed plainly impossible conditions on such assistance. It was obvious that there would hardly be a school-society - itself needy - willing to assume the responsibility suggested in the decree, especially since the small and poor Jewish communities almost never had the required minimum of twelve children in any one school (Birnbaum, p. 165).

The 1908 budget of the Ministry for Religious Affairs included for the first time provisions for the support of

Jewish instruction. These provisions, called the

Resolutionsfonds, stipulated that needy Jewish communities could receive state subsidies for Jewish religious instruction. The Deutsch-Israelitischer Gemeindebund asked that the provisions for these subsidies be extended to schools 63 in which there were eight, and not twelve Jewish students.

Their request was turned down. Due to the widespread distribution of Jewish students in rural areas, the distribution of the Resolutionsfonds was meager - 6,000 DM in the year 1910, as reported by the Verband der Deutschen Juden

(Birnbaum, p. 166). The Deutsch-Israelitischer Gemeinde, in addition to

Zionists and some conservative Jews, strongly supported separate schooling for Jewish children. The Verband der

Deutschen Juden, representing the majority German-Jewish population, favored interconfessional schooling, fearing that isolation would give legitimacy to anti-semitic arguments that

Jewish people had no loyalty to Germany. Marjorie Lamberti

(1978) points out that this was not only due to this group's belief that separate Jewish schooling was a return to ghettoization, but also because it feared that separate Jewish schooling would strengthen Zionist tendencies among German-

Jewish youth (pp. 104 and 114) . Lamberti also suggests that the divisions between the liberal and orthodox Jewish communities regarding Jewish elementary schooling were

"manipulated" by the Ministry of the Interior "in order to hide the true intentions and tendencies of the government"

(Birnbaum, p. 167) which was not to grant state subsidies to

Jewish schooling (Lamberti, pp. 11 & 115). Lamberti suggests 64

that this was the case especially as concerns the Cassel-Campe proposal of 1913.

The Cassel-Campe proposal included a request that the 1908 budget of 40,000 DM for Jewish religious instruction be

increased. Social Democrat Adolf Hoffmann hinted at the

opposition from the orthodox Jewish community, due to the

community's fear that granting funds for Jewish instruction

for Jewish students attending public schools would decrease enrollments at Jewish private schools. Hoffman's announcement of the orthodox Jewish opposition to this proposal prompted

Campe's immediate suggestion that subsidies only be granted if

there were a central Jewish organization which would distribute these funds. Given the different agendas of the

Jewish communities, this central organization, as Campe was well aware, would be difficult if not impossible to form.

Upon the declaration of this pre-requisite for subsidies, the

Freie Vereinigung fur die Interessen des orthodox Judentums in

Frankfurt, representing separatist Jewish concerns, suggested that it could only support the Cassel-Campe proposal "if the subsidies are directly distributed by the government to the various Jewish communities" (Birnbaum, p. 168). The Cassel-

Campe proposal never materialized due to the early termination of the House of Deputies. Had it materialized, it is likely that subsidies would not have been granted to the Jewish community, as "the split between the liberal and the orthodox 65 elements among the Jewish population was cited in 1913 and

1914 by Chappuis and his subordinates as one of the reasons against the granting of state subsidies" (Birnbaum, p. 167;

Lamberti, pp. 11 & 15) . These events "show that the Ministry could always count on the backing of Jewish ultra-orthodox opinion in its own desire to frustrate constructive measures

for the Jewish community in Prussia" (Birnbaum, p. 168) .

According to Lamberti the orthodox Jewish community played right into the hands of the governmental authorities, who manipulated differences within the Jewish community well into the Weimar Republic. By the time that World War One approached the population was divided along political, economic, and social grounds, and the divisions of Protestants and Catholics held tightly to their convictions regarding the role of the church in the schools, "In education, as in much else, Protestants and

Catholics formed two cultures existing alongside each other"

(Field, p 66) . Whereas the political differences among

Catholics and Protestants worked to their benefit, the political differences among the Jewish population were thwarted by governmental authorities in that populations' attempts to get Jewish religious instruction on equal-footing to that of Catholic and Protestant instruction. As World War

I approached: 66

education (had) remained indelibly Christian in character, confirming both the centrality of religion in German public life and bearing out what Uriel Tal and others have written about the deep and stubborn resistance to pluralism at so many levels of German society (Field; Tal, 1974).

Field comments about the Wilhelmian Era that "with regard to

elementary schools the traditional distinction between

'approved' and 'tolerated' religious communities was carefully preserved and that by the outbreak of the war "it was evident that substantial reform depended upon further democratization of German society".

SECTION THREE: RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN THE WEIMAR YEARS: NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The outbreak of World War One united most Germans into a common spirit of victory. By the end of the war, however, this unified spirit no longer existed. The Social Democratic

Party, which was the leading opposition group in the

Reichstag, had splintered into two groups. The left-wing of the Social Democratic party had splintered into the

Independent Social Democratic Party in 1917, over the latter's refusal to vote for more military credits.

Emperor Wilhelm II abdicated on November 9, 1918.

Friedrich Ebert, head of the Majority Socialists, was appointed to be the imperial chancellor. Ebert appointed a coalition cabinet, made up of three Socialists and three 67

Independent Socialists who increasingly had to rule by decree

to maintain order amid deteriorating economic and political

conditions. When Ebert detached military troops in November,

1918, to quell an uprising of sailors who had been at the

forefront of revolutionary change, the Independent Socialists,

who had no voice in the decision to call in the troops,

resigned from the government. When the Spartacus Union, the

left wing of the Independent Socialists, was denied a party

congress to clarify the situation, it splintered into the

Communist Party of Germany.

The Majority Socialists did not receive a majority in the elections to the National Assembly in January, 1919. As a

result of the elections to the Assembly - from left to right:

Independent Socialists, 22; Majority Socialists, 165;

Democrats, 74; Center, 89; German People's party, 22; German

National party, 42; various extreme parties, 9 (Helmreich, p.

109; Pinson, p. 603) - a coalition government was formed.

When the Independent Socialists rebuked the Majority

Socialist's offer to form a coalition, the Majority Socialists turned to the Democratic and Center Party. As the Socialists favored secular schools, the Democrats favored

Simultanschulen, and the Center Party favored confessional schools, compromises would have to be reached.

The National Assembly met at Weimar on February 19, 1919 to draft the Constitution. The future relationship between 68 the church and the Volksschule was one of the most hotly contested debates at the assembly. The result of these debates was that the historical relationship between the church and the schools was not significantly altered, despite that most of the delegates had favored reform. The Socialists were willing to concede to the Democrats in the latter's desire for Simultanshulen, which meant that this school type was favored by a two-thirds majority (Field, p. 55; Helmreich, p. Ill). The Center party, backed by conservative

Protestants, strongly favored the continuation of confessional schooling.

The Democratic Party representatives1 refusal to sign the

Versailles Treaty and their subsequent withdrawal from the

Assembly forced the Social Democrats to rely on Center party support. The result of a first compromise left the choice of secular, Simultan, or confessional schools up to the parents of each school district:

If and how the Volksschule within a municipality are to be organized for all confessions in common, or to be separated according to confession, or to be without confession is to be decided by those entitled to determine the education of the children so far as it is possible to reconcile this with an ordered school system. Details are to be regulated by Reich law which is to be enacted in the near future. Until the issuance of this law, existing regulations remain in force (Helmreich, p. 112; LandS, Westhoff, 1932, p. 33- 45) .

It was not clear whether individual states would come under this new regulation. If the individual states did not come 69 under this law then secular schools were not legal since none had existed before 1918. The result of the last sentence, that existing regulations would remain in force until the issuance of a school law, was that the status-quo vis-a-vis the close relationship of the church and the school would remain in effect until the passage of a national school law during the Nazi era. The maintenance of the status quo ensured that in 1933, three-fourths of German Volkschulen had remained confessional.

Because so many Socialists had not voted for this plan - thirty five supported it while twenty-five voted against it and one hundred and four abstained (Helmreich, p. 113) - seeing it as a betrayal of principal, a second compromise was reached. Henceforth, "the education of their children for physical, intellectual, and social efficiency is the highest duty and natural right of parents, whose activities shall be supervised by the political community" (Helmreich, p. 113) .

Article 120 included a provision that parents would still elect which school type they desired in their communities; and secular schools would be put on equal par with Simultan and confessional schools, with Simultanschulen being the norm

(Helmreich, p. 113) . This article affirmed the Catholic belief that the education of youth was a private affair that rested outside the realm of the state. On the other hand, it affirmed the state's right to oversee that education. Article 174 gave the state the right to grant approval to private

schools where "there is in the municipality no public elementary school of their religious belief or of their

Weltanschauung, or if the educational administration recognizes a special pedagogical interest" (Helmreich, p.

115) . Article 149 made the teaching of religion compulsory in all German public and private schools:

Religious instruction shall be part of the regular school curriculum with the exception of nonsectarian (secular) schools. Such instruction shall be regulated by the school laws. Religious instruction shall be given in harmony with the fundamental principles of the religious association concerned without prejudice to the right of supervision by the state, (in Helmreich, p. 115).

Since secular schools were not lawful since none had existed before 1919, the exception to religious instruction at these schools was merely rhetorical. Religious instruction was to be supervised by the state; however, the church was to have a fundamental right to dictate the policies concerning that instruction.

Teachers were given the right to refuse to teach religious instruction or to participate in religious celebrations and rituals:

Teachers shall give religious instruction and conduct church ceremonies only upon declaration of their willingness to do so; participation in religious instruction and in church celebrations and acts shall depend upon a declaration of willingness by those who control the religious education of the child (in Helmreich, p. 116). 71

This regulation, intended to protect the religious freedom of

teachers, had little effect. It was especially the case in

rural districts where there was a lack of religious teaching

staff, that teachers who refused to teach religious

instruction would simply not be hired (Field, p. 57) . When

teachers refusing to teach religion were hired, they were

often harassed, and/or in the case of the Catholic schools in

Westphalia and elsewhere, local clerics and state authorities

encouraged and supported student strikes against them (in

Field, p. 58).

The political parties all looked forward to the national government's implementation of a national school law; however, the parties were divided as to what they favored the national

school law would include. The more liberal parties wanted the establishment of secular or Simultanschulen; the more conservative parties, including the Catholic Center Party, together with conservative Protestants, wanted to maintain the historical relationship between the church and schools. Each

Party anxiously awaited the passage of the school law which had been promised from the Weimar Constitution.

Attempts to enact this law were made in the Reichstag discussions during 1921. The Center Party favored a school in which Christian doctrine would be infused in the textbooks and in the spirit of all classes. The Social Democrats did not favor this. The result was a compromise in which "the spirit 72

of the confession” would be infused in all classes, depending upon whether the confession of the school was Evangelical,

Catholic, or Jewish. Due to more pressing matters of national

concern - France's demand for reparations for occupying the

Ruhr - discussions were halted until 1925.

From 1925 to 1927 discussions centered around the

distinction between Simultan and Gemeinschaftsschule

(Helmreich, p. 123). Simultanschulen, which were

theoretically nondenominational schools, had always been of a

Christian confession in character, despite that they had been

frequently attended by non-Christian religious minorities. A

1927 bill called for Gemeinschaftsschulen, with an emphasis on

the interdenominational character of the school. The use of

the word Gemeinschaftsschulen, which was meant to emphasize

that the schools were to include all religious groups, was to replace the use of the word Simultanschulen, which had

traditionally been organized along a Christian basis.

Many Protestants supported the bill, because they believed

that the continuation of Simultanschulen would give the

Catholics too much control over the schools. The Organization of German National Jews also supported the replacement of

Simultanschulen with Gemeinschaftsschulen, inasmuch as the designation of the latter would have meant that all religious beliefs would be put on an equal par in the general curriculum, while religious instruction would be confined to 73 religious instruction class. The Bavarian government, with its highly Catholic population, led the opposition to the bill, and it was defeated in the Reichstag by a vote of thirty seven to thirty one. This was the last school debate to take place during Weimar.

A survey of the Weimar period shows that while there were some loosening of the bonds between church and schooling, that few changes were made during this period and that "there

[were] few issues for which one cannot find parallels in early periods" (Helmreich, p. 149) . The debates over school policy vis-a-vis the church paralleled the disunity in political and social life in Weimar in general. These debates, among others, stirred the desire among many Germans, increasingly led by the right, to create a unified Germanic spirit.

Christianity had remained a part of the established order, and was used at various times and increasingly by forces from the right, to combat socialism, as well as in "contending with

Jewish aspirants to true emancipation and equality" (Field, p.

75) .

Jewish Instruction in Weimar

Due to the passage of Article 174 of the Weimar

Constitution, the legal situation of schools in Germany was to remain as it had until the passage of a National School Law. 74

This meant that the schools were to remain Christian in character. Nevertheless, there were minimal efforts to place

Jewish education on an equal footing to that of Protestant and

Catholic education.

Under Article 137 of the Weimar Constitution, Jews had the right to attend any public school. Additionally, Jews had the same right to organize Jewish private schools and Jewish public schools. The establishment of Jewish public schools never materialized in some states, however, due to the failure during Weimar to pass a national school law. Since Bavaria,

Prussia, and Wiirttemberg had Jewish public schools before

1919, they were allowed to continue. In states in which

Simultanschulen were "the norm,” such as in Baden, if Jewish students numbered as many as forty a Jewish teacher was to be appointed for their religious instruction. Despite that these schools were attended by large numbers of Jewish students, they were technically designated as being either Catholic or

Protestant Simultanschulen.

The Weimar Constitution was supposed to have protected the equal rights of civil servants; however, the rights of Jewish teachers were not, in practice, carried out. In Bavaria,

Prussia and Wtirtemberg, Jewish teachers could not be appointed to teach at Christian confessional schools, and in Prussia,

Jewish teachers could not be appointed at Simultanschulen where there were no Jewish students. These regulations and 75 practices account, in part, for the strong preference which

Jewish teachers had for secular and for Jewish schools.

As previously noted, it had been the practice that the cost and responsibility for Jewish instruction was almost totally born by the Jewish community. State subsidies were finally granted to the Jewish community in Prussia in 1925. These

subsidies were comparable to the subsidies which the state had been giving the Protestant and Catholic churches. In Bavaria and Hesse, Jewish teachers were paid by the state if there were at least ten Jewish children in a school (Helmreich, p.

148) .

Surveying the experience of Jewish education in Weimar,

Prestel noted that:

Nimmt man das Schulwesen als Kriterivm fur die Gleichberechtigung zwischen Juden and Christen, so laBt sich erkennen, daS diese nie erreicht wurde, da fur die j udischen Schulen, fiir d e n j udischen Religionsunterricht und fiir die j udischen Lehrer andere Gesetze gal ten als fiir die christlichen.. .Die Benachteiligung der j udischen Staatsbiirger ist auch daraus ersichtlich, da& judische Lehrer nicht einmal an Simultanschulen angestellt wurden, da auch diese christlichen Charakter aufzuweisen hatten...Die Tragik der jiidischen Geschichte in Deutschland liegt darin, daS gleiche Rechte zu Assimilation und zur Aufgabe der jiidischen Identitat fuhrten und der AusschluB aus dem deutschen Kulturleben weiderum eine Riickkehr und Riickbesinnung auf die Werte judische Kultur zur Folge hatte (Prestel, p. 375).

Translation: If one takes the school system as a criteria for the equality between Jews and Christians, so let it be known that this was never reached, for the Jewish religious instruction and for the Jewish teacher, other laws were valid than for the Christian. Therefore the discrimination of the Jewish citizen is 76

also obvious, in that no Jewish teacher was ever hired at Simulstanschulen, and that they (the schools) were also assigned a Christian character. Herein lies the tragedy of Jewish history in Germany: that the same rights to assimilation and to the task of Jewish identity was furthered, (but) what followed was the exclusion from German cultural life, and a return to retrogressive thinking concerning the worth of Jewish culture.

SECTION FOUR- THE NAZI YEARS

When Hitler assumed the chancellorship on January 30, 1933, he took over an educational system which had been shaped by

the religious particularism of Catholics and Protestants, and which had been viewed by many as blocking the movement toward a unified national spirit. The Nazi party was initially conciliatory toward the historical relationship between the church and state, and so too toward the historical relationship between the church and the schools. On February

25, 1933, the Reich government announced the gradual abolition of all secular schools. Also in 1933 the government reversed the historical practice in some states of having students apply to receive religious instruction; henceforth students had to make an application not to receive that instruction.13

13This is still the case in Bavarian public schools in post WWII German schooling, whereby any student wishing not to participate in religious instruction must make an application to his/her local priest or pastor to be excepted from that instruction. 77

In addressing the Reichstag on March 23, 1933, during which he

set forth the party program, Hitler declared that:

The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life...The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality...The National Government will allow and secure to the Christian Confessions the influence which is their due both in the school and in education. . .The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavoring to develop them (in Helmreich, p. 154).

Hitler fulfilled his party program with the Reichskonkordat

with the Vatican, which was ratified on September 10, 1933.

The Enabling Act had allowed agreements to be made without

parliamentary approval, and ratification of the agreement was

accepted merely with Hindenburg's approval. According to the

private admission of Pacelli, a Catholic official in Germany

at the time and instrumental in the negotiations, "no

genuinely democratic Reichstag would have approved the

Reichskonkordat" (in Spotts, p. 210)14. Among the provisions

in the Reichskonkordat was the right of the church to levy

taxes from its members, in addition to a confirmation of the

continued presence of church influence in public schools.

14This too is important in the Post-WWII discussions, because of the claim that the Reichskonkordat was not legal because it was not democratic. 78

Specifically, that continued presence guaranteed the church the historical right to teach religious instruction, the right to erect confessional schools, the independence from the state for confessional schools, the right to erect Catholic private schools, and the independence of these private schools. These provisions were won at the price of the denial of clergy to participate in political life; hence, the Vatican soon withdrew its support of the Catholic Center Party, and on July

5, 1933, the party which had unanimously voted in favor of the

Enabling Act allowing Hitler to assume the chancellorship, voluntarily disbanded.

The Vatican was the first foreign "power" to sign an agreement with the Nazis; as such, it was the first to give legitimacy to Nazi aims, and "Far from strengthening the

Catholics' will to resist (National Socialism), the treaty appeared to many of the faithful to signify the acceptability of the regime and the church's desire for a modus vivendi with it" (Spotts, p. 28). Although the "friendship" between the

Nazis and the churches - Catholic and Protestant - was not to continue, the Reichskonkordat, in addition to providing other church safeguards, served the initial Nazi goal of putting a

Christian stamp on its agenda of unifying the German population.

Further concessions were made to the churches in 1934. A decree in January forbade teachers who had left the church 79 from giving religious instruction until they had rejoined for one year. Bernhard Rust, Minister of the Reichs- und

Preussisches Ministerium fur Wissenschaft, Erziehung und

Volksbildung (Prussian Ministry of Science, Education and

Culture), in his first directive, declared that schools were to be closed on all religious - Catholic and Protestant - holidays, which naturally effected non-Christian public schools.

The National Socialists' problems with interference from the Catholic Church was aided somewhat with the signing of the

Reichskonkordat; however, the Nazi's still had to deal with

Protestant interference. In 1935, Hitler attempted to unite the Protestant churches in a 'German Christian Movement1 under the leadership of Bishop Muller. This Christian Movement would attempt to purge all Jewish influences from the church, and pastors with oppositional views or with Jewish lineage would be banned (Craig, p. 96) . Opposition to the creation of this German Christian Movement grew. Hundreds of pastors were arrested in March, 1935, but their opposition forced Hitler to abandon his attempt to establish the 'German Christian

Movement'.

Hitler's attack on the churches was not based solely on practical concerns, but was also based on ideology. In a published work of his memoirs, Albert Speer (1970) noted that 80

Hitler often pondered on the unsuitability of Christianity to the Germans:

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness (p. 115)?

So then, practical considerations, and the ideology that

Christianity was not suited to the Germans, coupled with the idea that Christianity was nothing but another form of

Judaism, developed into the Nazi ideological weapon against the churches.

The Nazi's moved their campaign to the schools beginning in 1935. In July and August of that same year, Reichsminister

Rust issued directives stating that students in upper schooling - Hauptschulen and Gymnasien - would no longer be required to participate in morning school prayer, attend church services, or participate in religious activities in the schools.

Gradually these directives were applied to the Volksschulen as well. Secular nationalistic prayers were introduced. On

November, 1936 in Oldenburg, it was decreed that no services of a religious nature would take place on school grounds, and that crosses and crucifixes would be removed from public school grounds. Many parents protested against these directives, and as the campaign to remove religious symbols 81 spread to other states - Westphalia and Bavaria - parents insisted that these religious symbols remain in the classroom

(Helmreich, p. 165) . in general, however, these religious symbols were frowned on by local Gauleiters. Additional measures taken to reduce the influence of the churches in the schools were Rust's abolishment in 1935 of the compulsory written religious examination in the Gymansien and in the teacher■s institutes.

On March 18, 1937, Rust declared that all school personnel had to take an oath of loyalty to the Fiihrer: "I swear that

I will be true and obedient to the Fiihrer of the German Reich and Nation, Adolf Hitler, and will fulfill my official duties conscientiously and selflessly" (in Helmreich, p. 167). On

July 7, 1939, Rust ordered that teaching, wherever possible, was to be given only by lay teachers, but that the clergy still had the right to visit the schools. Teachers of religion who were hired before 1939, however, were allowed to continue teaching that instruction.

In June of 1936, Rust reaffirmed a fundamental right, dating back to the Weimar Constitution, that no National

Socialist should be penalized for his/her religious beliefs, and that therefore no teacher could be penalized for refusing to give religious instruction or for refusing to take part in religious services. Although this reaffirmation theoretically included the freedom to participate in religious instruction 82

and religious services, doing so was increasingly frowned

upon, and many teachers refused to further give religious

instruction or to participate in religious services.

By a February 14, 1938 directive, students refusing to

participate in religious instruction no longer had their names

sent to the local pastorate. On October 26, 1939, student

group outings of a religious nature, such as church outings,

were forbidden.

In a clear betrayal of the Reichskonkordat, the Nazi

government in 1935 and 1936 began to persuade parents to send

their children to the Gemeinschaftsschulen. Party speeches,

slogans, placards, and threats at losing one's job, convinced

many parents to enroll their children in non-confessional

schools. As Table 2 indicates, these campaigns were

successful.

Table 2 - School Type in Germany during Nazi Era

School Type 1936 1937 ISflfl Gemeinschaftschulen 8,766 12,441 17,150 Protestant Confessional 28,308 26,204 24,261 Catholic Confessional 15,231 13,025 9,639

Figures from Helmreich, p. 174.

In 1939, Nazi leader Martin Bormann issued the following directive:

The creation of an ideologically objective school system is one of the most important tasks of the Party and the State...Not for nothing have the political 83

Catholics, above all, realized the importance of teaching the young and controlling their spiritual growth and character building...[Thus] (a) the State ought to be the basic organizer and controller of the school system. In many cases, the private schools and institutions can be simply transferred from the Orders to the State... (b) in many cases, particularly where public schools are available, private schools can only be regarded as superfluous, especially those which cannot be regarded as ideologically objective. The pupils should be put in the public school system, and the private schools closed (in Conway, 1968, p. 366- 369; in Glenn, p. 196).

The Nazis wanted Gemeinschaftsschulen instead of confessional schools. On December 28, 1936, Rust had ordered the evaluation of all private schools in the Reich. In 1937,

Hitler insisted that "this Reich will hand over its youth to no one, but will take its education and its formation upon itself" (in Conway,p. 178; in Glenn, p. 196; in Helmreich, p.

173) . Since private schools had always had to have state approval to operate, pretexts were found to close most of them, especially church-run private schools.15

At the outbreak of World War II, the state, in its efforts to create an even more unified population, eased some of its battles against the interference of the churches in the schools. Nevertheless, practical considerations made the continuation of religious influence in the schools difficult.

Due to the shortage of religious teachers during war time, in

“Jewish schools were initially encouraged in an effort to keep Jewish students out of the public schools; however, as the Holocaust approached, these schools were abolished as well. 84

March of 1940, all religious instruction in the Gymnasien and

Hauptschulen was abolished. Henceforth religious instruction would last only for the first eight years of compulsory

schooling.16

Jewish Schools during the Third Reich

By the time that Hitler became Chancellor in January, 1933,

Jewish religious instruction had been given legal equality to that of Protestant and Catholic instruction, even if provisions for that instruction were not carried out in practice. In some states schools attended by mostly Jewish students were classified as private Jewish confessional schools, while in other states these schools were classified as being public Jewish schools. Notwithstanding the difficulties in determining exact numbers of Jewish schools, it is clear that the Jewish communities ran their own private schools, attended public Jewish confessional schools, Simultan schools, and even Christian confessional schools. This was to change during the Nazi Era. Whereas prior to 1933 there had

16By a Nazi decree of July 1938, compulsory religious instruction was to last only eight years instead of nine, by which time the child would have reached the age of fourteen. Fourteen is the age of Confirmation into the Protestant church, and was the age at which it was considered, even before the Nazi Era, when the child reached religious maturity. In post-WWII Germany, it is also the case that at the age of fourteen a child is allowed to decide for himself/herself to withdrawal from religious class. 85 been varying degrees of opinion along the continuum of private

Jewish schooling versus attendance at Simultan and Christian schools, the diversity of opinion among the Jewish community became a moot issue during the Nazi Era. By 1942, no Jewish child in Germany was allowed to be instructed in anything.

Given the available demographic data, it would be impossible to determine the extent to which the Jewish community privatized due to the anti-semitism leveled against them at the public schools.17 Available figures as to the numbers of Jewish schools during before 1942 - 65 in 1936; 69 in 1937; and 68 in 1938 (Helmreich, p. 174) - do not take demographic trends into consideration. Among these trends was increased urbanization of the Jewish community. In 1933,

67.8% of the Jewish population lived in cities with a population of at least 100,000 people. By 1937, eighty-five percent of the population lived in major cities (Strauss,

1980, p. 323-324) . Thus, Jewish schools between 1933 and 1937 were increasingly accessible to the Jewish population, and one

17To predict whether this would have occurred even in the absence of restrictive laws against Jewish students would necessitate month-to-month statistics for Jewish disenrollments at Christian schools, and/or enrollments in Jewish schools. Such unavailable data would show the extent to which social restrictions, as opposed to legal restrictions, resulted in the Jewish population giving up on the emancipation ideology and instead advocating separation as the only viable solution to a hostile school environment. Since restrictive measures were enacted, however, a consensus from the Jewish community on the desire for privatization increasingly would have become a moot point. 86 would imagine that given this, coupled with the increasingly hostile environment toward Jewish students, that the increase

in Jewish schools would have been significant. Nevertheless, the increased urbanization of Jews living in German was offset by a coinciding decline of German Jewry (Table 3), in addition to a decline in the number of Jewish school age children

(Table 4). Furthermore, the presence of foreign born Jews in

Germany did not compensate for the decline in the overall

Jewish population since the decline in their numbers was even greater than the numbers of German Jews - foreign Jews declined from 19.1 per cent of the Jewish population in

Germany in 1933, but by 1939 to 11.6 per cent of the population (Strauss, p. 321).

There is no doubt that if not for the demographic decline in the Jewish population in Germany during the Nazi Era, that the numbers of Jewish schools would have increased more dramatically. Restrictive regulations against the Jewish population and against Jewish students so closely paralleled

"unofficial" antisemitism that it is difficult to determine which was the cause and which was the effect. A cursory look at legislation against Jewish students and the effect of that legislation will serve to illuminate the situation of schooling for Jewish students. 87

Table 3 - Decline of German Jewry: 1925 - 1945

Year Jewish 1925 564,,379 January, 1933 525,, 000 June, 1933 499,, 682 May, 1939 213,,390 September, 1939 185,, 000 October, 1941 164, 000 1942 139, 000 1st January, 1943 51, 257 April 1943 31, 910 1st September 14, 574 mid-1945 25, 000

(Figures compiled by Strauss, p. 317 from the following sources: Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, vol. 451, No. 5; vol. 453, Nos. 2 and 4; 451, No. 5; Statistisches Jahrbuch fur das Deutsche Reich, 59 (1941/1942); K. Drobisch, et at., Juden unterm Hakenkreuz. Verfolgung und Ausrottung der deutschen Juden 1933-1945, Berlin (East) 1973; H. Genschel, Die Verdrangung der Juden aus der wirtschaft im Dritten Reich, Gottingen 1966.

Table 4 - Numbers and Percentages of Jewish School Age Children: 1933 - 1939

Age 1933 V 1938 1938 \ 1939 \ 1941 V early late Sept July 0-6 24,318 4.87 7,200 2.06 6,000 2 0-16 86,219 17.26 35,700 10.20 0-17 36,600 12.2 0-15 15,000 8.1 0-18 20,669 12.36 (Fxgures from Strauss, p. 319)

Although, as written, one can not predict with certainly the extent to which privatization appealed to the Jewish community during the Nazi Era, one can say with certainly that 88 privatization was the only viable alternative to Jewish attendance at non-Jewish schools. For Jewish children who remained in non-Jewish schools throughout the thirties, there were daily lessons in humiliation.

Erika Mann, daughter of Thomas Mann, in School for

Barbarians (1938), wrote of her conversation with a friend, in which the friend recounted a conversation with another friend:

A friend of mine, a girl from school, married very young, right after graduation. She married a Jew. And her son, Wolfgang, who is seven now, is a half-Jew. I asked her how he was the other day; and she said 'He's fine - a little better today, really; at least the sun's not out.' I didn't understand at all. She had to explain: 'On fine days, all the other boys play in the yard - and then he cries because he can't play with them - of course he can't, he's half - Jewish. ' The mother was quite calm as she said that. Mrs. M. finishes, but I won't forget her face as she said '...at least the sun's not out.' She looks away. 'And Franz, growing up, will be among the boys, true Christians, in brown shirts, playing in the yard, while little Wolfgang cries and cries'. Mrs. M. is drawn up tall again, defiant and hard. 'I'd rather have the right to comfort that boy when he cries, than not to have the right to slap my own son for that kind of revolting cruelty!1 (p. 16).

There is, in this account, the sad acknowledgment by Mrs. M. that not only is Wolfgang being hurt by his forced separation from his peers, but that her own son, through such separation, is receiving a distorted image of humanity through a Nazified

Christianity. And later in this same work, Mann wrote that

"the Jews are only tortured, but they ('Aryan' children) are corrupted, deeply corrupted...The 'Aryans' are in peril, for their sense of justice and humanity is being stolen from them. 89

And unless they meet other influences, they will lose all sense of truth - the sense which balances us and allows us to walk through the world" (p. 103).

Although some Jews did remain in the non-Jewish Christian schools, legislation made it difficult and in the end, impossible for them to continue doing so. A quota system was initiated against Jewish students in Gymnasien on April 25,

1933: Non-Aryans' were not to exceed 1.5 percent of the entering class or of the faculty, and in no case were they to exceed five percent" (Helmreich, p. 197).

Also in 1933 it was directed that no Jewish teacher could give private instruction unless s/he had done so prior to

1914, had been at the front during World War I, or had lost a father or son during the war.

Rabbis, by a Prussian law of December 18, 1933, were removed from local school committees.

On June 17, 1933, it was decreed in Prussia that Jewish students could be excused from Saturday classes according to their desires, however, that the school was under no obligation to allow the student to make up missed work. In

1934, Rust ordered that students attending classes on Saturday or on Jewish holidays would be obliged to participate in class lessons, including writing and handwork, which went against

Jewish tenets. Conveniently for the National Socialists, 90 classes in National Socialist education, by decrees in August and September of 1934, were to take place on Saturdays.

In November, 1934, Rust ordered the anti-semitic

"introductory textbooks" concerning the Judenfrage to be used in all German schools: Handbuch der Judenfrage by Thomas

Fritsch, Rassenkunde des jiidischen Volkes by Hans F.K.

Gunther, and Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion und die jiidische Weltpolitik by Alfred Rosenberg (Frankfurter Zeitung,

November 9, 1934, in Dokumentensaimlung, p. 182) .

Jews - defined as those persons descended from three or four Jewish grandparents, or a person descended from two

Jewish grandparents who professed Judaism or who was married to a Jew - were stripped of their citizenship in 1935 under the "Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor" and the

"Reich Citizenship Law". This forced many Christians of some

Jewish descent to attend Jewish schools, which increased the financial burden of the Jewish community.

As reported in the June 25, 1935, Mainzer Anzeiger, under the headline Heraus aus den Schulen! ("Get out of the schools"), Dr. Gross, head of the Nazi Racial Political

Office, recommended that Jewish children receive segregated schooling, because "whomever has concerned himself with this question knows that Jewish children, when they are with

•aryan' children, even without wanting to, disturb the intellectual atmosphere (of the schools)", and that the 91 solution must be "Heraus mit den Judenkindern aus den arischen

Schulen!” (Mainzer Anzeiger, June, 25, 1935; in

Dokumentensaimlung, p. 185) .

Following this recommendation, on September 10, 1935, Rust issued a directive on the racial separation of the Jews in public schools. By 1936 there was to be as complete a separation of Jews as possible in the schools. Quotas for

Jewish students at the Gymnasien were increased, and in an effort to segregate Jewish students completely, public Jewish elementary schools were to be erected wherever there were twenty Jewish children. Although these schools were to be public, the Jewish community was expected to bear the financial burden of their erection and maintenance, with the state offering only minimal subsidies: "Thus at a time when the campaign against Christian confessional schools was being launched, Rust decided to erect Jewish confessional schools"

(Helmreich, p 201).

Despite efforts to segregate Jewish students into their own schools, oftentimes Jewish students remained at the non-Jewish public school but were segregated into separate classrooms.

By a ordinance of May 7, 1934, no Jewish religious instruction was to take place at non-Jewish schools in Wiirttemberg. The

Jewish community could be responsible for this education, but there would no longer be public funds provided. Bavaria enacted a similar ordinance on July 31, 1936. Similar 92

ordinances were handed down in the rest of Germany in that

same year. Additionally, no Hebrew was to be offered at any high school in Germany, with the exception of Jewish schools.

By a decree of March 28, 1938, Jewish Gemeinden lost their

status as public-law corporations. In the future, these

communities were to be voluntary associations. The Jewish

community no longer had the right, as did Protestant and

Catholic communities - to levy taxes, to have the state

collect those taxes, or to have tax-exempt status. Because of the government's support of Jewish segregated schooling, however, Jewish schools were to be exempt from taxation.

On November 15, 1938, following Kristallnacht on November

9, Reichsminister Rust decreed that:

No German teacher can any longer be expected to give instruction to Jewish pupils. It is also self-evident that German students find it unbearable to sit in the same classrooms with Jews. Racial segregation in schools has been carried out in general during the past years, but a small number of Jewish pupils have remained who can no longer be permitted to attend schools with German boys and girls. Subject to additional regulations, I order that immediately: (1) Jews are forbidden to attend German schools. They are permitted to attend only Jewish schools. Insofar as it has not yet happened all Jewish boys and girls still attending German schools are to be dismissed immediately; (2) Who is Jewish is to be determined according to Paragraph 5 of First Decree of the Reich Citizenship Law...of November 14, 1935 (in Helmreich, p. 206).

Thus, Jewish students were to be completely segregated from

Christian students in public schools, and on August 14, 1939,

Rust declared it the compulsory duty of the Reichsvereinigung 93 der Juden in Deutschland to establish compulsory elementary

Jewish schools. All other schooling - middle, high schools, and vocational schools - was to be voluntary. These Jewish schools were to be classified as private.18

On June 20, 1942, Rust culminated his attacks on Jewish schooling with the following private decree19:

In view of the development of the resettlement (Aussiedlung) of Jews in recent times the minister of interior.. .in agreement with the Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland has directed that all Jewish schools should be closed by June 30, 1942. Their members are to be informed that starting July 1, 1942, all schooling of Jewish children by paid or unpaid teachers is forbidden. I inform you of this. The ordinance is not to be made public (in Helmreich, p. 208) .

This decree did not apply to Mischlinge of the second degree

(children with one Jewish grandparent), who, by a July 2, 1942 ordinance, were allowed to attend all school types provided that there was enough space. This same regulation, however, severely limited the educational opportunities of 11 Mischlinge" of the first degree - children with two Jewish grandparents, who, among other restrictions, were no longer to be admitted to public schools beyond the elementary years. By 1942, "it would be necessary to go back centuries and would require much research to discover - if it were possible - when there was

18This is the same classification which Jewish schools in Germany have to the present day.

19Most of Rust's decrees were kept private, issued to local Gauleiters who were put in charge of their enforcement. 94 not a single Jew in the regular Christian school system of

Germany" (Helmreich, p. 209).

The events of 1933 took the Jewish community by surprise.

The Jewish community was financially unprepared to deal with

the increasing numbers of students who enrolled in Jewish

schools. Furthermore, the Jewish community in 1933 was still not in agreement over the idea of Jewish schooling: "There were parents who could not be reconciled to the idea of a

Jewish school and gladly took any opportunity to reduce the scope of Jewish studies to a minimum" (Ehrmann, 1939, p. 96).

Additionally, "there were the educational bureaus of the communities, especially in large cities, which were burdened, on the one hand, with the tradition of the outmoded

'religious' instruction and, on the other hand, by the traditional curriculum of the existing Jewish day school"

(Ehrmann, p. 96).20 Additionally, there were Zionist schools, already established during and after World War I, with objectives to bring the student to some understanding of himself /herself as a Jew in increasingly hostile surroundings, and to prepare the student for emigration.

The tradition of discrimination toward Jewish schools was consistent with a non-democratic attitude and non-democratic system of govemanace. That same tradition, however, applied

2(>That 'existing tradition' being to educate German Jews to participate in German non-Jewish life. 95 to post-World War democratic education, leads one to question the historical basis that social institutions began at Stunde

Null in 1945. CHAPTER III

THE CHURCH LIVES ON IN POST WORLD WAR II GERMANY

New political and economic structures in both the eastern and western zones of occupation were supposed to have started each side at "Stunde Null". In the west "Basic Law" was said to have solved the problem of democracy beset by the Weimar

Constitution: "Basic Law" provided for a strong chancellor and a weak president; parties hostile to democracy were outlawed, with specific outlawing of neo-Nazi and Communist parties in 1952 and 1956 respectively; there was a prerequisite of five percent of the total vote for party representation to the Bundestag; there were allowances for judicial review, and the restoration of Lander authority as well as a federal system of government. Additionally, new economic structures - the prohibition of industries such as shipbuilding and aviation - were to have allayed Allied fears that Germany could ever remilitarize. Finally, the Allies had instituted a de-nazification and re-education program.

Despite these broad-sweeping changes, some analysts, namely

Christa Hoffmann21, suggests that the claim of Stunden Null

“Christa Hoffmann questions this in her book Stunden Null? (1990).

96 97 is questionable. And as noted in the Introduction to this work, Blackbourn does not question whether there has been a continuity of German history; rather, his question is "in which ways" has there been a continuation of that history.

The claim that Germany began at Stunde Null, in the sense that post-World War II Germany's prior institutional deficiencies have been addressed in the form of new political/economic structures, is easily discernible.

However, it may be that the continued influence of the

Christian churches in political and social life suggests that in certain areas, Germany did not begin at Stunde Null. While some maintain that the Christian churches have lost their influence on the every-day lives of the average citizen, there is also the recognition that the historical relationship between the church and state needs to be protected. Indeed, to explain the privileged position of German churches as compared to the position of churches in other portions of

Western Europe, observers have pointed to the "historical relationship" of the church vis-a-vis the state (Ardagh,

Craig, Glenn, Helmreich, Spotts).

Less easy to discern are sociological continuities, including the extent to which the state has institutionalized

Christianity in civil life and in the schools in particular.

Discerning this may shed light on the concept .that the 98

churches have continued their historical legacy, albeit in an

altered form, through a Christian civil religion.

Spotts wrote that in post World War II Germany, "the

concept of religion and politics, church and state, as two

spheres competing for the loyalty of the citizen and the politician practically disappeared. Although stronger than

ever in formal legal terms, the church lost a controlling

influence over popular attitudes and with that its commanding position in society" (p. 352). His claim that the churches have lost influence over popular attitudes is based on what he

refers to as the "triumph of secular values and ideas," with

the result that "some fell away from religion while others

reinterpreted their old concepts of it" (p. 360). He further adds that "religion was no longer a motivational factor in the average individual's life and that, even for the person to whom it remained important, it no longer played an essential role in his political and social behavior" (p. 360).

Spotts contends that by the 1960's "the age-old concept of the spiritual and secular as two overlapping realms - which had given rise to the centuries of tension between religion and politics and of the conflict between church and state - largely disappeared from the public consciousness" (p. 359) .

In post-World War II Germany the churches have been active in political, economic and social life. The question is then, how is this activity possible if, as Spotts' claims, there has been a "triumph of secularization"? Perhaps the conflict can be resolved when one notes that there is no evidence of a

causal relationship between the process of secularization and a diminishing of church influence in civil life. Even given

that there is a causal relationship between secularization and a diminishing of church influence, it may be that German

society has not secularized to the extent noted by observers,

since the concept of secularization is a difficult one to operationalize. Studies of the secularization process have often attempted

to measure the level of religious commitment of individuals in any given society based on unidimensional factors, such as the

"intensity of commitment to a belief system, as expressed in institutionally identifiable attitudes or behaviors," such as whether a person indicates whether he/she is a Catholic, Jew,

Protestant, or "other". Fukuyama (1961) and Lenski (1963) attempted to provide a multidimensional measure to an individual's religiosity, using five dimensions: (1) the experiential dimension, or rather, whether one feels himself/herself to have experienced being saved or healed; (2) the ritualistic dimension, or, whether one worships, prays, participates in sacraments; (3) the ideological dimension, which refers to whether one adheres to the beliefs of those of his/her group; (4) the intellectual dimension, which refers to how much a person knows about his or her religion; and (5) the 100 consequential dimension, which refers to the extent to which these other four dimensions translate into behavior in institutional settings which are not of a religious nature

(i.e., one's business, family life, leisure time, political behavior) (in McGuire, p. 82) . Fukuyama and Lenski did not operationalize these dimensions, whereas Stark and Glock

(1965, pp. 22-80) attempted to operationalize these by determining the extent of one1s :

a) unqualified certainty in the existence of God b) belief in a personal G-d c) belief in miracles as described in the Bible d) belief in life after death e) belief in the actual existence of the devil f) belief in the divinity of Jesus g) belief that a child is bora into the world already guilty of sin (in Hammond, p. 82)

Stark and Glock's critics (McGuire, Clayton and Gladden, 1974;

Weigert and Thomas, 1969), have claimed that such operationalization merely suggests the extent of one's ideological commitment, and question further whether "the belief scales identify some of the content of the individual's ideology, while experiential, ritualistic, intellectual, and consequential scales measure expressions of strength of commitment to that ideology" (McGuire, Clayton and Gladden;

Weigert and Thomas).

Based on the former conceptualizations of individual’s

"religiosity", in addition to the surveys which suggest that the German population has a lessened sense of doctrinary particularism, one would conclude that German society has been secularized. For instance, in their "statistically representative sample" of various responses from one thousand

West Germans over the age of eighteen, Elizabeth Noelle and

Erich Neumann (1967) offer such "evidence" of the secularization process in their work The Germans: Public

Opinion Polls 1947-1966. For example, in a February 1965 survey, 62% of respondents indicated that in their childhood, it was customary to say a prayer before or after a meal. Only

29% of respondents indicated that they did this as adults (p.

341). In another questionnaire of April, 1956, 42% of respondents said that they believed in life after death; whereas that number had decreased to thirty-eight percent by

March, 1964 (p. 340). Additionally, church attendance has declined, so that by 1987, fifteen per cent of Catholics in cities and sixty per cent of Catholics in small towns and villages attended church regularly, while only five per cent of Protestants in cities, and nine per cent in small towns and villages attended regularly (Ardgagh, p. 233).

However interesting are these uni- and multidimensional notions of "religiosity" and "secularization," these numbers provide little insight into the extent to which the church pervades the every day lives of most Germans, albeit in different ways than are suggested by the former dimensions.

Shupe and Bromley, as written in the Introduction, argue that 102

the secularization process needs to be based on theoretically

based prediction, rather than on post factum observation (p.

58) . They argue that in viewing the process of

secularization, "the most important issue on the sociological

agenda should be investigating the process by which

transcendent symbol systems are created and sustained" (p.

58) . Such a view would resolve the seeming conflict that

German society, as based on post-factum observation, is

undergoing a secularization process, while at the same time

that the churches have a diminished role in the every day

lives of Germans. It is my contention that the state, with

the support of the majority of the population, has created and

sustained transcendent symbol systems. For this very reason,

it is a mistake to conclude that German society has become

secularized and that this has resulted in the churches'

diminished influence in every-day life. Religious life in

Germany has been elevated from the private to the public

sphere. Echoing this sentiment, Ardagh wrote:

On the face of it, West Germany appears to have been slowly becoming de-Christianized...But figures hardly give the full picture, at a time when many people have come to practice their religion outside the framework of church buildings. What I find more remarkable is that the Catholic and Protestant Churches do still play so lively and vital a role in the life of Germany (p. 227) .

Perhaps this sentiment is what Gordon Craig had in mind when

in 1982 when he wrote that "Considering the number of times 103

that Germany's intellectuals have declared that God is dead,

its newspapers devote a surprising amount of space to news about religion" (p. 83) . He added that "this cannot be described as the result of editorial whim or confessional

zeal" but that it is a reflection of the "activity of religious leaders and professing Christians in the politics of both the Federal Republic and the German Democratic Republic"

(p. 87). The very presence of church-related transcendent symbols suggests that there has been no "triumph of secular values and ideas," as Spotts has claimed. Church-related "transcendent" symbols pervade the every-day life of the German population, and they do so because the state, with the full desire and in some cases the demands of the majority population, has created and sustained these symbols through the institutionalization of a civil religion based on these symbols. Since this is the case, then German society has not become secularized; nor does the church have diminished influence.

As noted, civil religion has been defined as "any set of beliefs and rituals, related to the past, present, and/or future of a people ("nation") which are understood in some transcendental fashion" (Hammond, p. 171). This civil religion in Germany can be operationalized based on the extent to which the German population utilizes Christianity to clarify to themselves and to the world what it means to be German. The state's role in institutionalizing this civil

religion based on Christianity has included: looking to the

churches for "moral authority"; allowing and in some cases

encouraging church-related issues and symbols to pervade

public life; encouraging the churches to assume an active role

in party politics; allowing clergy to represent Germany in the

international arena; the using of Christian symbolism by

politicians in the state and international arena; and finally,

defining public institutions, namely the schools, as being of

a Christian orientation. In short, the state's role in

institutionalizing Christianity has been to enable the

churches to continue to create the impression that to be

German means to live in a community of fellow Christians. As

will be discussed in Chapter Five, this has caused problems of

identity formation of religious minority groups. The first

task, however, is to determine how and why this civil religion was institutionalized.

CHRISTIANITY AS THE BASIS FOR THE NEW CIVIL RELIGION

Members of the occupational military from the start believed that clergy members had been the least compromised during the Nazi Era. For this reason, they often consulted them for advice concerning logistical matters. As a result, both Protestant and Catholic clergy exerted much influence 105 during the initial occupation. Thus, it was only upon the

suggestion of church members that the mayors of Aachen, Mainz,

Freiburg, and Munich were appointed, and in Westphalia and

Baden-Wiirttemberg, bishops were appointed directly to set up provisional governments (Spotts, p. 54-55).

The Allied governments, notwithstanding their concern that

church groups could be used for underground neo-Nazi activities, early on made it a policy not to interfere with

the churches: It is the policy of Military Government to provide protection and fair treatment for all religious elements and to foster freedom of religion and the maintenance of respect for all churches and other religious institutions in Germany. Subject to military necessity, all places of worship will be permitted to remain open and no restriction will be placed on normal religious activities {Military Government Regulations, Title 8, Education and Religion, 1945; in Spotts, pp. 54-55).

Additionally, instead of answering to military officials, clergy found to have collaborated with the Nazis were to be punished or dismissed by their fellow church superiors.

Hence, "the churches were tacitly recognized as the sole institutions above direct military control, as national bodies not generally subject to varying zonal regulations and as exempt from 'reorientation1 into directions determined in

Washington, London, or Paris" (Spotts, p. 55).

In short, political, economic, and social rejuvenation was to be the responsibility of the state, while moral 106 rejuvenation was left up to the churches (Spotts, p. 59) . The churches, however, were not willing to confine their role to this area, and their attempts at influencing political, economic, and social life often conflicted with programs of the occupational military governments. Archbishop Frings, for instance, chairman of the Fulda Bishops' conference and the most powerful Catholic leader immediately after the war, accused the British of deliberately holding back food supplies in order to punish the Germans, of attempting to create economic chaos by the closing of Ruhr industries, and of being anti-Cathoiic. Frings once went so far as to comment that

"The behavior of the occupation authority toward the Church resembles too closely that of the past Nazi regime" (in

Spotts, p. 68).

Protestant leaders, on the other hand, were generally more conciliatory toward the occupying powers, although many also argued that denazification had gone too far. Among them were

Bishop Wurm, Bishop Dibelius, Karl Barth, and Paster

Niemoller, the latter of whom wrote that denazification was

"'a method of hatred and revenge which surpassed the obligations of atonement' and he called upon all Germans to refuse to cooperate in the program" (in Pinson, p. 545).

As the churches complained about the military government's denazification programs, including the closing of industry, distribution of food, and policies toward German refugees, the 107 military governments held that the churches were still nationalistic, ultra-conservative, and uncooperative. If the military governments looked with suspicion toward the churches, this was not the case with the majority of Germans,

"millions (of whom) turned back to Christianity as the sole meaning in life; the churches (such as were still standing, amid the ruins) were packed every Sunday" (Ardagh, p. 288).

Already before the end of the war both Protestant and Catholic church leaders were envisioning a future Germany based on

Christian principles. It was in this atmosphere that "the churches now began to plot a new course that would make them less passively subservient to the state and more able to influence it independently and to play their part in building a new Germany" (Ardagh, p. 288).

Part of this new course was the churches' influence in social reform, which has often included young pastors and priests participating in protest rallies on nuclear disarmament, reunification, and social welfare. This has often resulted in strained feelings against older clergy members and younger clergy members, the former of whom do not think it appropriate that the latter show up at protest rallies in clerical attire as representatives of the church.

This was particularly the case when younger clerics participated in protest rallies dealing with such issues as disarmament, social welfare, and nuclear weapons, as the 108 church hierarchy, fearing communism, was generally more conservative on these issues than were their younger counterparts. The animosities which such acts have caused in the churches have left many older clergy members with the idea that the enemy is no longer from the other church - Protestant or Catholic - but rather that the enemy has come from within.22 This has led to a breakdown in religious particularism and has been cause for the new ecumenicalism of the churches.

Another part of the churches1 new course was to be politically active, and in 1945 the Protestant and Catholic churches joined to establish the Christliche Demokratische

Union (CDU) , the ruling party of Germany, under the leadership of Konrad Adenauer, a Catholic. Catholics have since exerted more control in the party, especially in Catholic-dominated

Bavaria, with the Christlich-Sociale Union (CSU).

Spotts questioned how this party came about in Stunde Null, a time of political chaos (p. 292) . Historically, all reason would suggest that any amount of ecumenicalism would have been an inpossibility before 1945. Pragmatic considerations

220ne recalls the Kung affair in the 1960's and 1970's. Kiing, a Catholic priest, questioned, among other things, papal infallibility, and wrote that the centralized church had divided Christendom. He caused much discern in the Vatican, until he was finally dismissed in 1977 without a formal hearing. His dismissal caused much protest throughout Germany. 109

certainly played a part in the party's establishment in 1945.

Before the war, the zones of what became West Germany had a

population of about two-thirds Catholics, whereas most of the

Protestants were in the east. With the east/west split,

millions of Protestant refugees were interspersed throughout

predominantly Catholic places, such as Bavaria; and many

Catholic refugees, especially from Silesia, moved to

predominantly Protestant places. The result of these changing

demographics was that "the two populations became much more

jumbled up, and each found the other to be not so bad after

all" (Ardagh, p. 231).

Pragmatic considerations aside, the founders of the CDU did

have certain beliefs in common: "A belief in the

applicability of general Christian principles to political

problems and the desire to establish a new German state based

on Christian ideals were all that united them on a religious basis" (Spotts, p. 292). Carl Goerdeler, one of the early

founders of the CDU, whom Spotts claimed was not a

"particularly religious man," in 1943 wrote:

The religious consciousness in Germany has been enormously deepened and broadened by the oppression of the last decade. The Christian religion and its teachings will constitute for us the basis and guiding principle in all domestic and foreign affairs. We consider it necessary that even the fundamentals of foreign policy should be brought into conformity with Christian moral principles (in Spotts, p. 293). 110

A further reason for the establishment and popularity of the

CDU/CSU has been the churches' fear of the Social Democratic

Party (SPD), whose members voiced their concern regarding the

relationship between the church and state. The churches,

particularly the Catholic church, initially formed and then

supported the CDU/CSU to thwart the efforts of the SPD, and

the churches were not above using electoral vengeance to

achieve their aims:

Ultimately the clash between German Catholicism and Social Democracy demonstrated that there remains a significant distance not simply between the Catholic Church and the SPD but between the Catholic Church and German democracy. The hierarchy still has a concept of the state and its own worldly mission that is incompatible with the democratic requirements of tolerance and compromise. Bishops not only refuse to acknowledge that the interests of secular society may legitimately differ from the morality of the church but are willing to frustrate these interests by threatening electoral vengeance (Spotts, p. 362).

As regards the clashes between the church and the SPD, Spotts comments that "The question is not whose social principles are right but whether the church may legitimately play a partisan role to achieve them," and that "The answer will be of importance to German democracy" (p. 350).

A look at election results from 1949 to 1965 shows the population's increased legitimation of its major party which is based on "Christian moral principles" (Table 5). Ill

Table 5 - Election Results: 1949-1965

Parties 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965

Seats 4 Seats k Seats i Seats i

CDU/CSO 139 35 243 51 270 52 242 49 245 48

SPD 131 33 151 31 169 35 190 37 202 39

PDP 52 13 48 10 41 8 67 12 49 9

(from Pinson, p. 606)

The elections of members of a party with a fundamental religious basis seems to signify the legitimacy that the population had given the churches in party politics. However, public opinion polls indicate that while the population has favored that the churches intervene in civil life, at least in some areas, the number of respondents who indicated that they should not interfere in political parties was very high

(Noelle and Neumann, p. 343) (see Table 6). 112

Table 6 - Survey on Church Influence (1954)

Question: "Opinions vary as to the matters in which the Church should have a say. Here is a list. Which of these points do you think the Church should concern itself with?

Should Should not No Opinion Concern Concern % Itself % Itself % Education 73 23 4 and youth work Abolition of 70 22 8 the atom bomb Marriage and 62 32 6 Family Problems Relaxation 50 37 13 of tension between East and West Contents of 31 58 11 Illustrated Magazines and Films Relations 20 67 13 between workers and employers The 8 83 9 political Parties

Assuming the generalizability of the survey results, in a year in which the CDU/CSU had a majority of seats in the

Bundestag, at least some of the eighty-three per cent of the respondents either saw shortcomings in the other two parties, 113

or else believed that the churches' concern with some areas of

civil life was more important than was their not influencing

political parties. The churches have been able to play a huge role in

civil life because of their economic ability to do so. The

state provides the church civil revenue offices which collect

Kirchensteuer (church taxes) of from 8.5 - 9 per cent of an

individual's income taxes, making the churches in Germany

among the wealthiest in the world. This wealth amassed by the

churches from this Kirchensteur has enabled the churches to

create an infrastructure - "comprising newspapers, journals,

lay groups, official representation to the government, synods,

church assemblies and special advisory councils 11 (Spotts, p.

363) - which pervades the every day life of most Germans. As one Protestant bishop attested "The tax enables us to play a full part in the prosperous society. If we had to rely on voluntary gifts, or on our revenue from landed property, we could not do our job adequately" (in Ardgagh, p. 230). The practice of state agencies collecting church taxes dates back to the nineteenth century when the churches were given this privilege in return for land given the state.

Over ninety per cent of the German population pays this

Kirchensteur, whether they attend church regularly or not

(Ardgagh, p. 229). Deciding not to pay this tax would mean going to a local Rathaus to declare oneself no longer a member 114 of the church. Among their reasons for continuing to pay these taxes are the social stigma against someone's leaving the church:

Under the new Secrecy Act, the Rathaus is legally forbidden to divulge that a member has left the Church. But an employer knows, for the tax deduction will appear on an individual's PAYE slip, and so the news can leak out. Some employers might even take reprisals: in Bavaria, where the Education Minister is a militant Catholic, there have been cases of teachers in State schools being refused promotion if they leave the Church, and this has even deterred a number of them from doing so (Ardgagh, p. 230).

Additionally, many people continue to pay this church tax because parents want to enable their children to make their own decisions regarding the church, despite that the parents are no longer active participants in their churches.

With so much wealth, the state has often been able to support its platforms with the sanction of the church, and oftentimes it is difficult to determine the extent to which the state props up the church, or the extent to which the church props up the state. An example is seen in the conflict over abortion. The state, concerned about the declining birthrate among the German population, has the Catholic church's moral endorsement on its stance on abortion, and through its alliances in the CDU and the CSU, the church has influenced the abortion debate. The churches were successful in their lobbying efforts to have a liberalization of the abortion law tabled in the 1984 debates. And in some states, such as in Bavaria, not only does a committee of doctors need to sanction a woman's having an abortion; Catholic laity must also sanction whether a woman will receive an abortion, regardless of the woman's religion.

Christianity as a civil religion has been institutionalized by the state's maintenance of transcendent symbols and rituals in domestic as well as in international affairs, thus suggesting to the world that to be German means to be

Christian. In his review of papers which questioned the level of pluralism in German society, Fritz Stern remarked that:

The religious and the secular are so inextricably intertwined; they remain so even in present-day Germany. Let me remind you of what may well have been the two most important moments in what might be called the moral rehabilitation of the Federal Republic in Europe. The Franco-German reconciliation was consecrated in the Cathedral at Rheims and the decisive encounter between Poles and Germans was marked by Willy Brandt's kneeling in contrition before the ghetto memorial in Warsaw. The invocation of the religious on both occasions - one deliberate and manifest, the other more spontaneous and less obvious - suggests that the questions raised (about the level of pluralism in German society) shed light not only on the past, but on the present too - as so much history does (1984, p. 77) .

The June, 1994 D-Day celebrations in France provide another example of the German churches representing Germany on the international stage. German politicians were not invited to participate in these celebrations. In order not to repeat the controversy of the celebrations of the fortieth anniversary of

D-Day, to which Chancellor Helmut Kohl or any other German 116

official was not invited, the chairman of the Roman Catholic

Bishops' Conference, Bishop Karl Lehmann, served as Germany's

representative. In this capacity, he appeared as the single

German representative on the international stage, in addition

to appearing as translator of events for a German television

audience which remained at home ("World War II Allies Mark D-

Day Anniversary", June 9, 1994).

Spotts maintains that "the Evangelical church is right in

insisting that the church should not treat its views on public

affairs as either innately Christian or immutable and must

emphatically avoid trying to coerce its adherents into

accepting them" (p. 363). Additionally, he maintains that the

"Protestant and Catholic leaders will have to formulate a

clearer notion, free of any nostalgia, of their role in a

secularized society" (p. 363). The notion of whether Germany has been secularized has been called into question.

Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the state has

institutionalized Christianity by supporting and maintaining transcendent church symbol systems, and in this way, the churches have indeed changed their role in society. What were once taken as values, symbols, and rituals of the churches - either Catholic and Protestant - are now viewed as "German" values, symbols and rituals, and as such, the state has institutionalized a civil religion based on Christianity. The 117 public school system is the institution in which this is most evidently the case.

CHRISTIAN CIVIL RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Although none of the four coordinating bodies of the occupied military wanted to restore a school system which had existed under Weimar or the Third Reich, the attitude that they would interfere as little as possible in matters concerning church and state prevailed. In their only joint document regarding the confessional nature of the schools, the occupied powers military governments on December 5, 1945 declared that:

In matters concerning denominational schools drawing on public funds, religious instruction in German schools, and schools which are maintained and directed by various religious organizations, the appropriate allied authority should establish in each zone a provisional regulation adapted to the local traditions, taking into account the wishes of the German population in so far as these wishes can be determined, and conforming to the general directives governing the control of education. In any case, no school drawing on public funds should refuse to children the possibility of receiving religious instruction, and no school drawing on public funds should make it compulsory for a child to attend classes for religious instruction" (Glenn, p. 197; Helmreich, p. 217; Spotts, p. 58) .

Some generalizations can be made about the coordinating bodies' differences in approach toward schooling. In the

British and American zones the military authorities intervened in school issues less than did the French and Russian military 118 authorities in their zones (Helmreich, p. 217) . Additionally, in the western zones the tendency was to return the schools to their pre-1933 status, and an American directive stated that

"so far as possible questions concerning denominational control of German schools and religious instruction in German schools were to be left to the decision of appropriate German authorities, and "in all four zones the regulation of education was made a function of the new German states

(Lander) established by the four powers" (Helmreich, p. 217) .

Legally, the German school systems are regulated by

"constitutional, treaty, and legislative provisions, which are overlaid with ordinances accumulated over the years"

(Helmreich, p. 218) . The result of such legality was that those in charge of establishing new regulations had to wade through a complex myriad of existing regulations so as to determine which were still valid and in force for each locality and for each state, not to mention determining which were valid for the whole of Germany.

In determining which regulations were still valid, the tendency seemed to be one of wiping out any changes made under the Nazis, and as mentioned, to restore the schools to what they had been before the Nazis came to power. It must be remembered, however, that there were always shades of opinion along the continuum of church influence in the schools, with never a political consensus concerning the proper role of the 119 churches in the schools. The two groups credited with having resisted the Nazi's the most were the political left and the churches. The political left - democrats, socialists, and communists - had favored secular schooling. The churches had favored confessional schooling. Hence, there was nothing inherently "democratic" or inherently "fascist" in the choice of secular versus confessional schooling. Nevertheless, because of their stance on secular schooling, which had been their stance since 1848, the Left found that after World War

II, that they were themselves accused of being "in the unenviable position of advocating things which the 'devil'

(Hitler) had blessed" (Helmreich, p. 218).

Yet to be determined was whether the Reichskonkordat, which

Hitler had signed with Vatican in 1933, was to be binding in post-World War II Germany. In all of the four zones, it was determined that "in view of the Nazi’s complete disregard of their agreement and their flagrant breach of its terms, the

Konkordat could only be considered as being in abeyance. This did not imply, however, that it could not be revived or held to be binding on a responsible German government or its guardians" (Murray, 1948, paragraph 9; in Helmreich, p. 219) .

This determination made the validity of the Reichskonkordant a matter of the individual zonal military authorities for the time being. 120

The military authorities in the different zones had different interpretations as to what this determination meant.

In the American zone, it was interpreted that "The terms of

the Konkordat of 1933 remain technically binding and will be

respected unless declared inoperative in whole or in part by

the Allied Military Authority" (Helmreich, p. 219). In the

case of Bavaria, the separate Konkordat which the Bavarian government had signed with the Vatican and Protestant churches

in 1924 and 1925, respectively, was to continue to regulate the schools until such time as a state Constitution was drawn up:

The terms of the of Concordat of 1933 remain technically binding and will be respected unless declared inoperative in whole or in part by the Allied Military Authority.

The terms of the Concordats between the Holy See and Bavaria (1924), Prussia (1929), and Baden (1932) which are confirmed by Article 2 of the Concordat of 1933, will be respected by Military Government unless the appropriate section of the 1933 Concordat is declared inoperative by the Allied Control Authority.

This threw the question of confessional schooling back to its pre-1933 state. Article 181 of the Bavarian Constitution, declared that, "The state treaties formerly concluded, especially the treaties with the Christian church 24 January

1925, remain in force" (in Helmreich, p. 219).

Except for the regulations on Bavarian schools, which were to be dictated by that state's separate Konkordat with the

Vatican, educational clauses in the Constitutions of the 121 states in the American, French, and Russian zones were taken almost word-for-word from the Weimar Constitution, and in these Constitutions one finds the principles which guide religion in each state's public school system up to the present day. The British, "true to their belief in the value of unwritten constitutions...did not push the formulation of a written formal constitution in the state of their zone"

(Helmreich, p. 218), and instead issues regulations as the need arose.

The debates over each state's Constitution show the historical conflicts between the political Left and the Right regarding confessional schooling versus secular schooling. In all of the Western Zones, the SPD called for "a unified, public school system with clear separation of Church and

School" (Herrlitz, Hopf and Titze, p. 142) because "for most

Social Democrats, schooling was a key to social reconstruction, and confessional differences represented an impediment to achieving its full effect" (Glenn, p. 197).

This "clear separation of Church and School", however, only applied to the SPD's insistence on non-confessional schools.

The SPD reversed its long-held policy regarding religious instruction in the schools. Whereas prior to the end of World

War II the SPD had held that no religious instruction should take place in the schools, after World War II it changed course. In Berlin, the SPD was increasingly beginning to 122

advocate "socialism based on a sense of Christian

responsibility" (Spotts, p. 295). This spirit foreshadowed

the reconciliation of the SPD to German Catholicism. This

reconciliation came about for very pragmatic reasons. The

SPD's support was dwindling due to its stance on the role of

the church in civil life. Whereas the CDU/CSU had broad-based

support from different social classes, the SPD did not. Thus,

in 1959 the SPD cut its ties to Marxism, with a consequent

change in attitude regarding the proper role of the churches

in society. This new attitude was expressed in the papers which came out of the 1959 Godesburg conference between the church leaders and party leadership. In the section on

"Religion and the Church", the SPD proclaimed that:

Socialism is no substitute for religion. The Social Democratic party respects churches and religious societies. It affirms their public and legal status, their special mission and their autonomy. It is always ready to co-operate with the churches on the basis of a free partnership. It welcomes the fact that men are moved by their religious faith to acknowledge their social obligation and their responsibilities towards society. Freedom of thought, of religion and of conscience, and freedom to preach the gospelmust be protected. Any abuse of this freedom for partisan or anti democratic ends cannot be tolerated (Basic Programme of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, 1959, in Spotts, p. 339).

The Godesberg program represents the climax of the direction in which the SPD was already headed in the mid-forties and even earlier regarding the role of religious instruction in the schools. In short, it can be said that the SPD's "party 123 leadership had concluded that the way to power was to play the

CDU's game and play it better" (Spotts, p. 358).

The Protestant leadership’s stance on confessional schooling was one of conciliation, having to do with their recognition of their part to the excess Naziism. In 1945 the

Protestant leadership proclaimed "We condemn ourselves because we did not believe more courageously, did not pray more devotedly, did not believe more joyously, and did not love more deeply" (in Glenn, p. 198) . It was in this spirit that they were prepared to call into question "the Church's traditional understanding of itself as an ally of the State, and thus the extensive cooperation between the two upon which state-supported and -managed confessional schooling rested.

From this perspective the nonconfessional school could be seen as representing progress away from churchiness toward an effective engagement with the secular world" (Spotts, pp. 11

& 212).

The Catholic leadership, on the other hand, had until 1960 cited their resistance to confessional schooling as evidence of its "heroic" struggle against the Nazis.23 Hence, according to Catholic leadership, "the lesson of the Nazi

23The extent to which both churches supported the Nazis, either directly, or indirectly, is a topic which goes beyond the bounds of this work. For a more thorough study of this, see Michael Marrus's The Holocaust in History (1987) . University Press of New England: Hanover, NH. 124 period was precisely the importance of maintaining their church's independence in providing education" {Glenn, p. 198) .

Echoing this sentiment in a 1946 speech, Adenauer said:

The resolution of the issue of elementary education led in the past to bitter conflict among the political parties, until [the compromises reached under the Weimar Republic]...The confessional schools based on these compromises were abolished by the National Socialists Government in 1939 through illegal implementation of the so-called German Common School. What should happen now? In every other sphere the illegalities of the National Socialist Government are being abolished. The earlier legal situation is being re-established. We want that for elementary-schools as well. It is unacceptable to validate precisely that illegality of the Nazis experienced as painful by the broadest sections of the population. Therefore we call for the restoration of the confessionally organized elementary schools" {in Herrlitz, Hopf, and Titze, 1986, p. 145).

Catholic ideology held firmly to the concept that it was the duty of the family to educate its children, and that when the family did not have the means to perform this function adequately, such as with religious instruction, it was the right and obligation of the church to assume this instructive role.

The result of these differences of opinion can be observed in the consequences of the individual state's first election results in the Federal Republic, about which several generalizations can be made. In states where the population was predominantly Catholic - North Rhine-Westphalia, Bavaria, and Rhineland-Palatinate - the CDU/CSU's victory was more 125 decisive than in states where there was a Protestant majority24. Additionally, in states where the majority of

the population was Catholic, state constitutions upheld the legitimacy of confessional public schools, and school types existing before and after the war did not significantly

change. In states where the majority of the population was

Protestant, nonconfessional schools were chosen, with liberal provisions for public funding of private confessional schools.

The differing approaches toward confessional schooling in the Soviet zone show that:

In light of German social development, which has sanctioned idealistic rigidity through the separation into institutional islands of parties holding conflicting beliefs, the division of Germany may be seen as the ultimate solution to the irreconcilable political conflict between parties of the Left and Right (Heyman, Lawson, & Stamp, 1972).

In the Russian zone, the Reichskonkordant, which Hitler had signed with the Vatican in 1933, was virtually ignored. The adoption of state constitutions was preceded by the Soviet- sponsored "Law for the Democratization of the German School," which was passed by all the states in the Russian zone, including the Russian zone of Berlin, in 1946. The Law included no provisions for the teaching of religion in public schools, and was aimed at the creation of "The 'new man' [who]

24This can be attributed to the greater party loyalty which Catholics have shown to the CDU/CSU than have Protestants (Spotts, pp. 159-161). 126

is the individual representation of the collective State

[which can] only be premised on the absolute morality of the

State, which demands specific moral actions within the

established order, for all citizens" (Heyman, Lawson, & Stamp,

p. 165). Within such a state, religion was to be given a diminished role in public institutions. Although some private

religious schools were allowed in the former DDR, these were not recognized by the states, and admittance to a university

for religious-school graduates was barred. If anything, the

school debates show that "the most fundamental difference between educational developments in East and West Germany is that, from a common cultural origin, and retaining a cultural

foundation identifiable with that origin, the social institutions have been restructured according to a modern definition of the respective principles" (Heyman, Lawson, and

Stamp, p. 207).

On July 18, 1948, the Western Allies introduced the

Marshall Plan. Russia countered with a blockade of Berlin, which soon extended to a blockade between the Western and

Eastern zones of occupation. On May 12, 1949, the blockade was ended. By that time, however, those in the Western zones had already adopted the final draft of Grundgesetz (Basic

Law) , for what was henceforth known as the Federal Republic of

Germany. The Russian zone was proclaimed the German

Democratic Republic on October 7, 1949. 127

In 1947, Britain, France, and the United States had asked

the Germans in the western zones to draft a federal

constitution. The Council of Parliamentary Delegates had come

together in September 1948 to accomplish this task. Among the

most influential delegates was Theodore Heuss, who had been a

member of the last Reichstag' of the Weimar Years, was one of

the few surviving delegates of the Social Democrats, and who

was the founder and leader of the Free Democratic Party. In

his opening address, Heuss warned fellow delegates of the

dangers of the sentiments expressed by Adenauer, stating that:

Their memory of how the Nazis had abused power should not lead them to deprive the new government of authority and that their eagerness to break with the past should not prevent them from adopting older institutional forms that had proved their usefulness (Craig, p. 39).

Additionally, he said of the Weimar Republic that it "had

failed...not because of its constitution but because it was established in an atmosphere poisoned by the stab-in-the back theory, by ideas of monarchical restoration, and by political

Romanticism. Since those forces had now been destroyed, one need not insist unnecessarily upon an originality that might be self-defeating" (in Craig, p. 40). Heuss was influential in the establishment of the federal Bundestag, which contained many of the features from the Weimar Republic, including a parliamentary government based on popular sovereignty, and a multi-party system. The Bundestag was to represent the 128

popular will of the population, a Federal Council was to

represent the states, a Supreme Court was to represent

individuals' rights, and there was to be a presidential

office. In order not to repeat the shortcomings of the Weimar

Republic, there was to be no provision for proportional

representation, and a reduction in the powers of the

president, with a particular emphasis on the elimination of

the Enabling Act. Additionally, it should be noted that the

Weimar Constitution did not empower the courts to enforce

basic rights, whereas Basic Law gave the courts this right.

Basic Law was put into effect on May 23, 1949. The German

population itself was not allowed to vote on the Constitution,

and it can therefore be said that the state, as regards the

constitution and the relationship between the church and

state, legitimized the continuation of church influence in public institutions, namely the schools.

The articles' appendices concerning educational issues were

taken almost directly from the Weimar Constitution, and

express the sentiments of the Constitution which was drawn up

in 1848. Articles 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are important to an understanding of the historical and current status of church- state relations, and are therefore worth repeating in their entirety: 129

Article 1 (Protection of Human Dignity)

(1) The dignity of man inviolable. To respect and protect it

is the duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and

inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of

peace and of justice in the world.

(3) The following basic rights bind the legislature, the

executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law.

Article 3 (Equality before the law).

(1) All persons are equal before the law.

(2) Men and women have equal rights.

(3) No one may be prejudiced or favored because of his sex, his parentage, his race, his language, his homeland and origin, his faith or his religious or political opinions.

Article 4 (Freedom of faith, of conscience and of creed).

(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom of creed, religious or ideological, are inviolable.

(2) The undisturbed practice of religion is guaranteed.

Article 6

(1) Marriage and family enjoy the special protection of the state. 130

(2) Care and upbringing of the children are the natural right of the parents and a duty primarily incumbent on them. The state watches over the performance of this duty.

A r t i s.i.e-Z (1) The entire educational system shall be under the supervision of the state.

(2) The persons entitled to bring up a child shall have the right to decide whether it shall receive religious instruction.

(3) Religious instruction shall form part of the ordinary curriculum in state and municipal schools, except in secular

(bekenntnisfrei) schools...

Specific Appendixes taken word-for-word from the Weimar

Constitution of August 11, 1919 included the following:

Article 136 (Weimar Constitution)

(1) Civil and political rights and duties shall be neither dependent nor restricted by the exercise of the freedom of religion.

(2) The enjoyment of civil and political rights and eligibility for public office shall be independent of religious creed.

(3) No one shall be bound to disclose his religious convictions... 131

Article 137 (Weimar Constitution)

(1) There is no state church.

(2) Freedom of association to form religious bodies is

guaranteed to religious bodies. There are no restrictions as

to the union of religious bodies within the territory of the

Federation.

(3) Each religious body regulates and administers its affairs

independently within the limits of federal laws. It appoints

its officials without the cooperation of the Land, or of the

civil community.

(4) Religious bodies remain corporations with public rights

in so far as they have been so up to the present.

(5) Equal rights shall be granted to other religious bodies

upon application, if their constitution and the number of

their members offer a guarantee of permanency.

(6) When several such religious bodies holding public rights

combine to form one union this union becomes a corporation of

a similar class.

(7) Religious bodies forming corporations with public rights

are entitled to levy taxes on the basis of the civil tax

rolls, in accordance with the provisions of Land law.

(8) Associations adopting as their work the common

encouragement of a world-philosophy shall be placed upon an equal footing with religious bodies. 132

(9) So far as the execution of these provisions may require

further regulation, this is the duty of the Land legislature.

Articles 6 and 7 are especially important to an understanding of church influence in the schools. Article

6(2) legitimizes the long-held Catholic view that "The Care and upbringing of the children are the natural right of the parents and a duty primarily incumbent on them." Hence, the religious upbringing of the children is left to the discretion of parents, and the state has the duty to see that parental preference is carried out, in this sense, the preference for religious instruction.

Article 7(1) makes it clear that the state, and not the federal government, supervises instruction. This article is important to an understanding of the June 1956 final court's decision on whether the Reichskondordant was to remain valid.

The court held that:

Though the Reichskonkordat had come into force through the illegal Enabling Act of 1933, it was valid and had not lost its legality. However, the Basic Law had clearly granted the Lander sovereignty over educational affairs, and neither the articles - Article 123, concerning the continued validity of state treaties, nor Article 7, concerning state supervision of education - nor general constitutional principles required the Lander to honor the school provisions of the Reichskonkordat. Since the Konkordat was not with the Lander, which were now solely responsible for education, they were not bound to obey its provisions, even though these continued to be in principle valid (Spotts, p. 219). 133

In the end, the court had declared that although it had no power to enforce it, that the Reichskonkordat was nevertheless valid. The result of the litigation of the Reichskonkordat

"thus left the federal solution untouched - and untouchable"

(Spotts, p. 219) .

The states which had signed individual Konkordat's with the

Vatican could, based on their state constitutions, declare

their state's Konkordat's as still being in force. Those

states which signed individual Konkordat's with the Vatican before 1933 - Bavaria, Prussia, and Baden - were not forbidden

from claiming as valid their individual Konkordat's. Baden and Prussia, having a majority Protestant population, opted for interdenominational schools while making liberal provisions for publicly supported confessional schools.

Bavaria, the most heavily populated Catholic state, chose to continue to abide by its state's Konkordat. This explains, in legal terms, why Bavaria's Constitution, in regulating the terms of church influence in the schools, was taken word-for- word from its Konkordat with the Vatican.25

25In the case of Baden and Prussia, decisions as to the confessional nature of schools were made based upon the aforementioned political considerations, in addition to being made based upon the will of the people. 134

BAVARIAN SCHOOLS AND CHURCH INFLUENCE

Given the Catholic stance on confessional schooling, and given that the majority of people in Bavaria immediately after the war were Catholic - 71.3% in 1946, and 71.8% in 1950

(Helmreich, p. 227) - it is hardly surprising that Bavarians opted for confessional schooling. Additionally, minority

Protestants living in majority Catholic Lander had always opted for confessional schools in an effort to be on par with provisions for Catholics. Hence, Protestants in Bavaria were also in favor of confessional schooling.

The Grundgesetz, as written, left the issue of confessional schooling up to the states. The Bavarian

Constitution held valid Bavaria's Konkordat which it signed with the Vatican in 1924 and 1925. In its present form, the relationships between the church and schools and religion in

Bavaria and elsewhere has evolved therefore from Grundgesetz, the Konkordat, state constitutions, school regulations, and community prerogatives.

After the war, five types of schools existed throughout

Germany: public schools with a Catholic character, public schools with a Protestant character, public schools with some other world view, nonconfessional public schools, and private schools. As of 1961, about 40% of the schools in the Federal

Republic were Catholic, 17% Protestant, 40% nonconfessional, 135 and 3% other (Frankfurter Allgemeine, February 15, 1967, in

Glenn, p. 200; Spotts, p. 210).

A national movement was begun in 1958 which dramatically changed the course of confessional schooling in the Federal

Republic and in Bavaria in particular. Faced with an

"educational crises," Protestant leadership called for interconfessional schools. It was widely becoming the view that "the confessional school system, with its proliferation of one-room schoolhouses scattered across the countryside to meet Catholic 'parents rights' was as ill-suited to the demands of a highly technological era as the horse and buggy"

(Spotts, p. 220) . Added to this was that the population after the war was no longer as religiously homogeneous, and with

"the rapid growth of suburbs, parents had to face the decision of establishing either duplicating confessional school systems at great expense or a single confessional school to be attended by children of both confessions" (Spotts, p. 220).

Although the Protestant leadership called for interconfessional schools, most of the Catholic leaders, particularly the older ones, held steadfastly to the idea of parental prerogative and to confessional schooling: "as in

1949 with the Parliamentary Council, in 1946 with Land constitutional assemblies, in 1945 with the Allies and in 1933 with Hitler, Catholic bishops wanted confessional schools at 136

all costs and at whatever political and social impact in

Germany" (Spotts, p. 222).

Despite what the leadership favored, it was becoming

increasingly clear that the Protestant population was not the

only to favor interdenominational schools; the Catholic

population favored them also. In a 1964 survey, in response

to the question "Do you think children should be taught in the

same school regardless of their religion, or should there be

separate schools for Catholic and Protestant children", 82% of

Protestants and 61% of Catholics favored interdenominational

schools (Noelle & Neumann, p. 336).

The SPD and the Free Democrats, seeing an opportunity at

last to lessen confessional influences, began in the 1960s to

lobby on behalf of interdenominational schools. This lobbying

effort left the CDU without a majority constituency on this

issue. Protestant CDU members mostly favored school reform.

Catholic CDU members were caught in the middle and forced to either make a break with their church or lose voters. Reform won out.

Everywhere the SPD and FDP coalition lobbied for school reform. Anticipating the coalitions' actions following their

1966 election victory in North-Rhine Westphalia, an article appeared in the Kirchenzeitung fur das Erzbisturn Kdln, in which Catholic bishops threatened to withdraw support from the

CDU in defeating any reform legislation that the SPD coalition 137

was expected to introduce. The Bishops threatened to

establish a "truly Christian party" if the CDU failed to

support the bishops (in Spotts, pp.224-225). The CDU's

response, printed in Die Welt on November 14, 1966, was that

"We are a Christian but not a Catholic party" (in Spotts, p.

225) . Thereafter the CDU abandoned its support of the

Catholic bishops over confessional schooling, and together

with the SPD/PDP coalition, urged school reform. By 1967,

public opinion polls showed that only 22 percent of the

population continued to favor confessional schooling

{Frankfurter Allgemeine, January 22, 1968, in Spotts, p. 225).

Catholic bishops stood alone.

In Bavaria reforms had already been enacted. Following an

FDP initiative in 1967, the CSU reversed its public stance, and advocated the abolishment of confessional schooling.

Franz-Josef Strauss persuaded the Bavarian Cardinal Dopfner that resistance to reform would only make the church unpopular. Ddpfner persuaded Catholic leadership to participate in reform negotiations with the government,

SPD/FDP coalition, and Protestant church leaders. Final legislation from the negotiations are set forth in Art. 6(2), under the heading "Christian schools":

In den Volksschulen werden die Schuler nach den gemeinsamen Grundsatzen der christlichen Bekenntnisse unterrichtet und erzogen. In Klassen mit Schillern gleichen Bekenntnisses wird dariiber hinaus den besonderen Grundsatzen dieses Bekenntnisses Rechnung 138

getragen (Die Schulordnung der Volksschule, 1983, p. 10) .

(Translation: In the schools the students will be instructed and raised according to the common principles of the Christian confession. In classes with students of the same confession the special principles of these confessions will be carried out accordingly).“ Hence, public schools in Bavaria are designated as

"Christliche Gemeinschaftsschule", attended by all confessions, in which religious instruction is to be given on a confessional basis.

The official interpretation of Article 6 helps set the terms under which it is to be carried out. Teachers must ensure that these regulations and laws are carried out, regardless if they are Christian, have another religion, or have no religion (Die Schulordnung der Volksschule, p. 10) .

Additionally, the Konkordats which the Catholic church signed with Bavaria on March 29, 1924, were to be revised, with the new revisions including excerpts from the Konkordat, Articles

1-7. Article 1 directs that the right of the Catholic church in Bavaria to appropriately influence the upbringing of children toward their beliefs will not be harmed, and that the right of the parents to bring up their children will be guaranteed.

S6This and subsequent footnotes have been translated by the researcher for this work. 139

Article 2 directs that in classes at elementary schools in

which it is inferred that students want Catholic instruction,

that these classes must be provided and that the students'

upbringing will comply with Catholic beliefs. Upon inferring

that there is a desire for Catholic religious instruction,

classes will be formed when school authorities agree and when

the pedagogical and school authorities and organizations think

it possible (Article 4).

In classes which are visited by students of different

confessions, the class will move toward common principles of

Christian beliefs, while taking proper consideration of the

sentiments of students who have different beliefs (Article 5) .

The teaching staff, through its own means, should pay

attention to which belief system the students belong (Art. 5) .

The students of all school types will inform the suitable

church high authorities of their religion, so that they may have their religious responsibilities fulfilled (Art. 6) . The

Bishop and his charges have the right to object to state authorities regarding grievances in the religious life of the

Catholic students, such as their disadvantage or unfit

influences in the school, especially as regards possible harm

to their convictions or religious sensibilities, and to demand that these objections be redressed (Art. 7).

The November 15, 1924 agreement between the Protestant churches and the state of Bavaria was also revised. This 140 revision went into effect on November 20, 1984. Portions of the school law came directly from the original agreement.

Article 9(1-5), which regulates Protestant influence in the schools, are the same as for the influences of the Catholic church as laid down in Art. 6(1-5).

In a December 17, 1975 court case (nr. 1 BvR 428/69), the federal court determined that Article 6 is in compliance with

Article 135 of the Grundgesetz:

(1) Art. 135 Satz 2 der Verfassung des Freistaates Bayern und Art. 7 Abs. 1 des Bayer. Volksschulgesetzes (heute Art. 6 Abs. 2 BayEUG) binden bei verfassunngskonformer Auslegung den Unterricht in Klassen mit Schiilern verschiedener Konfession und Weltanshauung nicht an die Glaubensinhalte einzelner christlicher Bekenntnisse. Unter den GrundScLtzen im Sinne dieser Bestimmungen sind in Achtung der relids- weltanschaulichen Gefuhle Andersdenkender die Werte und Normen zu verstehen, die, vom Christentum mafigeblich gepragt, auch weitgehend zum Gemeingut des abendlandischen Kulturkreises geworden sind (die Schulordnung der Volksschule, p. 12) .

(2) Es ist mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar, in Gemeinschaftsschulen Klassen aus Schtilern desselben Bekenntnisses auf freiwilliger Grundlage zu bilden, falls dadurch andere Schuler nicht benachteiligt werden (Die Schulordnung der Volksschule, p. 20.02).

The Bavarian state has legitimized the influence of religion in the schools in practice. Regulation VSO § 13,

Religiose Erziehung, Religionsunterricht, spells out some of the practical possibilities of this support:

Die Schule unterstiitzt die Erziehungsberechtigten bei der religiosen Erziehung der Kinder. Schulgebet, Schulgottesdienst und Schulandacht sind Moglichkeiten dieser Unterstiitzung. In jedem Klassenzimmer ist ein 141

Kreuz anzubringen. Lehrer und Schuler sind verpflichtet, die religiose Empfindungen all zu achten.

(Translation: The school supports the educational rights of the religious upbringing of children. School prayer, school worship, and school devotions are possibilities of this support. In every classroom a cross is to be brought in.)

Although school prayer, school worship, and school devotions are possibilities of the support shown religion, teachers are not compelled to introduce prayers, nor are children, according to the official interpretation (Die Schulordnung der

Volksschule, p. 13) compelled to participate in the prayer.

Additionally, since there are no official prayers, teachers have the right to decide the form that the prayer will take.

According to law, tolerance for all is especially important during the school prayer, as laid forth in Art. 2(1). Non- christian students, or students with no religion, are to be excepted from participation in the prayer. Students who participate in the prayer are compelled to adhere to a tolerant attitude for those not participating, and the prayer is to intentionally lead the participants toward tolerance for others. One possible result of the prayer would be to lead children, Christian and non-Christian, toward a discussion of the prayer. Students who do not participate in the prayer are nevertheless bound to meditate on the beliefs of the prayer, and the religious meaning of believing students, in addition to the necessary convictions and the ethical worth of 142

toleration of the religious practice of the majority, and are

expected to behave themselves appropriately during the prayer.

The official interpretation holds that since the school

prayer is in compliance with Article 4(1) of the Grundgesetz,

that it does not harm students who do not participate in it,

even if the students' guardians do not desire that this prayer

take place:

Das Schulgebet ist auch bei Widerspruch der Erziehungsberechtigten eines Schulers zulassig und verletzt in diesem Fall nicht das Grundrecht des nicht teilnehmenden Schulers auch negative Bekenntnisfreiheit nach Art. 4 Abs. 1 GG (vgl. Bverwg, Urt. v. 30.9.1973, SPE IAI 31) (Die Schulordnung der Volkschule, p. 14). Translation: The school prayer (is) allowable, even if it is in contradiction to students' guardians, in the sense that it does not harm the basic rights of freedom of conscience of the children who do not participate, according to Art. 4. Abs. 1 GG (vgl.Bverwg, Urt. v.30.9.1973,SPE IAI 31).

That a cross is to be brought into every classroom, according to legal interpretations, follows the special objective that the schools are "christliche Gemeinschaftschulen", and "Sie ist deshalb mit dem Toleranzgebot des Art. 136 Abs. 1 der

Bayer. Verfassung vereinbar" (ie., It is therefore compatible with the compulsion to be tolerant.) (Die Schulordnung der

Volksschule, p. 16). 143

LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE GRUNDGESETZ AND THE BAVARIAN CONSTITUTION AS CONCERNS THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS

Kommers (1990), interprets the German Federal Court's stance on church-state relations as revolving around three principles: neutrality, autonomy, and accommodation.

Ultimately, however, these principles are in conflict with each other.

The Federal Constitutional Court has consistently held that

"Religion is so central to human existence,..that any interference with religious belief or its expression, or any display of partiality for a given belief or set of beliefs, would violate the principle of human dignity that the state is bound, under Article 1, 'to respect and protect'" (Church

Construction Tax Case, Judgment of December 14, 1965; in

Kommers, p. 2) . That the state not show partiality in matters concerning religious orientation is bound by Articles 3 and 4, concerning Equality before the Law and Freedom of Faith, of

Conscience and of Creed.

Article 4 is written in absolute terms, and as such

"contains no reservation clause limiting freedom of religious belief or exercise, which means that religious expression can be regulated only by some other value explicitly set forth in the Constitution (Kommers, p. 2). Article 137 (1), which regulates "there shall be no state church," embraces the 144

principle of neutrality, while the principle of "tolerance"

"obliges the state to respect and protect all manner of

religious beliefs" (Kommers, p. 2).

That the church is to be autonomous of the state is

regulated in Article 137 (3), taken word-for-word from the

Weimar Constitution, which reads that "each religious body

regulates and administers its affairs independently within the

limits of federal laws". According to Kommers, "it has not been so easy to draw a clear line between the sacred and the

secular" (p. 6) . The Federal Constitution has consistently upheld that:

Any state policy...that compromises the mission of the church, detracts from its religious identity, or undermines its public credibility as a religious institution committed to a given way of life, interferes with the autonomy of the church in violation of the Basic Law (Union Recruiting' Case, 57 Bverfge 220 (1981), Marien Hospital Case, 53 Bverfge 366 (1980); Goch Hospital Case, 46 Bverfge 73 (1977), and St. Elizabeth Hospital Case, 70 Bverfge 138 (1985) (Kommers, p. 12).

Kommers commented that the result of the former decision "must be understood in terms of the Constitutional Court's image of the church as a copartner with the state in caring for the needs of its citizens" (pp. 12-13).

The attitude that the "church is a copartner with the state in caring for the needs of its citizens" has led to the state institutionalization of the churches' aims through its policy of accommodation, as can be seen in the specific articles 145 related to schooling. This principle of accommodation has led to problems of interpretation given the state's principle of neutrality. Article 7 places the "entire educational system under state supervision," gives the parents the "right to decide whether

(the child) shall receive religious instruction," makes this instruction "part of the ordinary curriculum in state and municipal schools," and permits the state to create and maintain private denominational schools, which Bavaria has done. Religious instruction is given "in accordance with the tenets of the religious community". Parents may request that their children are exempted from this requirement, and teachers may refuse to teach religion.

So long as the state respects the religious or non religious preferences of its students and teachers "religious education is sanctioned by the constitution; it enjoys a legitimate place within the public school curriculum"

(Kommers, p. 9) The state may establish interdenominational schools as the standard form of public schooling if it also provides for religious instruction within this framework. The problem, however, is that religious instruction "cannot as a practical matter be extended to all religious groups," and

"whether and to what extent religious instruction or separate confessional schools shall be provided for ... Muslim 146 students... is presently a troubling constitutional issue”

(Kommers, p. 9).

Teachers may not be compelled to teach religious classes; nor must parents send their children to these classes. But in order to decline participation, both a teacher and a student must, in a practical sense, disclose his/her religious preference, which is not a compulsion under Basic Law, Article

136(3) .

These are pressing issues, especially given that at no other time in Germany and in Bavaria itself has there been a greater presence of religious minorities within its borders.

JEWISH IDENTITY FORMATION IN A CHRISTIAN CIVIL STATE

Much has been written about the identity formation of minorities in any given society - less so about the identity formation of the majority. This is because the identity of the majority is infrequently considered and viewed as a matter of fact: the majority "takes it for granted that only its manner of being and doing, its value system, is the natural one, the one that is the most moral and protective of the best interests of the greatest number" (Sperber, 1986, p. 70) .

Inasmuch as a state supports "Images, symbols, and language

(which) are cultural contents that cannot be abstracted from one's identity (Diner, 1986, p. 127)," it supports the 147

identity formation of those holding to certain cultural

contents. In a state in which Christian images, symbols, and

language have been institutionalized, on the one hand it is a

matter of fact that the majority develops a sense of belonging

with other members of the majority; on the other hand that

sense of identity is infrequently considered. Thus, it is the

identity formation of minorities in any given society which

dominate the sociological discussions, and it is this topic

that the study will now address.

There is a prevailing view that post World War II Germany

has had no "Jewish problem" since there are so few Jews left

there (Katcher, 1968, p. 2 4 8) .27 Dan Diner, in a more

cynical tone, wrote that "There appears to be a positive side

to the annihilation of the Jews in that it has led to the

stabilization of the system, " since there are so few Jews left

in Germany today (p. 128-29). While reduced in numbers, there

has been a Jewish population in Germany since the end of the

war, and the dilemma for the Jewish population has been the

formation of both a collective and individual identity as Jews

in light of the Holocaust and in light of the population's

experiences in post-World War II Germany.

27 Many observers have suggested that there has never been a "Jewish problem, but that there has always been an "anti- semitic problem". There were more Jewish people living in Germany immediately

after the war than during it. Jews from France, Holland,

Belgium and Greece were able to return to their homelands.

But German Jews and Jews from Eastern Europe, who had no place

to be repatriated, waited in the DP camps for resettlement

elsewhere. Jewish DP's in Germany numbered around 200,000 in

1945/46 (Pinson, 1947, p. 103) .2B The great majority of

German Jews had either emigrated before 1939, or were

exterminated after 1939, hence, of the estimated 200,000

Jewish DP's, only about 10,000 were native Germans. Most of

the Jews in Germany were from Poland, Hungary, Russia, the

Baltic States, Czechoslovakia, and smaller numbers from

Romania and Greece. Pinson divided Jewish DP's into three groups. The first group was made up of original inmates of

the concentration and labor camps who were liberated by the

Allies, estimated to by about 60,000 (Pinson, p. 103). Those liberated from the camps were referred to as kotzetler, or kotzetniks, a term derived from kotzet (concentration camp).

Most of these were between the ages of 18 and 45, since

2BKoppel Pinson, who traveled around DP camps between 1945 and 1946, and wrote extensively of his observations, warns that population figures must be treated with caution, since there were no reliable agencies for the collection of statistical data. Additionally, many of the camps registered figures that were too high in order to get more supplies and food rations. Many of the DP's were registered at two or more camps, and many simply left the camps without checking out. Hence, these figures, given be Pinson, are merely rough estimates. 149 younger and older Jews were considered ineligible to be sent to slave labor camps, and were therefore summarily exterminated. Few children were among this group.

These kotzetler were joined in the fall of 1945 by

Partisans, those groups of Jews who had escaped before or during transport and who found themselves joining up with guerrilla bands operating against the Nazi's on the Eastern

Front and in the Balkans, fighting for the Soviets, Polish

Army, or under Marshal Tito. Surprisingly, the Partisans brought children with them: "Even in their underground, they carried on a family life, brought children into the world and saved other children whose parents had perished" (Pinson p.

104) .

The third group, known as "infiltrees", were the Jews of

Poland and Russia, who spent most of the war in the Soviet

Union. After the war, this group was repatriated back to

Poland, but found that the waves of anti-semitism which swept

Poland after the war made it impossible for them to remain there. Feelings of insecurity forced many to "abandon their homes and newly-established economic positions and to start on the weary and harrowing trek to the DP camps in Germany, with the hope of eventual migration to Palestine or to some other non-European country" (Pinson, p. 104). With this group came the largest numbers of children, either their own or orphaned.

According to Pinson: 150

among them, for the first time, one saw in Germany bearded Jews of the traditional East-European type with all the tempo of the formerly bustling Jewish communities of Warsaw, Vilna or Lodz. These are the Jews who had not lost completely a sense of organized community life, who had been able to maintain contacts with cultural institutions - with schools, synagogues, libraries, etc. (Pinson, p. 105).

As a result of being able to carry on with community life more

than the other two groups, it was this group of "infiltrees"

which contained a larger number of intellectuals, and it was

therefore this group which was to carry on the Jewish cultural

life of the DP camps, and so too of post World War II Jewish

life in Germany.

Already by 1945, a handful of the people living in the DP

camps had chosen to settle in Germany as private citizens.

The majority, however, continued to wait for resettlement to

Palestine.

Bavaria, with its DP camps in Landsberg, Feldafing,

Fohrenwald and Pocking, each with about 4,000-5,000 Jews, together with the Jewish population of over 6,000 in Munich, became the focal point of Jewish activity in Germany. It was in Bavaria that the Central Committee of Liberated Jews of

Bavaria was established, which later became the Central

Committee of Liberated Jews of Germany.

Pinson attempted to offer a psychosocial/sociological picture of the camps and of the Displaced Persons in them, while warning that there is no "DP type in any sense of the 151 word"; rather, "the vast majority are ordinary normal people who have suffered more and are therefore more emotionally tense, but given once again normal surroundings and community life these exaggerated and intensified personality traits can easily be reduced to something approximating normal" (Pinson, p. 110). Pinson estimated that the great majority of DP's were not religious, and surmised that this would indicate that "the belief that the experience of suffering of the kind they went through brings people back to religion and induces a mystical trend of thinking is not borne out by the Jewish DP group in

Germany" (Pinson, p. Ill). Pinson claimed that the DP's lack of religiousness could be explained by the fact that the majority of the Orthodox community which was exterminated were old, with most of the survivors being younger and more assimilated. Hence, in the DP camps, meetings tended to be of a political, rather than of a religious nature.

By 1946, given the British opposition to emigration to

Palestine, at least some of the Jewish DP's moderated their views about migrating to countries other than Palestine.

Nevertheless, almost all agreed on the necessity to leave

Germany, and the vast majority was able to do so, despite the

British blockades. In the very first days of Israeli independence, the Israeli government began making plans for the evacuation of Jewish DP's from Germany to Israel. By the 152 autumn of 1949, the departure rate to Israel had reached ten thousand per month, and by December 1949, only eight thousand

Jewish DP's were left in Germany. Most of these were evacuated a year later (Sachar, 1977, p. 486) . Thus, through early emigration and extermination prior to 1945, and through emigration up until 1950, the number of Jews living in most

Lander after 1950 had been reduced to less that one tenth of a percentage point of the total population by the year 1950.

Bavaria, with 8,595 registered Jews, had the largest Jewish population (see Table 7). In short, there have been and are

Jews in post-World War II Germany. There are not very many

(28,000 registered Jews as of 1989, and there are thought to be an additional 25,000 unregistered Jews) today, but precisely because there are so few, their experiences of identity formation are that more crucial to the understanding of the process of minority identity formation.

It is hardly a leap of faith to unreservedly state that the experience of the Holocaust forever changed the identity of the Jewish minority which now resides in and outside Germany's borders. The Holocaust resulted in an historical break in that Europe could and would no longer be the center of Jewish culture. But the Holocaust also resulted in sociological breaks as well: "An entire culture was extinguished so that the survivors lack the possibility of any continuity of identity" (Diner, p. 122). 153

Table 7 - Jewish Population by States - 1939, 1946, 1950 State Year Number Percent of Population Schleswig-Holstein 1939 594 0.0 1946 485 .0 1950 195 .0 Lower Saxony 1939 6,199 .1 1946 1,963 .0 1950 997 .0 North Rhine-Westphalia 1939 28,535 .2 1946 2,912 .0 1950 2,311 .0 Hamburg 1939 8,438 .5 1946 961 .1 1950 936 .1 Bremen 1939 788 .1 1946 127 .0 1950 106 .0 Hesse 1939 23,670 .7 1946 2,949 .1 1950 2,141 .0 *Wurttemberg-Baden 1939 10,747 .3 1946 2,165 .1 1950 1,153 .0 Bavaria 1939 14,668 .2 1946 22,770 .3 1950 8,595 .1 Rhineland-Palatinate 1939 7,298 .2 1946 348 .0 1950 387 .0 **Baden 1939 2,411 .2 1946 183 .0 1950 183 .0 **Wurttemberg-Hohenzollern 1939 828 .1 1946 150 .0 1950 111 .0 Baden-Wurt temberg 1950 1,442 .0 Saarland (no figures 1951 439 .1 available for other dates) 154

♦Again, these figures must be viewed as estimates. **In 1952, Wvirttemberg-Baden, Wurttemberg-Hohenzollern, and Baden joined to form a new Land of Baden-Wurttemberg.

How was individual and collective identity of individual Jews and of the Jewish community to be formed in post World War II

Germany if it is true that "National cultures cannot be picked up at will" (Diner, p. 125)? The answer, according to Dan

Diner, has been to create an identity out of a universality and to blend that universality with the present, with an eye on the future:

The willingness to generalize - one that is rooted in, and yet detaches itself from, the active and individual Jewish experience of suffering - can lead to a political morality. This process involves an extremely difficult and painful separation from Judaism, or, form the Jewish people as a particular context of organization and identification. The result is a Jewish identity which in its practice anticipates universality. The elements of various historically nonsynchronic levels that blend in such an identity were grouped by Isaac Deutscher in his notion of the 'non-Jewish Jew.' However, such a separation from ancestral attributes does not mean a renewed assimilation to an Other that already exists, such as another nation or culture. The only open for such an identity is constant preparation for the future. The Here-and-Now has the character of being underway, of something constantly incomplete (p. 125).

For a Jewish identity, which conceives of itself as being in the Here-and-now, with an eye toward the future:

there can be no full and self-identical life in Germany. What remains is a life through Germany - along the course of that history and its consequences with which the historical phenomenon Germany is saturated. Jewish nonidentification with the psychological and physical Here-and-Now means to confront those elements 155

essential to the Jewish identity of a non-Jewish Jew as filtered through the traumatizing experience of mass annihilation...Reflection, thus, becomes an aspect of lived identity and is not split off from it (Diner, p. 120) .

In pre-Holocaust times there was precious little with which a

Jewish German could identify, for instance, a Jewish Pole.

After the Holocaust, there was a sense of shared suffering.

The Holocaust changed the identity of those who considered

themselves Jewish before 1933, along with those who did not

identify with being Jewish but whose ancestors at one time or

another did. Including himself among those who did not think

of himself as Jewish before 1933, Jean Am§ry wrote "For them

(the Jewish community), and for me, being a Jew means feeling

the tragedy of yesterday as an inner oppression. On my left

forearm I bear the Auschwitz number; it reads more briefly

than the Pentateuch or the Talmud and yet provides more thorough information" (1986, p. 90). In short, wrote Am§ry,

"I am still a Jew by the mere fact that the world around me does not expressly designate me as a non-Jew. To be something can mean that one is not something else. As a Non-non-Jew, I am a Jew; I must be one and must want to be one" (p. 91). In short, in post-World War II Germany, there was the universal realization that identification with being Jewish was not whether one recognized himself/herself as a Jew; rather, that one's Jewishness, or lack of Jewishness, had been defined by others. The consequence was that whether one wanted to or 156 not, because of a shared suffering, one became "Jewish".

Reflecting this sentiment, Amery wrote, "I must be a Jew and will be one, with or without religion, within or outside a tradition, whether as Jean, Hans, or Yochanan" (p. 182).

Renate Harpprecht, who had been an inmate of Auschwitz and whose parents had been exterminated there, commented that,

"One cannot choose one's people. In those days (of the

Holocaust), I wished many a time that I was not a Jew, but then I became one in a very conscious way" (in Craig, p. 146) .

Having a Jewish identity in post World War II Germany, or elsewhere for that matter, may have something to do with a knowledge of Jewish customs and traditions, a belief in one

God, ritualistic observances - or it may not. Having a Jewish identity may also mean feeling solidarity with one's own people who have suffered, and which, wrote Atina Grossmann, caused in her a "hypersensitivity to anything that rang of

Anti-Semitism, racism, intolerance, fascism" (1986, p. 180).

Jewish identity then has evolved, in part, from a reflection of the suffering experienced by fellow Jews during the Holocaust. But the forming of Jewish identity was not completed upon the liberation of the concentration camps, as it never is from one single event, however harrowing. Rather, the formation of Jewish identity has resulted from reflecting upon the past, and observing the present with an eye toward the future. In sum, the Holocaust has provided the Jewish 157

community and the Jewish individual with a filter to view the

present collective and individual experiences in today's

Germany. These experiences of the minority with the majority

reflect on the political culture of the German state:

The living conditions of minorities in West Germany, their cultural activities and contributions, the way they see themselves within the society (identity consciousness), and especially the minority-majority relations (social trust, outgoingness, communication, tolerance, attitudes and prejudices) are interpreted as significant indicators for the political culture of West Germany and any other given country (Reuter, 1989, p. 7) . The current political state culture reflects back on identity

formation. What then, would be the ideal political culture in which to formulate and maintain a minority identity? Recent

discussions have centered around the concept of pluralism and multiculturalism, and any discussion of identity formation of minorities must be viewed in light of these concepts.

Pluralism and multiculturalism assumes that:

Minorities are mainly constituted by their cultural expression and tradition-shaped consciousness; pluralistic societies get their characteristics by the sum of intercultural activities of their various groups and minorities; assimilation policies are regarded as repressive, outmoded, and as failures. Multiculturalism means that minorities and minority group members are not only allowed but encouraged to maintain and develop their characteristics, culture, religion, or native language alongside the dominant ones. It is on them to choose among the various options between the extremes of segregation and assimilation (Reuter, p. 7, Smolicz, 1981, p. 30).

A central question is therefore whether the German state has allowed and encouraged minorities to choose among the various 158

options between the extremes of segregation and assimilation.

In what ways has it? In what ways has it not? What have been

the results for identity formation of the Jewish minority? Of

the Muslim minority? What will happen if these minorities are

not given the same encouragement to choose? What does this

say about the political culture of Germany?

Allowances and encouragements of the minority to choose

between segregation and assimilation are manifested in

political, economic, and social life, and in the institutions

which support these. Public schools are just one of the many

institutions which could offer the choice between assimilation

and segregation. Whether a minority is allowed or encouraged

to choose between segregation and assimilation affects the

formulation of minority identity. Again, this is not to say

that the schools offer the only possibility of identity

formation; rather, that they are one of many institutions

which aid it. The question is then, whether minorities - the

Jewish and Muslim minority - have had the same opportunities

as has the majority for identity formation in the schools.

The answer, based on the impact of the legal and historical

circumstance regarding the rights of the churches, is that the

Jewish and Muslim minorities have not had the same choices.

The teaching of Catholicism and Protestantism in the public

schools in Bavaria is a compulsion and is regulated. That means that for a portion of the week students are separated 159

based on their confession, whether Catholic or Protestant, to

take part in religious instruction classes.29 There is no

such compulsion for religious minorities, and in most all

instances, except in a few large cities in a few schools,

there are no provisions for religious instruction in Judaism

or Islam, or in other minority religions. Students with

minority religions or those having no confession are compelled

to participate in an ethics class.

The state has institutionalized a Christian eivil religion

through declaring public schools to be Christian schools, with

the result being that the schools (1) are suffused with the

Christian belief system; (2) perform rituals of a Christian

nature throughout the regular school day, such as

prayer; and (3) have a presence of Christian symbols

throughout the schools, such as the hanging of crosses.

Inasmuch as the state has been an active participant in

institutionalizing and legitimizing a Christian civil

religion, it has not legitimized minority religions, with the

result that in public institutions, such as schools, children of minority religious beliefs do not have the same choices

along the extremes of segregation or assimilation, nor do they have the same opportunities for identity formation, as do

29Students may, upon the parents request, be excepted from this instruction. At fourteen, a child may decide for himself/herself, whether to continue this religious instruction. 160 children of the majority. The result has been minority group privatization.

From the beginning of post-World War II Germany, the schooling of Jewish children was problematic. As the wave of

Partisans, along with their own children and/or orphaned children, entered the DP camps, there was increasingly a need to establish some sort of schooling. To accomplish this end,

"In barns repaired by Jewish young men, six hundred teachers in sixty schools instructed twelve thousand Jewish children"

(Sachar, p. 462). The schools were far from adequate.

Despite their enthusiasm, almost none of the teachers had any teaching experience, and were therefore not as qualified as were their counterparts in the German public school system.

Additionally, most of them were quite young, and had their own schooling cut short at early ages due to the war, and who therefore had "little or no familiarity with the most basic and elementary facts of human knowledge" (p. 122) There were other problems as well:

The problems confronting a teacher in a DP school are enough to baffle even the most experienced pedagogue. In one class you may have children from Hungary who know no Yiddish, children recovered from Polish gentile families who still have to be taught and convinced that they are Jews, children coming from Samarkand or Uzbekistan or some such place in the USSR and who speak nothing but Russian - all together with little Lithuanian or Carpatho-Russian Jewish children, who run about conversing in a juicy and fluent Yiddish. No wonder, therefore, that the young and inexperienced teachers, without textbooks, without enough paper and pencils, without chalk and without blackboards, have 161

more than their hands full with such a pedagogic task (Pinson, p. 122).

Although to a much lesser extent, these are the pedagogical

issues that are present in the schooling of Jewish children in

Bavaria today. The lesser importance of these issues has been due to the real practical need of the Jewish community to once again venture out into post-World War II German society during the 1950s.

This necessary venturing out into German society has resulted in new problems for identity formation of the Jewish minority. When with fellow Jews, the Jewish person did not think of himself/herself as Jewish in a conscious way.

Reflecting this sentiment was Yago-Jung, who grew up in

Germany after the war:

At one end of the scale were my parents, who cut themselves off inexplicably, who had no contact with their families, and who surrounded themselves with friends and neighbors, all of whom had gone through 'the worst1 and whose behavior, even today, was and is marked by fear and total distrust toward their immediate environment. The climate of fear only relaxed when friends of my father from the Lagerzeit came to visit, or if distant Jewish relatives from abroad were there. Then I cheered up too, seeing how the fear disappeared from my father's face and (he was) in a mood of laughing and warmth (1986, p. 138) .

To a certain degree, Jewish adults cut themselves off from

German society, and in extreme cases could even cut themselves off economically. But the children of these adults, bora both during and after the war, had no other choices than to attend a compulsory school system which was, until 1968, 162 confessional, and which was regulated as having a Christian orientation after 1968. And it was in the schools where a

Jewish child often had his/her first dilemma of identity.

Article 136(3) of the Grundgesetz declares that "[no] person may be compelled to perform any religious act...or to participate in religious exercises and [no] one shall be bound to disclose his religious convictions". There may, however, be a conflict with the practical application of this article.

The collection of Kirchensteur, for the purpose of allocating church tax to the various religious communities, results in the situation that people must disclose their religion to state authorities - either disclose, or lie by declaring that one has no religion when in fact one does. To aid in the collection of this church tax, parents' religious preference of their new-born child must be indicated on the infant's birth certificate.

It represents, for the Jewish minority, a conflict of identity. Reflections lead one back to a time when the state's knowledge of one's religion could mean a death sentence for oneself, one's friends, and one's family. Anita

Grossman, whose parents had fled Germany and who grew up in

New York, and who for a time went back to Germany, wrote of her reflections when she registered with German authorities:

I finally knew that I had to get out of Germany when once again I went to the police station to register a new address and the uniformed man behind the counter as 163

usual asked me if I hadn't forgotten to list my religion on the form. As an American (I thought) who wasn't accustomed to such questions I had always refused to offer the information, but this time, during my third year in Germany, I suddenly said 'Jewish1... But then I suddenly realized that I had just declared myself a Jew to the German police, exposed myself to German files and data processing. My identity would be fed into all the computers, there could be no escape, no passing, no hiding - this was pure suicide! Of course my panic was unrealistic and paranoid, but I sensed how deeply anchored the fear and mistrust were. I too wanted to flee, as my parents had done, even though there was really nothing from which to flee (1986, p. 177).

Such symbols provide minorities with opportunities to reflect

on the past. Kommers writes that in disclosing one's

religious views, the Constitutional Court strains to reconcile

competing rights and values (p. 5). In this case, the rights

and values of the majority wins, however adversely it affects

the minority. It affects the minority because it is a symbol

and because:

Too little attention has been paid to the necessity of breaking with the symbolism of that tradition and its continuities, of acknowledging the use of such traditions by the National Socialists. No one really wants to accept that it is necessary after Auschwitz to requestion an entire history and culture, including its most cherished symbols and rituals. It's too much of a strain, too threatening, too close. Thought taboos persist. Hence my cynical mistrust of those who say they've broken with the ideas of their parents and grandparents (Grossmann, p. 179).

Symbols from the past affect minority identity in public

schools.

There may be a conflict with the right not to disclose one's religion, with Article 7(3), which directs that 164 religious instruction "form part of the ordinary curriculum in state and municipal schools". To refuse to participate in religious classes, or to refuse to teach religious classes, students and teachers must disclose their religion (Kommers, p. 5). Or again, they could lie, stating that they have no religion when in fact they do. Or teachers and students could tell the truth, that they are of a minority religion, that they have no religion, or that they are of a minority religion but refuse anyhow to participate in religious instruction. As noted, any one of these options may, in extreme cases, endanger a teachers' career. For the student and his/her parents, these options do not allow for or encourage identity formation, but do promote a feeling of being set apart, and of being different. Indeed, the student not participating in religious class is separated from Catholic and Protestant students for several hours a week, and is compelled to participate in an ethics class with other students who have been set apart.

Christian themes are not restricted to the hours of religious instruction. Indeed, because the schools in Bavaria are designated as being Christian public schools, the entire curriculum is infused with Christian symbolism, thus setting the member of a religious minority apart. This feeling of being "different" was the experience of Diner, who as a young 165 child being raised in Israel after the war, moved back to

Germany with his parents:

The manner in which I was compelled to perceive symbols and learn contents in schoolbooks as a youngster.. .reinforced a growing sense of my difference which was supposed to be counteracted by an even greater effort to adapt. The words spread out in rows of clumsy letters failed to awaken familiar tones, and the illustrations loomed at me almost threateningly. For example, Christmas scenes were always portrayed with nationalistic folkish and quasi-religious symbols; families always depicted as light and blond, playing music at home; the allegories were dominantly agrarian and coupled with the eternal sower. . .Moreover, I had to join in prayers every morning at school, sing church chorals in music class, obey the round shaved heads of authoritarian teachers, and, as a break from religion, learn the somewhat national-folkish traditional songs of the Wandervogel and German Youth Movement...To defend myself I needed to counteridentity" (1990, p. 126) .

Not only were general classes problematic for the Jewish student:

Jewish students did not take mandatory religion lessons with Gentile students and thus were made to appear different from other pupils, who often resented them. For most Jews, the school atmosphere appeared to be charged with latent anti-Semitism that could explode at any moment. For both Jews and non-Jews of the younger generation, silence about the Holocaust and the Nazi past was the rule for the most part in the family and public school system...In essence then, the West German state's efforts to create a deeper understanding between Jews and Germans and to probe German history have been cosmetic: The state has publicly taken the 'correct' position by financially aiding the Jewish communities in Germany and establishing strong ties to Israel while neglecting the deep-rooted problems that had brought about Germany1s unique kind of virulent anti-Semitism (Zipes, 1986, pp. 32-33) .

There is no suggestion that the prevalence of church rituals and symbolisms, which because of their perceived meaning as 166 reflected in the historical reality, have been intentionally maintained to cause turmoil in the minority population. But how are Jews, and other minorities, to reflect on the church symbolism when, for example, Germany's most eminent Roman

Catholic prelate, Josef Cardinal Frings, was quoted in 1960's as saying that "Jews had provoked the wrath of the Nazis by parading their wealth, that there was no proof that six million Jews had died as the result of the Nazi terror, and that Nazism would not again revive in Germany because there were no Jews" (in Katcher, p. 244)? To be sure, the church, but not Cardinal Frings, retracted his statement, but by that time, "The issue (anti-semitism) which so many had called dead because they wanted it dead, had proved that it still had a life. And the culture in which it revived, was the culture of religion" (Katcher, p. 244).

And there are stories such as that of Gunther Gensch, who began teaching Protestant religious classes in 1953. While growing up during Nazism, Gensch reports that he "readily accepted that the Jews were to be despised because they had first rejected Jesus Christ and then destroyed him. It almost seemed as if it were necessary to be an anti-Semite in order to be a good Christian" (in Katcher, p. 250). Gensch began questioning his attitudes in the early 1960s, trying to learn all that he could about Jewish people and their religion.

What he discovered was that he, and his colleagues were: 167

continuing Hitler's work. We were really teaching anti-Semitism. I checked into the books that we were using for religious instruction and compared them with the books that had been used during the Third Reich. I was shocked when I found that many were the same, that we were still using Nazi texts, containing Nazi language and preaching Nazi ideology (in Katcher, p. 251) . When Gensch brought his discovery to the attention of other teachers, he found that they had already discovered this for themselves, but that few were willing to make any changes. A few even said to him that "If you feel that way, you're not a

Protestant. You're a Jew" (in Katcher, p. 251). Religious authorities, not civil authorities, began investigating

Gensch1s views on these matters, and he was thereafter forbidden to teach religion in the schools, and forbidden to refer to himself as a "Protestant" within the confines of the school (Katcher, p. 251) . Gensch views his experiences as being isolated, commenting that "No one thinks in terms of teaching anti-Semitism. But no one believes that it is necessary to change the books and the teachers, to review our theology, so that the church will cease being the last bastion of Nazism. The students trust us and have faith in us. If we teach Jewish guilt [for Christ's death], if we do not refute known untruths, then we are laying a foundation for a new anti-Semitism" (Katcher, p. 252).

In Gensch's view, the teaching of the Jewish religion by the sixties had still not changed significantly. Many 168

observers however, have noted that relations between Jewish

organizations and that the Churches have improved tremendously

since 1945 .30 There had been also great change in the

treatment of Jewish people and in attitudes toward Israel,

which has presented itself in the form of philo-Semitism31,

of the type which most of the Jewish community condemns:

As a Jew I did not expect brotherly love in Germany, but I did hope for tolerance. Philo-Semitism as an expression of German guilt complexes is repulsive to me because it imposes the status of 'being special1 on me, because it limits my freedom to feel free as equal among equals, and because it continually causes me to be influenced by the nasty saying that 'the Germans are breathing down my back or are after me' (in Broder, 1979, p. 74; in Zipes, p. 43).

As a Jewish child in the German public schools, this philo-

semitism, however well-intentioned, could result in feelings of "otherness" for the Jewish child who wanted, like other

children, just to be a "normal" a child and to feel herself part of the group. This philo-semitism has often led to problems of being set apart for young Jews attending the public schools, as this next account indicates:

30See Klaus Wittstadt's "Die katholische Kirche und das Judentum nach 1945", in Geschichte und Kultur der Juden in Bayern. 1988.

31This philo-semitism is said to be a characteristic of all but the extreme political left and right. The political left, according to Grossmann, has forgotten that two-thirds of Israeli citizens today are there due to having been victims of Nazi persecution, adding that "any German who wants to talk with me about Zionism must also be ready to talk seriously and honestly about anti-Semitism in its contemporary and historical contexts" (p. 182). 169

Why did my elementary school teacher write such strange things into my poetry collection like 'Be proud of the courage that your parents showed in the face of tyranny. Your parents fought for their convictions.1 That was not the kind of thing that one could show around in second grade. I would have been a lot happier if he had written something like 'roses are red, violets are blue, . .and I love you too1 (Yago-Jung, 1986, p. 139).

For several hours a week students are separated according to their religion, to receive religious instruction. Minority students, even if they would, can not help being set apart.

Indeed they are different because of the very nature of not being able to attend classes with their Catholic and

Protestant peers. Additionally, problems of identity formation are not limited to the hours of religious instruction, as religious observances are part of the every day school experience:

It would be wrong to give the impression that these religious school observances raise no problems... Although teachers are supposed not to have to participate in school devotions, it becomes difficult for them not to. The same is true for students. What are they to do while the services are being held? Not to participate sets them noticeably apart and this is exactly what most children seek to avoid. There is also the problem of religious minorities (Helmreich, p. 254) .

In addition to the Jewish communities of Berlin and Frankfurt, the Munich Jewish community's response to such problems has been to privatize. Not surprisingly, in the same year, 1968, in which there was a referendum to amend the Bavarian

Constitution so that the schools would henceforce be 170

"Christian public schools in which the children will be instructed and raised according to Christianity, " the Bavarian

Jewish community responded by opening a private school. As will be discussed, the decision to open a private school was not so much made because parents were dissatisfied with the pedagogical quality of the public schools; rather, the decision was made due to what many felt was the submergence of the children's Jewish identity in the public schools. If it is true that "especially ethnic differentiation from without produces community consciousness and a feeling of identity from within" (Reuter, p. 10), then it is not surprising that

"No other Jewish community is as ethnocentric" (Sachar, 1985, p. 3) as is Bavaria's, and that the Jewish community has established and maintained its own Jewish elementary school.

The right to establish private schooling in the various

Lander is guaranteed by Grxmdgesetz Article 7(4-5):

(4) The right to establish private schools is guaranteed. Private schools as a substitute for state or municipal schools, require the approval of the state and are subject to the laws of the Lander. This approval must be given if private schools are not inferior to the state or municipal schools in their educational aims, their facilities and the professional training of their teaching staff, and if a segregation of the pupils according to the means of the parents is not promoted. This approval must be withheld if the economic and legal position of the teaching staff is not sufficiently assured.

(5) A private elementary school shall be admitted only if the educational authority finds that it serves a special pedagogic interest or if, on the application of persons entitled to bring up children, it is to be 171

established as an interdenominational or denominational or ideological school and a state or municipal elementary school of this type does not exist in the community.

The Bavarian legislature has reaffirmed this right in its

Constitution. This right is guaranteed with the approval of

the state, and if the state finds that the "substitute for

state and municipal schools. . .are not inferior to the state or

municipal schools in their educational aims, their facilities

and the professional training of their teaching staff". Coons

(1986) raised the question of what "not inferior . .in their

educational aims" means (p. 20), adding that "Most private

schools will gladly undertake to teach literacy, numeracy and

knowledge of German institutions. Of course, a special problem could arise if the administration chose to challenge

the addition to the curriculum of a 'Green', Islamic or other

ideology on the ground that it conflicts with the basic

standard, making the proposal inherently 'inferior' within the meaning of Article 7(4)" (p. 20). Furthermore, since the public schools in such states as Bavaria are designated as being "Christian public schools," with the aim to educate the student toward Christianity, will the state have the legal authority to deny the existence of any private school which professes another aim (Coons; Helmreich, p, 238)? So far, the

Jewish school in Munich, which is the only Jewish school in

Bavaria, has not been designated as being "inferior", and 172

there does not appear to be a future threat that it will be

designated as such.

There do, however, appear to be fiscal issues which affect both the Jewish and Muslim communities alike, and it is to a discussion of this latter community that this work now turns.

MUSLIM IDENTITY FORMATION

Immediately after the war, the Federal Republic met is manpower needs from the twelve million refugees who fled there from all over the east, and later, from East German refugees.

This latter source was finally halted in 1961 when east-west borders were closed. The Federal Republic signed bi-national recruitment agreements with other countries (1955, Italy;

1960, Spain and Greece; 1961, Turkey, 196; Morocco, 1964;

Portugal, 1965; Tunisia, 1968, and Yugoslavia, 1968). For the purposes of this research, these recruits will be referred to as Gastarbeiter ("foreign workers") .“ The number of

Gastarbeiter in the Federal Republic rose from 70,000 in 1954 to 2.6 million in 1973. The 2.6 million Gastarbeiter

“ The term Gastarbeiter, is based on the concept that the recruits would work in Germany and then return to their homelands. Since this has not been the case for the majority of recruits, this term appears outmoded. However, other terms - Fremdarbeiter ("alien worker"); Wanderarbeiter ("migrant worker"); ausldndische Arbeitnehmer ("foreign employees") - miss the fact that many are self-employed. 173 represented 11.9% of all people employed in the Federal

Republic (Reuter, p. 32).

In 1973 a recruitment ban was put into effect, in an attempt to halt further foreign access to the German labor market. Whereas Gastarbeiter from other EC countries were excepted from the recruitment stop, they had fewer difficulties than did non-member EC Gastarbeiter, the latter of whom would have lost the opportunity to return to Germany once they left. The result was that "the greatest part of the foreign workers from non-EC nations, mainly Turks and

Yugoslavs, now forced to decide to stay or to return, brought their spouses and children into Germany" (Reuter, p. 32). As a result, the percentage of foreigners who were not part of the workforce became the majority, representing 62% of the

Gastarbeiter population in 1975, and declining only slightly after that (Reuter, p. 32). By 1987, foreign residence in

Germany had grown to 4.58 million foreign workers and their dependents, representing 7.5% of the population. Nearly one- third of this population are Turks (1.47 million). More than two-thirds of Gastarbeiter live in four states - North Rhine

Westfalia, Baden Wurttemberg, Bavaria, and Hesse. As is the case in other large cities, the number of Gastarbeiter in

Munich is 15-20% of the population. The decline in the number of foreign workers and the increase in the number of foreign residents clearly shows the change from short-term stay to 174 long-term residency and permanence. Thus, "the recruitment stop had important counter-factual effects: It reduced the present foreign labor force temporarily only, increased the foreign residence, expanded the infrastructural demand, and created a mostly permanent and stable immigrant minority"

(Reuter, p. 33). By 1992, the percentage of Gastarbeiter in

German schools (including the former DDR) was 9.2%, while the percentage of Gastarbeiter in Bavarian schools was 8.2%

(Auslandische Schuler und Schulabsolventen 1983 bis 1992,

1994, p. 37). Of the 38,702 students in Bavaria who are children of Gastarbeiter, 15,322 are from Turkey and 10,170 are from other countries (Auslandische Schuler und

Schulabsolventen 1983 bit 1992, p. 33).

Much has been written in an attempt to shed some light on why such a disproportionately small percentage of Gastarbeiter attend the elite Gymansien - Among Turkish children, 4.1% overall and 3.6% in Bavaria (p. 59) - and why such a disproportionately large percentage - among Turkish children,

15.9% overall, and 13.9% in Bavaria (p. 74-75) - attend the

Sonderschulen fur Lernbehinderte (special schools for the learning handicapped). Many have speculated that among the reasons for these disproportionate percentages are the low academic achievement of the students' parents, the low economic status of the students' families, and the language difficulties which the students encounter (Reuter). To be sure, these are perhaps sound explanations. These explanations do, however, ignore the problems of identity

formation of these children, with the result being that the onus for change is left to the families of Gastarbeiter, who indeed have unequal legal protection in a country in which they are not granted citizenship, whose ability to exercise political power is severely limited, and whose mostly Muslim children (estimated at 90%)33, are compelled to attend a public school system which the state has declared has as its objective to "educate and raise the children" according to the principles of Christianity. It would be a leap of faith to suggest that the overwhelming presence of Christian symbols in the public schools results in poor academic performance of religious minorities. Sociologists have, however, suggested that an individual's positive self-identity contributes to successful academic performance (Coleman; Myrdal). And it would also not be a leap of faith to suggest that the public school system has an abundance of opportunities for the

Christian majority in which to give it a positive Christian identity, while at the same time not encouraging or fostering the self-identity of religious minorities.

“The exact percentages of Turkish Gastarbeiter who are Muslim is not known, since they register under the Turkish nationality. (Mahler, 1989). 176

Grundgesetz guarantees German citizens the freedom of

assembly and the freedom of association (Articles 8 and 9) .

The Federal Assembly Law and the Federal Association Law have

extended these rights to non-Germans, the latter of which has

certain limitations. During the 1970s, the Turkish minority,

along with the Yugoslav, Italian, Spanish, and Greek

populations, founded workers' clubs, self-help groups,

associations, and cultural centers for both "intra-group

communication and information, mutual help and support for

new immigrants, political activism and interest representation

on the one hand and--to a certain extent -- for interaction

and communication with the German majority on the other"

(Reuter, p. 36).

There are federal bureaus to coordinate the activities of

these associations, but no umbrella organization simply for

Gastarbeiter. The prevailing view is that "the diversity of

interests between extreme right and left-wing groups makes any

common policy impossible" (Reuter, p. 36). For example, the

Turkish Gastarbeiter have founded associations which parallel the various political issues related to Turkey and Germany, and which are linked to political parties in Turkey. The communist "Federation of the Workers Associations from

Turkey," founded in 1977, fights against right-wing extremism among Turkish workers, in addition to advocating a more

liberal policy toward immigration. The social-democratic 177

"Confederation of Progressive People's Associations from

Turkey in the Federal Republic of Germany", said to be the

most well respected Turkish organization in Germany (Reuter,

p. 37), in collaboration with the SPD, organizes adult

education courses, edits a Turkish newspaper and a German

journal. The "Federation of Democratic Worker Associations"

fights against xenophobia, and together with the

aforementioned associations, is in favor of some integration

while retaining the right to their own Turkish identity.

The Turkish "National Movement Party, " with 26,000 members,

is the largest Turkish organization. This association has

established Islamic Cultural Centers and Koran Schools for

after-school religious instruction. The National Movement

Party is anti-integrationist.

These political differences, as represented by diverse

associations, are said to be among the obstacles in the granting of political rights to these Gastarbeiter. Gerhardt

Mahler, Ministerial Advisor in the Bayer. Staatsministerium

fur Unterricht und Kultur, wrote of the difficulties in finding a Muslim representative who could speak on behalf of the Muslim population's need for religious instruction in the public schools (Mahler, 1989, p. 381) . To be sure, political differences among the Muslim associations would seem to be an obstacle. 178

There is still no regulation in the Grundgesetz which compels Turkish children to participate in Islamic religious classes, while at the same time Christian children are compelled to participate in Christian religious classes. The

Standigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Lander in der

Bundesrepublik Deutschland, aware of these legal and practical inequalities, appointed a special commission to look into the possibility of establishing special classes for Gastarbeiter.

Problems of conception immediately arose, as the commissioners could not agree on a model for potential classes. The Turkish government wanted that instruction be modelled after its own schools should the children return to

Turkey. Another model, proposed by various members of the

Islamic community, was to teach Islam, just as the Protestants and Catholics were taught their religions. For their part, most of the German authorities suggested that Islamic children should have an understanding of German culture, and that the proposed model should address this need appropriately (Mahler, p. 382). The commission's final proposal was that:

Such religious upbringing should develop a Muslim identity in a non-Muslim world. It must therefore help the Muslim children and youth to understand and accept the worthy norms of the German community, and to endure the tensions between the different worthy norms (Mahler, p. 382).

Such a model would hardly encourage a Muslim identity independent of a child's German surroundings; it would only encourage an identity from without, and as such is representative of a policy which is quite different from that

toward the majority of children attending German public

schools. Indeed, in the article in which he discusses the effect of these proceedings on Bavarian schools, Religiose

Unterweisung fur turkische Schuler muslimischen Glaubens in

Bayern (1989) , Mahler's use of the word "Unterweisung", rather than the term "Religionsunterricht" ("religious instruction") , as he later explained during my interview with him, was not accidental. The word "Unterweisung", means "instruction" also, but it carries with it a connotation of "indoctrination"

(Helmreich). Within the Bayerische Staatsministerium fur

Unterricht und Kultus during the eighties, there was increasing concern that Islamic children's attendance at special Koranschulen often conflicted with the messages that these children were receiving in the public schools, "Deutsche

Lehrer berichten jedoch von negativen Auswirkungen auf ihre

Bemiihungen, die Kinder in das deutsche Leben und in eine nichtmuslimischen Welt einzugliedem", and "die Inhalte dieser

Kurse haufig in kontrSrem Widerspruch zu den Zielen des

Unterrichts in der Schule" (Mahler, p. 383) ,34 Additionally,

34Translation: German teachers report, however, of the negative development of their efforts in bringing together a German life in a non-Islamic world, and the contents of these courses are frequently in contradiction to the aims of the lessons of the school. 180

the time spent in the Koranschulen - sometimes as much as six

hours a week - before and/or after school - was seen to

conflict with the students’ studies. Hence, in an effort to

decrease enrollments at the Koranschulen, the Bavarian

government made some provisions for "Religiose Unterweisung"

for Islamic children in the public schools. The curriculum of

such courses includes portions of living in the world and in

Germany, "so that it must not be compared with any other

(Mahler, p. 383)" since the "methods and the Curriculum are

not coming from the church, as it does in Catholic and

Protestant classes" (Mahler, p. 383).

There is no hidden agenda here. The purpose of such

instruction is not so much to encourage identity formation of

the Muslim child solely as an end in and of itself as it is to promote the assimilation of children into German society based on a Muslim identity which they already bring with them, and which the government cannot do away with even if it would.

Since 1985, this instruction has been offered to Islamic children in first grade, and has been added each year to successive grades up to grade four. The offering, however, must be qualified. The ability to participate in such instruction is not a right or an obligation. In this sense also, the legal provisions for the instruction are not equal to that of the provisions for instruction in Catholicism and in Protestantism, where the latter enjoys constitutional 181

rights and obligations. The Bavarian regulations are clear in

that the instruction of the Muslim religion is not an

11 ordentliches Lehrfach" (regular subject) , nor will it be in

the future:

(1) Die Einrichtung von islamischen Religionsunterricht als orderntliches Lehrfach ist derzeit nicht moglich (und zwar unter den gegebenen Umstanden in keinem Bundesland, nicht nur nicht in Bayern).

Translation: The establishment of Islamic religious classes as an ordinary subject is therefore not possible (and that is the situation in all states, not only in Bavaria).

(2) Weil die vielen tiirkischer Schuler muslimischen Glaubens ein Anrecht auf religiose Unterweisung haben, kann man ihnen diese nicht bis zur eventuellen Einfiihrung von ordentlichem Religionsunterricht vorenthalten (Die Schulordnung der Volksschule, p. 384) .

Translation: Although the many Turkish children of Islamic belief have a right to religious instruction, one can not forward the eventual establishment of a system of religious instruction.

Because this instruction is neither a right or an obligation, it is offered only to Islamic children at some schools in some large cities. Schools with few Islamic children, whether in the city or most likely in the countryside, do not offer this instruction because religious instruction "cannot as a practical matter be extended to all religious groups"

(Kommers, p. 10). Minorities often do not meet the

"imperatives of size and durability that would 182

constitutionally entitle them to religious instruction in public schools" (Kommers, p. 10).

The state has offered reasons as to why this instruction can not be put on equal footing with instruction in

Catholicism and Protestantism. Since Weimar, the state has overseen religious instruction, but religious institutions have decided on the content of that instruction. As a partner of the state, the religious organization must be formed and must prepare teachers, and only then can the religious organization bring legitimation to instruction. Accordingly, such an organization must be formed so that it can meet with the state, and it must not represent only certain factions.

When this happens, according to state planners, the religious instruction will get legitimation (Mahler, p. 385) . The state has recognized this dilemma, and it also has claimed that such a representative organizational body will perhaps never come about, since it is the belief of the Islamic community that religion is a private affair. Since a central coordinating body does not exist, and since the German authorities are reluctant to establish religious instruction as a regular subject without Islamic representation, the Muslim community can not share in the rights and obligations of the state.

Without such legitimation, they do not have legal equality

(Mahler, p. 386). Few voices exist in politics for the religious instruction

of Muslim children, while the same is not true of other -

Catholic and Protestant - religious groups (Mahler, p. 382).

Accordingly, this is why religious instruction in Islam can

not be mandated as a right or as an obligation. The key here

seems to be that there is no political voice in politics.

Whereas Christianity has been given legitimation in the political arena, and the political arena has given

legitimation to Christianity in the public sphere, the same is

not true of Islam. Must the Islamic community, in its

religious concerns, become politicized in order to share

equally in the rights and obligations of the state? According

to the state, there is no other way in which it can grant equality under the law, while recognizing that this politicalization of the Islamic religious community in Germany would be an impossibility. Because the Christian churches have intertwined their religion into civil life, there appears to be little recognition that equal rights for religious minorities can be granted outside of a politicalization of religion.

There does exist a school in Munich, the Deutsche-

Islamische Volkschule, whose mere presence defies the German rationale that political differences can not be overcome with similarities in religion. It is a school with Islamic children from all over the world, and while there remain 184

political differences among the parents of students, these

differences are kept distinct from the Islamic religion which

unites the student body.

Some observers note that the parental choice available to

parents in Germany is just one among many reflections of that

countries' commitment to democracy. Indeed, as discussed,

this was the rationale to allow parental choice. But in order

for this choice to reflect a commitment to democracy, the

ability to choose must be made upon equal grounds, or rather,

upon equal choices along the continuum of accepting the

dominant culture as one's own or segregating oneself. Private

schools are among the theoretical choices for parents wishing

to disassociate their children from the Christian public

schools. The unequal distributions of public subsidies to

private schools, in addition to the impositions imposed in

establishing them, are hardships for religious minorities

wishing to establish their own schools.

As noted, the right to establish a private school is

guaranteed by the Grundgesetz Article 7, Paragraphs 4 and 5.

Nevertheless, not all private schools are guaranteed the same

subsidies. In a 1966 Federal Administrative Court case

(Bverwge 23, 347 = 1966 NJW, 1236), the plaintiff claimed that

it should receive public subsidies for its private dance

school. The Court asserted that "the wording and genesis of

Article 7, Paragraph 4 Basic Law does not favor the idea of a constitutional claim to private school subsidies" (in Coons, p. 34) . The court had decided that there was no constitutional guarantee for any particular private school but only for private education in general (Coons, p. 34) . The court did, however, acknowledge the public savings which occur when students attend private school. Additionally, it had to contend with Article 7, Paragraph 5, which states that approval of private schools will be given if "a segregation of the pupils according to the means of the parents is not promoted" and recognized that "fees could be borne only by those who could afford them" (Coons, p. 35) if the state did not offer the schools a subsidy. The court's final decision was to allow subsidies for already-recognized private schools, but that it was up to the discretion of the legislature to determine the level of subsidy which each individual private school should receive. Public subsidies were not to include start-up costs for the schools, and were to be tied to an applicants' need.

A 1984 decision of the Bayerischer Verfassungsgerichtshof

(Constitutional Court of the State of Bavaria), is worth noting. In this case (1985 Nvwz 481) , it was determined that

"no subsidy could be claimed by anyone as a matter of right".

Further, said the court, "the state equal protection clause allows a preference for private schools that are already in operation; the distinction is rational, and that is the end of 186 the issue" (in Coons, p. 38) . That schools "already in operation" are given preferential treatment in the distribution of subsidies will make it that much more difficult for the Islamic community to establish private schools in the future. Coons commented about this decision that although "state constitutional courts render binding interpretations of their own constitutions, these may, of course, run afoul of the Basic Law" (p. 38).

Several observations must be made about these decisions.

The Federal Constitutional Court acknowledged that denying subsidies for needy children would not be consistent with

Grundgesetz Article 7(5). Additionally, the court took into consideration Article 3 of the Grundgesetz, which implies fiscal neutrality. Hence, the court adopted a "minimalist position tied to the applicant's need; the subsidy must be sufficient to avoid the school's economic decline and resulting collapse" (Coons, p. 36) . The court did not, however, make a provision for subsidies to needy communities, which has presented a hardship for minority communities since the court decided that private schools did not have a right for public subsidies for start-up and capital costs (Coons, p.

36). That private schools have no right for state subsidies for start-up costs imposes a special obstacle for the Islamic community, since, unlike the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish communities, they are not entitled to receive funds from the 187

Kirchensteur, and establishing such a private school would be

a particularly difficult financial burden on them. For its part, the Jewish community, as will be discussed in Chapter 5, also views private school financing as imposing unequal hardships on its community.

Interviews with school authorities, minority

representatives, parents, and students support the historical and sociological documentation of a public school system which abides by an exclusionary civil religion. CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

This study was designed to analyze the state's role in institutionalizing a Christian civil religion in its public schools and the effect on minority identity formation.

Bavaria was targeted because it still retains provisions for church influence in the schools which date back to Weimar and earlier. Additionally, Bavaria has a higher percentage of

Catholics than any other German state and religious instruction in Bavarian schools, in addition to the Christian orientation of the schools, is more thorough than in other states. Another criterion in choosing a location was that the sample include minority and majority religious populations, both in urban and in rural settings. Hence, Munich and the surrounding countryside, with a large minority population, and with easy access to rural areas in its vicinity, was deemed an appropriate locale from which to draw a sample.

Sampling in quantitative research involves the application of methodological rules; sampling in qualitative research involves the application of purposeful strategies. In qualitative research "sample size depends on what you want to know, the purpose of the inquiry, what's at stake, what will

188 189 be useful, what will have credibility, and what can be done with available time and resources" in order to apply logical

inferences about the target population (Patton, 1990, pp. 183-

184) .

The purpose of conducting qualitative research is not to make life easier for the researcher. Indeed, the absence of

specific sampling rules means that the researcher must take

extra caution in determining an appropriate sample from which

responses can be logically generalized to the entire population under question. Through a variety of purposeful

techniques, caution has been used:

The logic of purposeful sampling is quite different from the logic of probability sampling. The problem is, however, that the utility and credibility of small purposeful samples are often judged on the basis of the logic, purpose, and recommended sample size of probability sampling. What should happen is that purposeful samples be judged on the basis of the purpose and rationale of each study and the sampling strategy used to achieve the study's purpose (Patton, p. 185).

The dilemma for qualitative researchers is not in targeting a large sample; the dilemma is finding an appropriate one: the "validity, meaningfulness, and insights generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information- richness of the cases selected and the observational/ analytical capabilities of the researcher than with sample size (Patton, p. 185). 190

Jews were the most visible minority population prior to

World War II. As such, literature is available about Jewish attitudes and responses toward the state's role in identity formation of religious groups. The researcher therefore chose to interview representatives of this population for her analyses of post-World War Two Germany for reasons of historical comparison.

Since this study is about religious minorities in its relation to the religious majority, however, it was necessary to interview representatives of Germany's now largest and most visible religious minority - its Turkish population. Hence, the researcher chose to interview representatives from the minority Jewish and Turkish population, and from the majority

Catholic and Protestant population. Other religious minorities have been, and currently are, separated for a portion of the day due to religious instruction, and/or they may have unequal provisions for religious instruction in their religion. These minorities include small Christian sects, minority Catholics in predominantly Protestant portions of

Germany, minority Protestants in predominantly Catholic portions of Germany, Orthodox Greeks, and Jehovah's Witnesses.

I limited the sample to the Jewish and Turkish populations because these populations best serve the comparative historical and sociological purpose. The Jewish population prior to 1945 was singled out through extreme means, and the 191

Turkish population is now Germany's largest and most visible minority, and with respect to the question, can be compared with the Jewish population's experiences.

I also limited my confirming and disconfirming interviews

to children in their last year at the Grundschule (generally

children of the age of 10) because students at this age must

abide by their parents' desires to be enrolled in religious

classes, and do not have the option, as do older students, to

enroll instead in ethics classes. Students in their last year

at the Grundschule would have more refined verbal and

articulation skills than younger students.

Finally, I was concerned with generalizations which can be made from logical inferences "that result when data are

abstracted from a number of individual cases'' (Best, 1970, p.

120). Hence, the logic of my use of purposeful sampling for this research "lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth" (Patton, p. 168) . Ideally, one would sample to the point of redundancy:

In purposeful sampling the size of the sample is determined by informational considerations. If the purpose is to maximize information, the sampling is terminated when no new information is forthcoming from new sampled units; thus redundancy is the primary criterion. (Lincoln & Guba, 1990, p. 185).

Patton (p. 186) discusses the limitations of this technique as one that works best for basic research, unlimited time lines, and unconstrained resources". Nevertheless, with redundancy as the criterion, sample size is left to the logical insights

of the researcher, and Patton recommends therefore that

"qualitative sampling designs specify minimum samples based on

expected reasonable coverage of the phenomenon given the

purpose of the study and stakeholder interests, " and that once

this minimum sample has been determined, that "one may add to

the sample as fieldwork unfolds" (p. 186). In short, "the

design should be understood to be emergent. Yet, at the

beginning, for planning and budgetary purposes, one specifies

a minimum expected sample size and builds a rationale for that minimum" (Patton, p. 186). I have chosen what I consider to be an information-rich minimum acceptable sample through

diverse purposeful sampling strategies of people to interview

in order to elicit an acceptable rate of redundancy given the budgetary and time constraints of the research in question.

Because of the research questions, an acceptable minimal sample of Jewish, Turkish, and Christian majority denominations - Catholic and Protestant - was targeted (Table

8) , in addition to a minimum appropriate confirming or disconfirming sample (Table 9). 193

Table 8 - SAMPLE

SAMPLE FROM SAMPLE FROM SAMPLE FROM JEMISH POPULATION TURKISH POPULATION X-TIAN POPULATION Office Manaaer and Educational Attache, Gerhardt Mahler, Legal Advisor, Jewish Turkish Ministerial Advisor. Community. Center. Consulate, Munich - Bavarian Ministry of Munich/Chosen because Chosen because he was Education and Culture, he vas appointed to represent Expert on minority RELIGIOUS appointed/elected to Turkish educational affairs. COMMUNITY represent Jewish interests in Munich LEADERS interests in the and is therefore and community and is considered to be therefore considered to knowledgeable as to Representative, be knowledgeable as to vhat those interests Bayerische what those interests are Stadtsinstitut fur are; and Schulpadanonik und Bildungsforschung (expert on educational reforms) Director of the only The Principal of the Professor. Universitat RELIGIOUS Jewish Blementary onlv Islamic Hunchen, Experts on INSTRUCTION school in Bavaria Elementary School in Religious Instruction EXPERTS Bav?ri? of Catholic and Protestant Students 194

Table 9 - Confirming or Disconfirming Sample

JBWISH TURKISH POPULATION X-TIAN POPULATION POPULATION

Two a) Principal of a) One Turkish a) Principal a) One Catholic students Grundschule in an student (principal confirming/ student who is not of Jewish urban area with a to give names of disconfirming will enrolled in schools large enrollment all students whom be the same as for religion class and and their of Turkish s/he feels has the Turkish his/her parent/s parents students confidence of population and Catholic their peers) student who is and his/her enrolled in parent/s religion class and his/her parent/s

b) Principal of b) One Turkish b) Principal b) same as 'a' Grundschule in a student and confirming/ above rural area with a his/her parent/s disconfirming will large enrollment be the same as for of Catholic the Turkish students population

c) Principal of c) One Turkish c) Principal c) Protestant Grundschule in a student and confirming/ student who is not rural area with a his/her parent disconfirming will enrolled in small enrollment be the same as for religious class of Turkish the Turkish and his/her students number of population parent/s and Turkish students Protestant student who is enrolled in religious class

d) Principal of d) One Turkish d) Principal d) same as 'c' Grundschule in a student and confirming/ above rural area with a his/her parent disconfirming will small number of be the same as for Turkish students the Turkish population

e) Three students and parents in private Islamic school 195

Following are the appropriate us each sampling strategy as defined by Patton (p. 182):

Intensity Sampling - Used to find information-rich cases

that manifest the phenomenon intensely, but not

extremely

Typical Case Sampling - Illustrates or highlights what

is typical, normal, average

Critical Case Sampling - Permits logical generalization

and maximum application of information to other cases

because if it is true of this one case it is likely to

be true of all other cases

Possibility of Snowball Sampling - Identifies cases of

interest from people who know what cases are

information-rich, that is, good examples for study,

good interview subjects

Criterion Sampling - Picking all cases that meet some

criterion

Confirming or Disconfirming Cases - Elaborating and

deepening fieldwork, taking advantage of the

unexpected, flexibility 196

SOLICITATION OF SAMPLE

Several months prior to my trip to Germany, I mailed

letters to the targeted sample (Appendix A ). The same letter was sent to each respondent, with minor variations depending

upon their position. I explained that I was a doctoral

student, writing my dissertation on the effect of religious

instruction in German public schools on the identity formation

of religious minorities in German society. I asked if the

respondents would be willing to allow me to interview them.

I explained that since I do not have native fluency in German

that I would like, with their permission, to tape the

interview, and that only bona fide scholars would have access

to the taped transcript, and that the anonymity of respondents would be assured.

Along with this letter of solicitation, I mailed a "Consent for Participation in Social Research" form (Appendix B) , to be filled out and returned, indicating the participants' desired date, time and place of interview. If the respondent chose to sign this consent form, he/she acknowledged the following:

(1) that the purpose of the study, to describe the effects of religious instruction in the public schools on minority identity formation, had been explained to them; (2) the possible benefits of the study, which included a contribution to social science research; (3) the right to obtain additional 197 information regarding the study; (4) that any questions regarding the study had been answered to their full satisfaction, (5) that participation was voluntary and (6) that the participant was free to withdraw consent to participate in the study at any time.

I did not, in my solicitation letter, ask school directors to provide me with the names of parents and children whom I could interview. Instead, I felt it appropriate to meet with the principal first, and to ascertain the best method of contacting parents and children.

I waited approximately one month to receive responses from the solicitation letters, and then telephoned non-respondents to request their participation.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

I explained in the solicitation letter that the respondents' consent was to be voluntary, and that no repercussions would result from not participating.

Principals, if they agreed to make contact with parents and children, suggested names of students who were, in his/her opinion, student leaders and articulate. The principal gave students the letter of consent form to be conveyed to students' parents. I did not know who these students and their parents were until I received their returned consent 198

form. This ensured their anonymity. The principal was not

informed which student(s) and their parents refused to

participate, and was only informed of refusal to participate

(but not who, specifically) if I needed additional names. I

followed the principals' guidelines if this process was deemed

inadequate.

As previously noted, all participation was voluntary, and

participants had the right to refuse further participation at

any point prior to and during the interview. The participants

gave the researcher permission to audiotape the interview, and were told that the audiotape was for transcription purposes

only. The participants' anonymity has been assured, as names have not been used in the publication without the participants' prior approval.

INTERVIEW PROCESS

The following comments were made to the participants prior to the interviews:

I. Five Minute Introduction

A. Thanked participants for their participation

B. Introduced myself as a doctoral candidate in the

Department of Educational Policy and Leadership at the

Ohio State University and former resident of Germany

whose son is a German citizen 199

C. Explained purpose of research once again - to ascertain

the effect of ' religious instruction on minority

identity formation

D. Asked if participants had any questions about me

II.Five Minute Explanation of Interview and what was and

was not expected of them

A. Explained that I would like to use the tape recorder

B. Explained to participants that I need not use the tape

recorder if they would feel uncomfortable with it.

Asked for permission to take notes of responses if they

would prefer

C. Explained that the interview would take approximately

50 minutes but that they could, at any time, feel free

to refuse to participate further without justifying

their reasons and without prejudice to them

D. Explained that I would be asking the participants

questions for which there is no right or wrong answer,

that they could answer the questions in any length that

they saw fit, and that they should feel free to

reclarify any of their anwers at any time during the

interview. Explained that they could refuse to answer

any question which they thought too personal

E. Asked participants if they had any last minute

questions or concerns that I could address for them

III. Interview A. Asked interview questions (Appendixes C)

B. Allowed participants any amount of time to answer

C. Repeated responses in a nonthreatening but

illuminating manner: "So you're saying that...... "

Allowed participants to further clarify responses

D. At the end of the interview, asked participants if

they would like to add anything that they feel had not

been addressed

E. Thanked participants

POSSIBLE THREATS TO VALIDITY

In qualitative research, both internal and external validity "hinges to a great extent on the skill, competence, and rigor of the person doing the fieldwork" (Patton, p. 14).

The researcher has taken great care to lessen the threats to both external and internal validity.

POSSIBLE THREATS TO EXTERNAL VALIDITY

One possible threat to external validity is that the participants may not have had the knowledge and/or insight to answer interview questions. Additionally, the participants' own views may be so extreme as to discount their generalizability. I solicited participants who: (1) have knowledge of the subject under study by virtue of the 201 participants' positions and/or appointments, and (2) in the

case of religious minority and majority group experts, people who are elected or appointed to their positions, and can

therefore be expected to know the viewpoints of the people for whom they were elected or appointed. In the case of school directors, students and parents, they confirmed the religious

groups' responses. By approaching redundancy the external validity of the study was strengthened.

POSSIBLE THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY

It is not unheard of that participants in studies deliberately lie and/or give socially acceptable answers

(Miller, 1992, p. 52) . This is a threat to the internal validity of all researchers, and depends upon the sensitivity of the research questions and the researchers' skill in gaining the respondents' trust. One approach to lessening this threat to internal validity was to explain, before the

interview began, that the questions had no right or wrong answers.

Another threat to internal validity is that the participants did not have the correct knowledge to answer the questions. I took care to solicit participants who have appropriate knowledge to answer my questions. In the case of parents and students, who may indeed not have had the 202

appropriate knowledge to answer the same questions which I had

asked of the "experts," the questions were more about their

own opinions than about school policy.

Another threat to internal validity was the possibility

that someone had aberrant views of the world. I diminished

this possibility by soliciting government and school

authorities. In the case of parents and students, this risk

was minimized by the redundancy of the responses.

Lastly, questions that were ambiguous or not clearly stated

threatened internal validity. I ensured that all questions

were direct, well translated into German, and appropriate to

the intellectual capabilities of the participants. The

interview was piloted on acquaintances upon my arrival in

Germany.

THE ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES REPRESENTING CURRENT MINORITY POSITIONS ON RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE

Analysis of the question as to whether church influence in

the schools has resulted in problems of minority identity

formation included the following statements made by religious

and religious school leaders, and which were confirmed or disconfirmed by parents, students, and school administrators,

that:

1) members of religious minorities view the provisions for

religious instruction for their minority group to be 203

unequal to provisions for religious instruction

provided for religious majority group members

2) members of religious minorities view the separation of

students for a portion of the day as hindering their

desired integration into German society (The assumption

is not that all minority group members want to

integrate; this only concerns those who may, but may be

hindered, due in part, to the separation of students

for a portion of the day.)

3) religious minorities view religious instruction, as it

is currently provided, as not meeting their needs,

while meeting the needs of majority groups

4) the opening of religious schools by religious

minorities is due, in part, to the unequal religious

instruction provided in the schools

6) majority religious group members' religious identity is

aided by religious instruction, and that minority group

members may not have the same opportunity to the same

extent to make these religious ties

7) members of religious minorities feel that the climate

of schools, due to religious instruction and to the

Christian orientation of the schools, is against

members of their religion CHAPTER V

FINDINGS

Interviews with educational policy makers, and with educational representatives of the Jewish and Muslim minority groups were held throughout January, 1994. Interviews with parent groups and students were held in April, 1994, with the exception of one group of students and parents, with whom I met in January, 1994.

LEGAL SITUATION OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION

My first interview was with Gerhardt Mahler, recently retired Ministerial Advisor at the Stadtsinstitut fur

Unterricht und Kultur. I contacted Herr Mahler because he has written extensively on the issues of minorities in the

Bavarian schools, particularly on issues of the Muslim minority. As he later explained to me, he was also on a federal commission which had looked into the possibility of providing religious instruction for Muslims, and therefore was knowledgeable not only about Bavaria, but about all of

Germany.

I met with Herr Mahler on January 12 at the Stadtsinstitut, located around the corner from the Marienplatz in Munich. I

204 205

gained invaluable insight into the historical, legal and

sociological issues involving the teaching of religion in the

schools, and how these issues affect minorities.

Herr Mahler began by explaining the historical legacy of

religious instruction and confessional schooling, and how that

legacy has created legal dilemmas in today's times:

(Church influence) has naturally come from a certain development here in Germany. Since 1919 after the war...when the laws were made about religious instruction, everyone always thought that there were only two churches - Catholic and Protestant, and also Jewish, there was that too. But what people have not thought about, what in the past years my work has been about, is that suddenly there are 450,000 Muslim children in the schools. And I wanted to say that because the immigrants are here and growing in numbers, this is something that we haven't experienced yet. The lawyers have a hard time these days.

Herr Mahler was careful with the interpretation that the

provisions for religious instruction date back to Weimar,

commenting that "The religious instruction that we have today

is not different than what we had in the Weimar condition.

But there is (some) difference. We can't go back to Weimar,"

adding that the provisions for religious instruction represent

"a backwards glance perhaps" to Weimar.

Herr Mahler explained the problems in offering religious

instruction to minorities. He mentioned that the Muslim minority was not the only one affected by a lack of provisions, that one could not give religious instruction to

the many different religious groups, but that "the number of 206

Muslim children is so large that one can't do without

religious instruction anymore." The dilemma in giving Islamic

religious instruction, according to Herr Mahler, is a dilemma

that does not affect Christian, or even Jewish instruction.

The dilemma is that he has unsuccessfully looked for a

representative from the Islamic community who could help to

formulate a curriculum which would be acceptable to the

majority of Muslims now residing in Germany:

There must be a religious body that says, exactly, what is our aim, we teach the children so and so and so. We have this content. For the Christian children this is no problem. Jewish belief, no problem. With the Muslims it is a problem. There is for this religion, what we've looked for (a religious body). There is, if I may be a little loose, there is no Rome, no Pope, or a Church. There is a whole rank who for a while has fought, all have tried to, through the center in Egypt, in Cairo, to receive someone for the university here. In Germany it hasn't functioned, in France not, in Austria not. Nothing. When I can't find such a person to address, then I can't receive a curriculum.

The problem in identifying an Islamic representative was exacerbated, according to Herr Mahler, because it is difficult to determine whether any one body constitutes a representative religious organization, leading to the question "Is this a religious community, or, now I will say this very easily, is this a 'spinner' (crazy person)". His search for a representative brought Herr Mahler to Wurzburg, where he had been told existed a possible religious representative 207

community; the potential representative, however, turned out

to be a "Seeher" (one who sees visions in his head).

Along these same lines, the Educational Attache at the

Turkish Consulate in Munich, whom I interviewed on January 22,

confirmed that the problem existed:

(School authorities) don't know the difference between religion and politics and whether Islam is right for here. As a human being that is very difficult to decide. If I was a school director I couldn't decide because I don't know myself what true Islam is. A teacher comes with a paper and says 'I am a Muslim teacher. I want to teach in the schools.' And he (the school director) doesn't know if that is true or false Islam. Whether the people want it (religious instruction) or not at all, the laws were written previously.. .Muslim people have also not so scientifically controlled what Islam means, what it needs now and what we no longer need. People should weigh that in all areas.

The Turksih attach^ added that there is the problem that people confuse their religion with politics, and that the borders are not so clear. This has resulted in wars, "for example, in Afghanistan, between Iraq and Iran, people had war with each other for the same things. One says 11 do this for my God.' The other says, 'I do this also for our God.'

They're both Muslim, but despite that they had a war for eight years. People were killed. Why?...And that was for religion!" The Turkish attach^ added that as long as people mix politics with religion, that this fighting will continue, and that therefore providing Islamic religious instruction in public schools would mirror these battles: 208

The question is whether people make it (war) over political reasons, or whether it is over beliefs. I can not decide that. But unfortunately the people always mix politics and religion. For this reason it would be very difficult to have religious instruction. But one must only make people clear that the people can not live together when they mix politics and religion.

The principal of the Deutsche-Islamische Schule in Munich, disagreed. I interviewed the principal at the school on January 28.

Here was our exchange concerning this issue:

Simel - I was at the Ministry and spoke with someone there. The gentleman with whom I spoke has spent his career concerning himself with Islamic children, both in and outside of Germany. And he said that for his entire career he has looked for a representative, who could say to him that 'Okay, Islamic religious instruction should have this objective or that objective.' But this school here exists. You do not have only Turkish children, not only children from Iraq, from Iran. So is it true, what he said to me? That it is impossible to have equal legal provisions for Islamic religious instruction in public schools because in many countries everyone is Islamic but there are religious holy wars between people who have the same religion? You do this here, with all children together. . .Do the Iraqi children fight with the Iranian children?

Principal - No.

Simel - Then they (governmental representatives) could come to you to ask how they could do it?

Principal - Yes, they could come to me. Yes, they could come to us and ask about the development of Islam. They don't have to use the example of the many different Islamic organizations in Germany. And they could come to us and ask us how the Deutsche-Islamische school exists, since you have so many different Islamic children here, and from Turkey, from Pakistan, from Afghanistan, from Ethiopia - these are the countries outside of the Arab world. And many more are interested in our school...As to the question of 209

whether any one has come to us to see an example of how they could teach this at the German schools - most of the Islamic countries, with the exception perhaps of Iran, they do not fight with each other; it is the governments from their countries which have the fights with Muslims from other countries. It is also true that Muslims have their own problems with their own governments in most countries. Therefore no delegation comes to do these things (to formulate school policy).

As if to reiterate the point that children in the school came from all over the world, the principal led me to each classroom. He pointed out where each child was from, and the children seemed delighted that he knew about each one of them:

Principal - (Patting each child on the head as he told me where each comes from) This one is from Bosnia. This one is from Syria. From Palestine. From Turkey. From Italy. (And then the children joined in, each saying from where they came as the principal pointed to them.)

Child - From Syria.

Child - From Bavaria (principal laughs). Child - From Turkey.

Child - I'm sick (all laugh). Child - From Lebanon.

Child - From Lebanon too.

Child - I'm from Islam (principal laughs). Child - From Germany. Child - I'm from Germany too. And then the classroom teacher, a German, when I asked if the children/and or parents argue with one another over political or religious differences, responded: 210

We have many children from all different countries. When the parents come together they all get along and there are no politics involved. I've been here the longest. Perhaps for fifteen years. And I've never seen an argument in this whole time.

The principal took me to another classroom, where I was again introduced to each child and told each child's homeland.

Principal - (Pointing to each child). Turkey. And she is also from Turkey. And he is also from Turkey. Afghanistan. Libya. Syria. 'Who is Muslim?1

Children - (Together, raising their hands) I am. (Children began speaking at once, laughing, and saying where they were from.) Children - Libya. Turkey. Pakistan. Turkey. Palestine. Lebanon. Egypt. Tunisia. Palestine. Egypt. Yugoslavia.

Child - (Addressing me.) Will you learn with us sometime? Simel - No, I'm sorry. I can't do that. But thank you so much for asking. And where are you from?

Child - Dachau.

Principal - And this is his twin.

First Child - But I was the first b o m (principal laughs) .

During our interview, the principal said that, "Somehow the

Islamic religion is not given equal rights as the others." He has visited the Ministry trying to get Islamic religious instruction in the schools, and, in his words, was given only

"official answers":

They have given me official answers from the ministry. That they need a curriculum written from the Turkish consulate. And I offered them my curriculum. We have an entire curriculum that goes up to the fourth 211

grade, and we could develop it further. I received an answer saying that the Turkish consulate had already tried that, and I was told that it is a matter of the Turkish consulate, and not of the parents who would directly be affected by that. The governmental representatives told me that since most of the students are Turkish, that there must be a Turkish curriculum that exists until the fourth grade. But this curriculum, in my opinion, is not based on the interests of most of the parents (emphasis)35, or on the interests of most Islamic parents. I wanted a curriculum for religious instruction, instead of an ethics curriculum. And I received an answer that we could not do that because it must come from the Turkish consulate.

I asked the principal if the Turkish government would disagree with his curriculum, and he responded that could very well be.

I then asked if this possible disagreement came from the

Turkish government, or from the Turkish parents. He answered it was the Turkish government which disagreed, but that the parents approved of his curriculum, adding that "the (Turkish) government does everything in the interests of (its own) government, but not in the interests of the masses, of the parents.1,36

35The principal's emphasis on the phrase "interests of most of the parents" was perhaps made to highlight the unequal status of Islamic instruction, in that provisions for Christian instruction are given according to parental prerogative.

3*In a Westernization effort, the Turkish government has in recent years increased the separation of church and state. Several years ago instruction in Islam in the public schools was banned; however, due to complaints from parents, some instruction, albeit minimal, was reintroduced. 212

The problem of making legal provisions for Islam in the public schools can, according to Mahler, "be solved between

Turkish and German friends, but not between the lawyers."

Without an official religious community, the task will be a difficult one. I asked Herr Mahler what would happen if a

Muslim parent brought legal suit on the grounds that the lack of provisions for Islamic instruction was in contradiction to

Basic Law. He responded that "Then he (the father) would have no legal basis," and that:

Either we make nothing, or we leave the school laws as they presently are, and in these laws religious instruction for these groups is absolutely not there. Okay, then make it private, at home. But not in the school. And we in Germany, and Austria too, are a little more wise (than British and French school authorities); we make, at least, religious instruction a little so...I mean, we say, this is good this way, and we will do this (a compromise).

As discussed in Chapter Three, the compromise was to offer a class for foreigners, beginning in 1985 with the first grade and adding a grade every year up until grade four.

NEW CLASSES FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS

Herr Mahler said that the "state has a moral responsibility to also raise the Turkish and Muslim children in Germany." I asked him if the classes which began in 1985 were meant to integrate students, and he responded that they were both to

"integrate and to make democratic citizens out of them." 213

These courses seem to have less to do with teaching Islam than

they have with addressing what the state sees as the negative

direction of Koran schools (private, after school classes in

Islam, which are run by various Islamic organizations) . Herr

Mahler, and others, expressed concern about the effect of

these Koran schools and about their interference with the

child's day-to-day activities in the public schools:

The children go in the Koran courses, in which the children learn the Koran by heart, as we (public school authorities) are informed. And we don't want that...The children go in the Koran course mornings at 5:00, and at 8:00 go into the school and are dead tired and then the Jugend Sorge comes and says, 'so geht das nicht'...There is a social direction with which we don't agree. Then better in the schools. With teachers, not with someone who I don't know if that is a sect or real instruction. And that is something that the children's parents don't want, also in the second and third generation...It is more reassuring for the German state when Turkish children have instruction from Turkish teachers. The Turkish teachers here are from Turkey, but are hired by the German state. They make it differently from instruction in the Koran, or in a private class. When it takes place in a school, then the school director knows to some degree what is handled there.

Herr Mahler added that "It is always better to teach in the

school. One says here in Germany, ' in the hands of the

state, ' and then one knows approximately what will be taught."

Despite that Herr Mahler said that the parents do not want

such instruction, when asked what percentage of children attend these classes when they are offered in their schools, he responded that "All of themgo." 214

One assistant principal in the middle of Munich, who also

teaches Catholic classes, while expressing her disfavor of the

Koran schools, citing that they "are very difficult for the

small children", said that offering Islamic religious

instruction in the public schools might be potentially

dangerous: I am not certain that it (Islamic religious instruction in the schools) wouldn't be fundamentalist. I am a little careful because many are very conservative and also against the Christian mission and confession. And I find that not good. The Muslims who live here must get along with Christians. That is their environment here. And that is a Christian environment, and not Oriental. And I fear that some (Muslim) children would be manipulated in religious things and not tolerant (of Christians) . That is a little dangerous.

The intentions of the instruction, as written in Chapter Three

and as confirmed by Herr Mahler, seems to be one of helping

the foreign child "to integrate and to make them democratic"

than it does in teaching the child about Islam. This was of

concern to the principal of the Deutsche-Islamische Schule, who thought schools should not only teach children how to

integrate into German society, but that the schools should provide instruction in Islam, just as they provide instruction

in Catholicism for Catholics, and in Protestantism for

Protestants:

On the one hand, the students need an Islamic curriculum, and a German curriculum. And this curriculum makes sense if the children stay here longer in Germany. Also so that the students do not loose their identity, that they have learned the Islamic 215

religion, and Arabic language. And then they could integrate into the German schools without problems. On the other hand, when the children do go back to their countries, they have learned about Islam and their mother tongue. Then they will not have been lost because they were here.

However, the principal expressed the concern that knowledge of

Islam was not being taught in these classes:

Now the government makes a curriculum for the Turkish children. That constitutes a minimum of the religious aspect. But they do not concern themselves with how the Islamic religion really is.

Such instruction in the public schools, according to the

principal, is only preferable when Islamic children have the

same opportunities as do Protestants and Catholics to learn

about their religion.

The principal was not particularly pleased with the choice

of teachers for these classes for foreign children. As discussed by Herr Mahler, the teachers are Turkish citizens hired by the German government. Catholic and Protestant parents maintained that religious instruction must be taught by someone of the same confession as the students. The principal asserted that this should be right for Islamic children as well, and held that Turkish teachers, chosen by the government regardless of their conviction, did not make a lot of sense:

Principal - My daughter, who is now in public schools, was astounded when a Turkish teacher of the Islamic religion came to her school, and the teacher herself did not hold to the Islamic religion. She came in a 216

miniskirt. I don't mean to speak badly of this teacher, but...

Simel - No. Certainly not. But one must watch out a little for others' sensibilities.

Principal - Exactly. Must watch out for the sensibilities of the practicing students. That does not make a lot of sense when the teacher herself does not hold to the religion. How can she teach religion? That is the problem.

The principal added that Islamic students "learn false information about their own religion. The religious instruction that is given does not necessarily teach the truth and the facts about their own religion.. .The atmosphere of the

Islamic school is therefore better".

ORGANIZATIONAL AND FINANCIAL OBSTACLES TO OFFERING RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION TO RELIGIOUS MINORITIES

By law, Catholic and Protestant instruction is provided for in all public schools in Bavaria. Since 1985, instruction for foreigners has been offered at only some schools in some urban areas, and in Munich, there are two Gymnasien which have classes in Judaism. The dilemma in offering religious instruction to religious minorities is sometimes conceptual; in addition, there are organizational and financial considerations in offering religious instruction to religious minorities. Herr Mahler stressed that religious instruction for religious minorities would, for instance, not be offered to three children in a village. I asked him why this was the 217 case, and he responded that "It would cost an unbelievable amount of money,11 and that "It's also an organizational problem."

I had this exchange regarding the problems of resources for minority students with the Turksih attach^:

One speaks of, at most, ten or twelve children for whom one must organize a religious class. When there are even fewer children then that is a border. When there are seven or eight children then the majority does not give them a chance to have religious instruction. For example, in a class where there are six Muslims, for them there is no Islamic religion. Is that democracy? No. Not. But the law says that when there are twelve children, ten children, for these children we will have religious classes. And when there are fewer children then they have no possibility to learn about their religion. That is the law! But the truth is that with this one sees borders. When there is no teacher for religious class, and that is again a law, that for fifteen children or for twelve children a class could be made. And when there are fourteen children, for exairqple, and no teacher, and no material, then they sit there without a class. Is that fair? (sigh) The state must give out more (money) , must have more teachers, also more materials to have more class. But that costs something. Must the majority pay for it? A Catholic would say, 'Yes, why should I have to give money away for that?' And they pay even less taxes than we do. From a tax viewpoint, they are seventy people and we are three people. One teacher for them and one teacher for us. They would say 'Why should we pay?'

Simel - Because this is a democracy. Why should a parent have to pay for a music class when their children do not attend music class? Because they want that there are good musicians in Germany. . .And also the people who have no children, they must also pay for the schools because it is better for the entire of Germany, and not only for the majority.

Attach^ - Yes, you could do everything possible at one time, but farther? One needs power to determine if that is economic or societal. On the one hand it could 218

perhaps be done correctly. But that costs something. And on the other hand no one could spend so much money.

Simel - What is the cost for Muslim children when this is not done?

Attach^ - Yes, that is also an important question. One can not calculate what it costs when it is not done. For example, what was earlier done in Germany over nationalism, one should have done something about that, and it was not done. But people paid for that everywhere. One paid something in democracy because of nationalistic education. Germany should not have done that, but then Germany had to pay for it and not the world. It is hard to say that when it is done it will cost one hundred Deutschmarks and if it not done then it will cost one thousand. And one must confess that for religious classes too. One always needs moral teaching, because if that is not done, then what is the cost then? I can not imagine what would happen then. Then people would perhaps be even more broken - drugs, weapons, criminality, sexuality.

I met with the principal and a religious teacher of a

Grundschule equidistant from Munich and Garmisch. They confirmed these problems:

Principal - Every school, naturally, receives a certain payment for every teaching hour. And these teaching hours are very tightly measured. And for this reason we cannot offer instruction to the small groups because there is a lack of teachers, and (these teachers) give instruction in their own religion. But in the school there is a vacancy of personnel who are not in the position to give religious instruction to these small children.

Simel - So, first, there are practical reasons, and second, people think that theoretically these (minority) children should be instructed (in religion) at home.

Principal - Or in their own church.

Teacher - The law does not say that we have to give instruction to all groups. We have hardly any teachers who belong to such groups. When one does not belong to 219

a small group, one can not give instruction for this small group. I don't know the contents. I can only give religious instruction when I myself belong to this religious group.

Principal - And can convince people of the religious commonality.

A professor of Religious Pedagogy, Unive.rsitat Mtinchen,

explained the organizational and financial problems in the

following way:

By us one gives religious classes where one can organize it. Of course one can not organize that in the cities or in the countryside because in general there are not enough teachers and no Gemeinde.. .When there are so few Muslim children there and no Muslim teacher then one can not organize it...(Minorities) could attend the Protestant religious classes. In this sense they have a 'guest status' when they want. Otherwise naturally they could go into ethics classes.

Ethics classes are compulsory for children who do not attend religious instruction classes.

INSTRUCTION IN ETHICS

The children who do not attend religious classes are children who have not been baptized or christened, or children up until the fourth grade whose parents have chosen that they not participate in religious instruction classes. Also, children of minority religions do not attend. Because ethics classes are compulsory for children not attending religious classes, I was surprised to learn that some schools do not offer ethics classes because either there are not enough 220

' ethikskinder ’ "ethics children, " or because an ethics teacher can not be found. As told by a principal of a rural school,

children for whom ethics classes are not offered "Are tutored by a teaching assistant. Or when it (religious classes for

Catholic and Protestant students) takes place during the first or the last class of the day, they come late or leave early.

When it is during the day, in the second hour or the fourth hour, then they go into a neighboring room next to the office where a teaching assistant tutors them."

The principal of the Deutsche-Islamische Schule views these ethics classes as being a waste of time. He said that Islamic parents had come to him asking about after-school Islamic classes for their children, so that their children could continue their participation in ethics classes. According to the principal, the parents "wanted that their children have the opportunity to speak German in the ethics classes." The principal's response to these parents was that "They could also teach the Islamic religion in the German language, exactly as the Catholic classes are taught.11 The fact that, according to Herr Mahler, all Islamic children attend Islamic religious instruction classes when it is provided in the public schools, would suggest that those parents who approached the principal were an exception.

The principal went on to say that he: 221

wanted a curriculum for religious instruction, instead of an ethics curriculum. And I received an answer (from the Ministry) that we could not do that because it must come from the Turkish consulate... I just wish that either Islamic instruction were given, or that no one would have instruction so that the Islamic children would not be put into ethics classes. That is lost time.

THE PURPOSE OF CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION

I wanted to find out what students of the religious majority were learning about their own religion that minority children were not learning about their religion. To do this, it was necessary to find out the official objective of

Catholic and Protestant religious instruction, as expressed by respondents, whether teachers agreed with these official objectives, and how these objectives were approached. The purpose of Christian religious instruction and upbringing in the Bavarian Christian public schools, according to the

Professor, was summed up as follows:

The official aim of religious instruction in all school types, from the Grundschule to the Gymnasien, and in the vocational schools, in this official document there is the distinction between very general aims and specific aims. When we put those together, and this is also my personal opinion, that religious instruction should help youth and children in the religious dimensions to be reflective responsible adults so that they can go on with a religious dimension. Even if they are not religious or if they are churchless, or if they are nothing. They should, at the end of their school type, at the end of their whole schooling, they should be responsible and reflective with a religious dimension. When someone asks them 'Why don't you go into the church?1 then they should be able to say 'I do not go because' (stress). 222

'Why don't you believe in God?' 'Because' . That would be the aim of religious instruction. Not to bring more people into the church. That is not the aim. Religious instruction by us, in public schools, has a didactic function. The church has different functions. Praying. Missionary. Didactic means to help where it can help - hospitals; orphanages; schools; in the many Catholic private schools, where not only Catholics go but also others, nonbelievers. At the end a Catholic must not come out, but a person who has a conscientious answer to religion. Who can say why he is in or why he is not in. That would be the aim.

This was the official state interpretation, and one with which the professor agreed. However, as Herr Mahler put it, "I am not God. But the teachers think that they are, and do as they please, " sometimes having agendas that are different than that of the official version. And one might add that the principals have a different agenda as well. One principal in a rural school, when asked about the purpose of religious instruction, said:

That they know about their religion, the belief of their religion. And secondly - there is also a second thing - that the children should be led to lead a religious life, a life in the church to which they belong, whether Catholic or Protestant. The total year through, on the religious usage and Masses, or Worship, to participate in, three times a year, from the beginning of school, to Christmas, to the end of the school year, we take all children with us to the church to worship.

The following comments about the purpose of religious instruction were made by an assistant principal at a suburban school:

A German dogmatist said that the basic aim, for every religion, also for Jewish, also for Islam, 'The aim of our life,' he said, 'is at the end of the life 223

to turn home to God, our father1...And when I think of that, as the basic situation to meditate on, then it has a lot of worth...And then I find it very important that the children don't come into a false religion, no group, but that they know that God is with the heart, and that God looks out always, and that no person is lost to God, and we could always begin from the beginning.. .And then it concerns that the children must not only learn about the meaning, but also about understanding. Religion is not an understandable thing. Religion must go the heart.

All of the respondents' answers to the purpose of religious

instruction were somewhere along the continuum between giving

the child knowledge about his/her religion, to having the

child come out a believer in her/her religion. There was, however, one exception to this. A Muslim father whom I

interviewed, whose child attended a rural school, said that the purpose of Catholic and Protestant instruction, as he perceived it, was "So that the children learn to where they belong."

When asked the purpose of religious instruction in the

Bavarian schools, the Rektor of an elementary school in

Munich, responded in this way:

We are obliged, according to the Bavarian Constitution, to have a Christian people's conception of the schools here. And the comprehensive state plan of the school is a school, a compulsory school (which) has been based on Christianity. Despite all plurality, we must always keep this question in mind. But also watch out, as it says in Article 35, 'Watch out for the worth of other people1. 224

"To watch out for the worth of religious minorities in a

Christian public school system" seemed to mean to be

"tolerant" of people's differences.

TOLERANCE HAS ITS BORDERS

Figure 1 is a photograph of a billboard which was hanging in most Munich subway stations during the month of January,

1994. 225

ks m a Oein lirlouL t« r U j| De'me 2oW »fr® ^ Oeine S cM t '■4t< S w w a ^ II . I v

Figure 1 - Photograph of a billboard which hung in Munich subway stations during January, 1994.37

37Translation: Your Christ is a Jew; your car a Japanese; your pizza Italian; your democracy Greek; your coffee Brazilian; your vacation Turkish; your numbers Arabic; your letters Latin; and Your neighbor is only a foreigner? 226

• Tolerance1 is, it seemed, a trait worthy of instilling in the minds of Bavarians, not only in the underground subway, but also in conversations with people on the streets. It also seemed to be the pervasive theme with all school directors and educational policy-makers with whom I spoke. Here is a sampling of their comments on toleration, and I think them to be representative of the range which I heard from all of the respondents.

Herr Mahler said that "I must say that which is not easy to say, but I think that I have today a large confidence in the tolerance of our children. Alone there is the fact that today Catholic children go into Protestant classes." Herr

Mahler then expanded upon the legal interpretations of

Articles 135 and 136. The schools are bound by Article 135 to educate and raise children according to Christian precepts.

This declaration is not limited to religious instruction class; Christian themes are supposed to pervade the everyday atmosphere in the general curriculum. Article 136, the article on toleration for people with other world views, means that:

The teacher is not bound, how does one say it, to this definition...In all classes where there are students of other confessions, but also in German classes, (one must) first look out for the feelings of those who think something else. Secondly, one has to be understanding of the worth and the norms of those who are not Christian. That is another word for humanism1 . 227

As an example, Herr Mahler said that "In the room in which the

Turkish children have class there is no cross." But then he added, in a whisper, "But think not that there is no risk, in the small village, with the one (person) who says 'Why?

Where? (why has the cross been taken out and where is it?)".

One rural school religious teacher conveyed an interesting notion of religious instruction and tolerance:

Teacher - One aim of religious instruction is tolerance. Tolerance for those who do not have one's same belief, or who has no belief and who doubts what my confession is.

Simel - Is that possible?

Teacher - I have observed more often than not that a Christian child is more tolerant than a non-Christian child.

In another interview with an assistant principal in an elementary school in Munich who was also a religious teacher,

I asked her for examples of toleration for minorities. Here was her response:

Simel - What do minorities do (when Christian themes are being celebrated)?

Assistant Principal - They (minority children) do it too. They do it willingly with us. They make music with us. It brings them joy. Also we have Christmas in the class - lighting candles, and I read stories about Christmas. They listen. It is enjoyable for them too, and when Santa Claus comes every one receives a package, whether they are Jewish, or Muslim, or Orthodox, or without confession. Everyone receives a package. That is necessary.

Simel - You said that the Muslim children sing and celebrate with the others. Have you ever heard (complaints) from Muslim parents about this? 228

Assistant Principal - No. I do not force any one. It is so, that when a child does not want to sing with us then he should simply go into the hallway; he can go to the door. It is a little hard when I am compelled to supervise, and I must watch out, because when he runs away then something could happen.

Whether a minority child would feel comfortable going into the hallway is questionable, as is illustrated by the following exchange that I had with a Muslim father and his son.

Immediately prior to this exchange I had been interviewing a

Protestant child, a Catholic child, and a Muslim child. Their parents were present in the room. The Protestant and Catholic child answered my questions freely; the Muslim child did not answer freely. I asked the others if they could leave the room for a few minutes so that I could speak with the Muslim child (denoted as X) and his father alone. Here is that exchange:

Researcher: - I know that it is getting late for you all. But may I speak with X and his father for five minutes alone? Okay, thank you.

Protestant child - May we take the ball with us?

Simel - Yes, certainly (children and parents leave the room). I wanted to talk to you alone, because perhaps my questions are too personal.38

Father - I have noticed something now and that is that X does not want to speak here.

Simel - Yes, I noticed that too.

38I had asked all children to tell me their religion, and the religion of their teachers, whether they enjoyed religious class, and what they learned in them. 229

Father - He doesn't want to say anything. He doesn't want to say anything in front of the Germans. That is totally new for me.

Simel - (to child) I didn't say it in front of the others, but I will say it to you. You are here because the principal asked if you would speak to me because he knows that you can speak for other children, that you are popular in the school, and for this reason you are here. And for this reason I want to speak to you. Alone. When the other children are not here. I want to ask you something. I heard, and you can tell me if this is right, that, for example, Advent is celebrated in the school. And I heard that Muslim children celebrate (this) also, and that they have fun with it. Is that true?

Father - And I will say to you; they (Muslim children) also go to the church.

Simel - Yes, I heard that too.

Father - And now you are asking if they liked that?

Simel - Yes, if most of the Islamic children celebrate too, or go also (to the church). You mustn't necessarily tell me if you go, only if the others go.

Child - To go into the church, that I don't like.

Simel - Why not? (silence)

Father - You can answer very quietly (ie., you don't have to be nervous).

Child - Because.

Father - Why? Do you have a reason?

Child - Because you can only say the text and then wait a lot. Should I tell you the text?

Father - Say simply what you want to say.

Child - The text is what we have to sing. 4 Simel - What?

Father - They have to sing a song. And that is what he means. He does not like it. 230

Simel - What kind of a song is it?

Child - It is really not a song, onlya stanza.

Simel - A stanza?

Child - Yes, really not a text, a stanza. Something that has something to do with religion.

Simel - And do you think it is strange when you have to sing that?

Child - No, it is not strange, only boring.

Simel - And why must you sing?

Child - Because we go in (to the church).

Simel - And why did you go in?

Child - Because one has to.

Simel - One has to? Who told you that?

Child - No one.

Simel - Did you go because others went and you felt that you had to also?

Child - No.

Father - She asked you why you thought that you had to go (to church), and you said one has to go. And the teacher says, 'We are going there?1 And if you would say 'I will not go,1 what would the teacher say? (child does not answer) You don't say that, do you? You simply go with them in the church?

Child - No. If I didn't want to go then she would say that I had to go.

Father - What would they say if you said, 'No, I will not go with you in the church?' What would she say? And have you ever said that?

Child - No. Father - (to me) I must say, that basically I don't have any thing against that - (that he goes to the 231

church too). But I personally watch that - we have a Mosque here - and he gets something from that too. But presumably it is too much for him at the same time.

Child - I don't know which one I should do.

Father - You know that already! That is certainly it, exactly. He doesn ' t know!

Simel - He doesn't know?

Father - He just said that he doesn't know what he should do. Whether he is Christian. I say to him that he should be Islamic; in the school he learns Catholicism and Protestantism. That is certainly aggravating.

We discussed this situation further when the other parents returned. The following discussion would call into question whether the notion of "tolerance" is fulfilled by allowing a child to go into the hallway when he/she does not participate in religious exercises:

Muslim father - A child sits there. I mean an Islamic child. He must participate too, because he can not avoid that.

Protestant Mother - Yes. I got that feeling from your son. He can not do that (refuse participation). This is something new for me.

Muslim Father - Yes. And that is "unvermeidlich". What can one do about that? One can do absolutely nothing.

Catholic Mother - That is simply a majority principle. The class does something. He does not have to participate, but he must decide for himself.

Protestant Mother - No, he could not do that. When thirty children do something and they are all Christian and they say that we may not hurt you (to the Islamic child), you may go out (of the room) , and then come back again. (The Islamic child would not do that) only because children want to feel as if they are a part of 232

the community. No child would do that. They want to listen too.

If it is true what these parents said, that no child would refuse to participate on the grounds that only through participation would the child feel as if he/she were part of the group, then the teacher's example of "tolerance" through allowing the children not to participate must be called into question.

The notion of "tolerance" did not appear to be as problematic in one school which I visited. This was due, it seemed, to the fact that the majority of students - fifty two percent - in thisschool in the middle of Munich, were

Gastarbeiter. But it also seemed to have to do with the attitudes of the school Rektor with whom I had this exchange:

Simel - When a child, for example, is in Christian religious class, would that be acceptable if a child would say, for example, 'My religion is the best for me, but for you yours is totally okay'?

Rektor - I wound find that totally in order.

Simel - And that is tolerance?

Rektor - That is tolerance. And we have that here to a high degree. We have different religions here. And we succeed in building a community not through religion, but through our humanity. We have here, and you can read about that (giving me a book), a May pole. I can show you this. These are Turkish classes, but this is an international May pole. And it was so, that we told the children to make the tree with symbols from their homeland, not the traditional way. At that time there were thirteen nations in our school, and we had an international character to the school. We had a tree with pictures that they cut (out) of the Acropolis, a Turkish Mosque, a military symbol, typical 233

clothing, and everywhere, and for all children who live in Munich, who live together, a white love dove (See Figure 2) . For this reason I say that we have experienced, in practice, our sameness. The Bavarian May pole has always been a symbol of freedom and binds our school with new life. It fills everyone. I couldn't live a different way today in our school. And this different taste together, it is like when salt and pepper are put together.

Figure 2 - Child's Drawing of a School May Pole. Reprinted from 100 Jahre Beromannschule. with permission of the school Rektor. 234

Perhaps it was schools such as the Rektor's which the Turkish

attach# had in mind when he said that "The schools in Germany

really do have much tolerance," adding that "perhaps that is not enough, but there is much tolerance."

The attache qualified his statements by commenting that

there are border's to everyone's tolerance:

Sometimes the people do something with their children in the school that as a human being I can not endure when a German says that they have tolerance. They are also human beings. They have also their own borders for tolerance. One can, as a human being, not endure so much. When someone does something more than it is in their power to do, then they will be sick. When they show more tolerance than they can then they will be sick. They will break themselves. We must think of that, and in Germany that must be thought about. That is my opinion. That is my belief...But the teachers, from their own conscience and from their thoughts, show tolerance for other people only so far as they can endure it, as far as one can.

The attache was not the only one who questioned whether tolerance went far enough. For instance, when asked whether showing tolerance was sufficient in a school in which the sensibilities of all must be looked after, a Jewish parent in

Munich said:

Naturally not. Tolerance denotes something negative. it means nothing more than to let someone else be. But in a democracy there must be something more than tolerance. Minorities must not be merely tolerated. But the rights for minorities in Germany do not say that minority beliefs must be forwarded - only that a minority child does not have to participate and the Christians have the responsibility to learn about their religion. And they should learn about other religions but they do not. They do not know, for example, where the word Shabbat comes from, where Hebrew is spoken, or from where their religion comes. 235

But the Christians have no desire to learn about the history of other religions. This is a psychological/ historical problem throughout the world, but it is especially acute in Germany.

I thought it noteworthy that most of the people with whom I

spoke, with the exception of minority representatives,

stressed that the minority must have tolerance for the

majority.39 For instance, the Rektor of the school in Munich

stated that the minority must say to themselves, 'Good, I am

here. When I want to bind myself here then I must concede to

the laws of this country. I must accept this culture. And when it does not suit me then I can also go somewhere

(else) .. .Freedom is only a play of borders (ie., freedom is

limited) .11

As if on cue, the interview was interrupted when a teacher escorted a girl into the room. The girl was about nine or ten, had long blonde hair, blue eyes, head bowed, and looked to be a little frightened. The teacher carried a letter with her, which the school had sent to the girl's parents. The letter had been returned unopened, and the Rektor and the girl

“During these conversations try mind kept going back to the Jewish elementary school in Munich, temporarily housed in the old elementary school at the American military base in Munich, McGraw Kaseme. All security systems were operational - hidden cameras staffed by security personnel, checkpoints, disguised security personnel roaming the outside of the building, and a barbed wire fence surrounding the playground. And the children inside, these were among the minority children about whom was said that they must show tolerance for the majority. 236

discussed how the letter could best be delivered to her parents. When the girl left, I asked the Rektor why a letter was being sent home to this girl's parents. Here was our

exchange:

Rektor - We have two Turkish language classes, for Turkish children. And this has given many problems to the teacher because the class is never ready and the class really flipped out. And they went away, to a church near here, a Protestant church, and there were also Greek Orthodox participants too. They went to the church and the children took the candles, stole the candles, and took the money, and there were twelve children who did this. There was about one hundred Deutschmarks stolen. I spoke with the class; I did not take that too seriously because they are children. But I spoke about how here other religions must be watched out for too...They went by there after school. They had classes in the afternoon, and simply went in, and said 'Oh excellent. We can do something crazy.' They played before, and then lit the candles, ran around the church, and stole the money. They shouldn't have done that naturally.

Simel - And the priest called you?

Rektor - He called me and told me what was going on. And they must face a penalty. I sent all parents a letter saying that is not allowed, and that they (the children) must now go to a church in the afternoon. They must clean the church; they must give the church their pocket money - one hundred Deutschmarks. That is to me an understandable consequence. The children must understand - imagine if someone had gone into a Mosque. What would you say about that?

Echoing the sentiments of the Rektor, Herr Mahler said that

"So long as these religious communities are in Germany, they must respect our (German position)".

The professor offered another example of how the minority child could show tolerance for the majority child: 237

Professor - Naturally in the Advent time candles are lit here, and at Easter, Easter eggs are made, and that exists, and I have many ideas about this because for the children who are here in our community - this is very important - because the culture here is a religiously-based culture. To light candles does not only occur in religious classes. It comes in totally general classes; it comes in general in the school. I do not hold that as intolerance despite that it is so. It would be intolerance when there was only one Islamic child there, and all others were Catholic, I will say, then the one child should have tolerance toward the situation of the common man.

The professor went on to say that it would be important to

explain to the Muslim child why these (Christian) children do

that, what it means for them, and to say to them that "perhaps

that does not mean the same thing to you, or perhaps something

else, or perhaps nothing."

The professor's comment that it would be important for the minority child to know why the majority children do certain

things was, according to some minority representatives, one

sided. The minority representatives felt that the Christian children were not instructed on the minority beliefs. For example, the director of the Jewish elementary school in

Munich, echoed the sentiments of Jewish parents when she said that she "would see it as ideal when, in the school, when there is religious class, that one learns about different religions, and not only about the Christian religion and all the others are merely a side theme." \

238

The Turkish attach^ said that without knowledge of others' belief systems, that there is the possibility that one is intolerant:

Simel - You said that you want that the children have more possibilities. Would you also say that you would prefer it if Christian children also had more possibilities to learn about the Muslim belief?

Attach^ - Naturally. It could also be easier for Muslim children if the Christian children knew more about Islam. That could be said also about Buddhism. If I, for example, knew more about Christianity, I could be more tolerant toward Christians. When Christians know very little about Islam they have very little tolerance toward Muslims. That means that for Christian children also Muslim classes need to be made, or taught. The Christians, according to what I think, must understand something from all religions so that they can also understand the other beliefs. That is tolerance; that is where it comes from; when someone knows something, then someone can have something against intolerance. When someone doesn't know anything then one is intolerant.

My questions to the Christian children whom I interviewed, ten in all, confirm that among them, there was little knowledge about even the fundamentals of other religions. For instance,

I asked one Catholic child what she was studying in her religious class. "All about Jesus," she answered. I asked her what she had learned about Jesus, and she said that her class was studying all about his life, and she told me, in some detail, about the Last Supper. I asked her what religion

Jesus had been, and she said that he was Catholic. With the exception of one child, who was convinced that Jesus had been

Jewish, Catholic children answered that Jesus had been 239

Catholic, and Protestant children answered that Jesus had been

Protestant.

I asked one child if she could show me her notebook from religious class. The class, she explained, had been studying

Hebrew, and she had been practicing writing Hebrew letters

(see Figure 3) . I asked her in what country people speak

Hebrew. She responded that she thought that no one spoke it anymore, but that she thought that the early Protestants had spoken it.40

40It would not be inconceivable that most children, and adults for that matter, throughout the world would not know where Hebrew was spoken and by which group of people. However, it is inconceivable that someone, including a child, studying French, for instance, would not know that French is spoken in France, or when studying Russian, would not know that Russian is spoken in Russia. 240

S /c - STUMH 1 D J . Y - L KEH-ENDE

3 9 B « 2 J I n hwi 3 9 V «. 2 I N NUH-EHDE 50 H

I * — STl/HH T ^ 1 3 dalet ? 7° n t i h » 5 P ao i 1 w - s c) F FE ao & W ■- FE-EHDE t S sw iM - 7 F 80

a n / i ch. cbet 3 3 Z ZADE 90 to 0' T TET 9 r f Z ZA0E-D1DE 90 ■» 1 J b o n 10 p p K KOF 100 3 3 K « 20 R RESCU 200 $ i 3 0 c h c u r 20 to e ; scam 300 sit i.V p C tl ■ cur-niDE. 20 to *e SS sni 300 yj-

*7 J * X j 'i * « a > 50 n s) T TXW 400 SClinEIBSCHnCFT D y V M " » * 40 ZAKLEMVOT

FUNKTATION (SELBSTLAUTE) x r x - A X • O X X .r -E t - t : fit X \ - j X • • • U 1* -o

^ -bA1 * nrruim^ JbattiP' 3 # " ' " I N = orriium- TJcxWv i r k ' U A ’ TlfTl' - ?JLXX TT

Figure 3 - A Page of a Student's Notebook from Religious Class 241

OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY IDENTITY FORMATION

Minority children, for several hours a week, are set apart

from majority children when the latter receives religious

instruction. Being separated, in addition to the Christian atmosphere during the course of the day, was not problematic

for identity formation, according to all but one non-minority

school authority whom I interviewed. However, according to representatives of religious minorities, it was very problematic and did not foster the identity formation of minority children in the same way that it fostered the identity formation of majority children.

Herr Mahler was the exception in that he did view the

Christian orientation of the schools as being problematic:

The (minority) child sits there. All others go to religious class. Do you know what happens? The child goes also into religion class. The child! The child cries at home and says 'Mommy, I want to go too.' There come other themes into this...Large festivities. All laugh. All have fun. All are happy, and he has nothing. The others go to Abendmahl, the Christian children. The girls receive a white dress, a nice one, and there he sits again. Yes, that is somehow problematic. But these are, I must say, singular cases, exceptions. The number of children is too small.

Simel - Yes, but perhaps for the children who are the exceptions it is a very large problem.

Mahler - Naturally.

That the issue of separation and identity formation may be problematic for minorities was often qualified. For example, 242

an assistant principal in Munich, when asked if it is good or bad for the integration of children when they are separated,

said that "It is only for a short time. It is only for one hour. And naturally at the beginning it is a little hard to

explain why there are three separations (Catholic,

Protestants, and others)."

The professor felt that this separation was no more problematic for minority students than for majority students:

That is not only problematic for the integration of minorities; that is every where problematic. That is what you mean - Catholic children go there, Protestant children go there, and ethics children there? That is every where problematic in the schools, not only for the minorities but also for the Catholic and Protestant children. It is also naturally problematic for the minorities. But is not especially a problem of the minority; this is a problem of confessional religious classes. That is a problem that we have, and that hangs again together with the Grundgesetz. That is because these lessons are confessionally separated. And because it is a problem one thinks recently a little more intensely whether it would be possible, also in religious classes, if they were not confessional, or if they transcend confessions, or be bi-confessional, or if they should not be so separated.

Herr Mahler qualified his statements that minorities have problems in the same way as did the professor:

Mahler - That is hard (the separation), naturally. I must say though that it is only for two hours in the week.

Simel - Yes, but...

Mahler - I don't want to make the problem small. It is naturally so today, by you also, especially when the children are older, that children are separated because of the many different courses that there are.

Simel - Yes, but not for the same reason. 243

Mahler - Yes, that I will freely give you. Yes, I understand you.

The Rektor also thought that the separation of students did

not foster Gemeinschaft (a feeling of community) adding that,

"If I would separate a rose, or a forest, I would have

separated something nice."

The Office Manager and Legal Advisor to the Jewish

Community Center in Munich felt that the separation of

students was a large problem for Jewish students. He told of his own experiences in the elementary schools and related them

to the experience of students who attend the Jewish school

today:

When there was religious classes, Catholic, the class went into a room and I, and the other Jewish child, went into the courtyard. We were separated.. .We were a minority. We also did not participate in the Christmas festivities. Do you understand? For us that was (pause) we were always, so to say, stamped as Jews. We were atypical in the elementary school. At that time there was no Jewish school. And the Jewish children who come from this school (today), we know that from the teachers at the Gymnasium, they say that all of these children have a special self-identity.

The minority child not only has problems with being separated during the hours of religious instruction; the minority child, according to many respondents, has problems of identity in schools that go beyond being separated for a portion of the week. Herr Mahler put it this way:

There is something else I must say, and this will perhaps disturb you. But it happens also in practice, and this is perhaps the problem everywhere with minorities. Let's take an example. You know 244

Christmas. You know that before this there is Advent. And on Monday, after the Sunday, the children come in and are happy about having lit the candles. Who is allowed to light the candles? Each day another (child) . Do you think that the Muslim student also raises his hand just as high because he wants to light the candle? And he lights them also. And he sings songs. And in Turkish families there is sometimes a Christmas tree. Not because the teacher says that they must have a Christmas tree. They do it for fun. I don't want you to think that the paragraph on kristliche Bekentnisse means that the teacher says 'You must have a Christmas tree at home.' That is not so. This is not seriously meant. But the children who grow up in this circle, when all the (other) children say that they have a nice Christmas tree at home, then the Turkish child also has a Christmas tree. This is also a difficulty. Should one separate himself?

The Jewish minority response to this question of whether one should separate himself is "yes''. The Principal of the private Jewish elementary school in Munich, when asked why parents sent their children to that school, said:

The parents with whom I've spoken about this theme have the majority opinion that when one lives here in Germany, in Munich, it is so that, for example, during the Christmas festival days, in the Christmas time, for example, everywhere where one looks, where one goes and hears, in every department store, (on) television, that one everywhere receives the feeling of Christmas. It is neither here nor there whether that is good or bad, but one experiences this yearly spirituality, these vacations, even if one wants or does not want to. And the parents say that in this school there is a chance that one is not pulled in, but that one has a pull against that..The children receive so many impressionable sights - with friends, in department stores, on television - they don't have to do with their yearly spirituality, and then these (messages) are sent out, whether they (the children) want them or not. And as long as the children are here, these messages are not sent out, and they have the chance to receive a Jewish atmosphere, and that is the reason. A minority of parents say they are sending their children here for religious reasons. Here most of the 245

parents do not live religiously. Most are not traditional. They observe the holidays, but those who observe Shabbat - perhaps five families - who really observe Shabbat and hold to it.

simel - Can one say that there is a social reason?

Director - Yes, for social reasons. Without the religious reasons then to receive the atmosphere.

Simel - Is the atmosphere (pause), I don't want to say this too strongly. Is the atmosphere in the public schools, a little, against religious minorities? For example, legally, all children in Bavaria are to be taught the Christian religion and are to be raised Christian in the schools.

Director - Yes (emphasis) ! It is the atmosphere in public schools, in every way bound by laws of Christian spirituality. But Christian themes do not come in the public schools only during religious instruction, but also in German language classes, even in math classes. There one adds - okay, it is not Christian, but it is also not Jewish - one adds with Christmas candles. One adds with Easter eggs in the public schools from mathematics books, what has really nothing to do with religion. But it is also not neutral in the public schools.

Later in the interview, the director said that one objective of the school is to ensure that the students have a good sense of their own identity when they go to the public school:

Simel - I have spoken with many people now, and you've said that in many public schools, perhaps in all, I do not know, one has the feeling that, for example, Christmas is celebrated everywhere. Do you think that Jewish children have problems with that or not, when they are in the fifth class? Do you hear back from them?

Director - Problems not. Because when the upbringing here has functioned, when it worked, then when Christian themes are spoken about the children are certain of their identity and say, 'Good. This is a Christian theme. I am Jewish.' 246

Simel - Is that an objective of the school? That they have a sense of their own identity?

Director - Yes, in every way...It must be so, because when they go to public schools, this is my belief, that no Jewish child should sit in a class without worth and without a knowledge of himself and adopt Christian themes. For example, there is a student (here) who went for a short time to the public school because he couldn't get here; he lived too far from the Jewish school and was at a Christian (interrupts herself) public school during the Christmas time. And he was in a general class, not in religious class, in a secular subject, and the class discussed the theme of Advent, before Christmas.

Simel - This was in ethics class?

Director - No! No! Heimat und Sachkunde. Where all children were together. Not ethics, not religion, (in) a secular subject the theme was Advent. The children wrote an essay underneath the sentence, 'For me Advent means... 1 And then every child in the school should have written, 'I am happy about Christmas' and what in his tradition the meaning of Advent was. And this Jewish child, who went to this school, wrote 'For me Advent means nothing because I am not Christian and (therefore) I do not have Advent'. And I said to him as I saw his notebook, 'I find it excellent that you wrote that, that you didn't simply write what the teacher wrote on the board,' And then the child said, 'Yes, but the teacher really didn't want this because the same should have been written in everyone' s notebook. But I held to my writing because Advent doesn't mean anything to me.' A child of about eight years old!...I find that positive and something like this must be done even more often. I don't believe that there are many teachers at public schools who would attach worth to a child when a child exercises criticism and also would say 'no' to a lesson...There are some who would, but most would not.

The Jewish school, according to those with whom I spoke, was established because Jewish children were not receiving Jewish religious instruction in the public schools. The Legal 247

Advisor to the Jewish Community Center told of the origins of

the school: I believe that the Jewish elementary school in Munich is the first Jewish school in Germany which was opened, 1969 or 1968, and then came Berlin and Frankfurt. It was at that time an impulse of the community rabbis who wanted that the Jewish children simply also would receive religious instruction, because the curriculum is exactly what one would find at a German elementary school. This is a written policy. The teaching staff is also German; they are not Jewish. There is only one Jewish teacher; that is the religious instructor. And there is another who teaches Hebrew. Those are the two teachers; all others are German teachers who could as easily teach at a German elementary school...It is an elementary school with some Jewish classes.

According to the advisor, the school is successful in helping to formulate a strong sense of Jewish identity among its students:

Simel - You said that when you were in the elementary school that you felt yourself to be different. If Jewish children were at the public school today, do you think that they would feel the same way? Does that happen in these times?

Advisor - Today it happens from the opposite direction. For example, my children tell me that the Jewish children in the school, in a school where there are perhaps one thousand children and perhaps seventy or eighty Jewish children, during the breaks, in the courtyard, the Jewish children are all together.

Simel - Is that because of the Jewish school.

Advisor - Mostly because of that.

Jewish parents whom I interviewed agreed with the advisor that their children have a strong Jewish identity, in part because of the success of the Jewish school. All parents responded 248 affirmatively when I asked if they sent their children to the

Jewish school as a defense against the Christian orientation of the public schools. According to the parents, the director of the Jewish elementary school, and the legal advisor to the

Jewish Community Center, Jewish children can not comfortably attend public elementary schools when they are designated as being Christian public schools:

Simel - And what do they do then? For instance, when Christmas is celebrated?

Advisor - In the classes?

Simel - Yes. Advisor - I don't know exactly. There are teachers who say that today we will celebrate Christmas and tomorrow we will celebrate Channukah. There is that too at the Gymnasium. It varies. But in principle, and I must always emphasize, we are speaking about the Bavarian system; in other states it is very different. But in Bavaria confession plays a large role. Bavaria defines itself as a Christian state. That means that the schools are equivalent and that the classes are also structured, during the entire year, so that one knows that one lives in a state with Christian culture.

Simel - Culture?

Advisor - Yes, with absolute Christian culture. And when you speak with someone from the Ministry of Culture that is how they define it, 'We want that the Christian culture is not altered.' The upbringing is not secular but in the Christian way...There is a separation here between church and the state officially. In the practice it is not so. In truth it is nonexistent. Please understand. State and church are unified, especially in Catholic states like Bavaria. State and church are unified, and for this reason the Jews are always only a foreign group, because they are different. They are not dominated by the Christian culture and therefore the sense of the school is that it has the status as a private school 249

because it is a confessional school, namely, a Jewish school...One can not send Jewish children to a Christian elementary school when they would always have the feeling that they belong to a minority.

The legal advisor to the Jewish Community Center feels that

the state discriminates against the Jewish minority, and that

therefore it does not encourage the existence of the Jewish

school. He cited two examples. The first example was over

the issue of funding. I asked the legal advisor if there had been Jewish religious classes back in 1968/69, whether the

school would have been established. His response was vague, but he did say that religious Jewish instruction in public

schools was nonexistent at that time, except where Jewish

children numbered over one hundred students at one school:

Advisor - It is theoretically not at all possible to find a Jewish religious class at a public school, except where there are one hundred Jewish children. There were many schools in Munich, and at every school there were perhaps ten Jewish children in five different classes (grades). And therefore the Jewish community concentrated the class in the 1960s in the afternoon, for all first graders, second graders, and third graders.

Simel - There is a recognized Jewish community. By rights, the state should have done something for this community.

Advisor - Yes, you speak of a highly interesting thing now. The state pays the Jewish community at a disadvantage. The state disadvantages - basically said, discriminates against the Jewish community. Why? We receive, per head, money for every student who we register with the government. We receive so much money per year. I believe it is a minimal sum. In the last year it was six hundred and thirteen thousand Deutschmarks. One could not pay many teachers from that. Why? Because the laws here say that when the 250

Catholic church (for example) has ten thousand students then they receive (for example) seven Deutschmarks per year for every student. They receive a global amount which is very high because most children are Catholic in Bavaria. And there are very few Jewish children. Some hundred.

Simel - For this reason they need more.

Advisor - Naturally. Normally we would need ten times as much as the Catholic church per child. But that, due to the directives, and that is the remarkable for another reason. First they liquidated the Jews in the Holocaust. Before the war in Munich alone there were twelve thousand Jews who lived in Munich. And today five thousand. That means that it is our fault that we do not have as many children and for this reason we receive a smaller amount of money. Do you understand? And the second reason is that there is a contract between the Bavarian state government and the Catholic church and the Protestant church. And they take over many situations. They pay for the teachers and also for the priests, also the clergymen, etc. There is no state contract with the Jewish community. In this way we have a further example of discrimination, although based upon the constitution we have the same rights.

According to the principal of the Deutsche-Islamische Schule, that school was also established to formulate an Islamic identity that Muslim children were not receiving in the public schools:

Simel - You mentioned Islamic parents who practice, or don't practice, their religion at home. But I must say, that the Christian parents with whom I've spoken don't practice their religion at home. They have the legal possibility to learn Christianity in the schools, but the Islamic children do not have this possibility (interrupted)

Principal - No, in the public schools not.

Simel - So, on the one hand the Christian children have the possibility to hold on to their identity in the public schools, officially, but the Islamic children do not. 251

Principal - Yes. And this school therefore fulfills that.

The principal was unaware that Islamic children go into the

church with their Christian public school peers. I told him

that many school principals had told me that this was the

case. I also told him about the interview with the Islamic

child who had said "I don't know what I should do," (ie., "I

don't know in which religion to believe). The principal

responded in this way:

Principal - As long as the children are not told about their identity, do no practice their religion. Another aspect is that the German people have a negative feeling about Islam from the media for the masses. And this child knows what the German children learn - about terrorism, and all of this is propaganda against Islam. But many Germans take this as fact. And the child knows that the other children think of Islam in this way. Therefore this child could not say that he was Islamic. That is my analysis of this problem.

Simel - Yes, that would also be my analysis. I found this to be somehow sad. In your opinion, if this child, and the other Muslim children at this school had religious instruction, would it have been the same?

Principal - I do not think so. No. I do not think so.

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION

Responses to interview questions kept going back and forth, with most public school authorities stating that the Christian

religious classes, in addition to the Christian orientation of

the schools, caused no special problems for minority children.

For example, a principal at a rural school said: 252

There are no problems here; when you speak especially of our school, then there are no religious problems. None. Not from the syllabus nor from people who conduct religious classes. The one thing that is a problem here is that we have too few religious teachers.

And then representatives of religious minorities claiming that

there are indeed problems. For instance, I had this exchange with the legal advisor at the Jewish Community Center:

Simel - All of the people with whom I've spoken - school directors from the city and from the country, a professor at the university. The only one who said that there are problems was at the Ministry.. .Also the representative from the Turkish government, and the directors of the Jewish and Islamic elementary schools. But the others said 'we are tolerant; it stands in the regulations that we must be. For example, when we sing Christian songs we do not force anyone to sing with u s .1

Advisor - That is absurd. I insist on what I have said. The Christian culture which is anchored here - not only in Bavaria but in other states but very strong in Bavaria - does not allow that Muslim songs are sung.

Simel - Not Allowed?

Advisor - No. That is not to be discussed, without question.

Simel - But every one speaks about tolerance. The constitution? The regulations?

Advisor - That is a conflict between theory and practice. In theory, in the constitution, there are rights. But it looks different in the practice.

My conclusion to all of this can be summed up in the following exchange, also with the legal advisor, who said to me that it was very hard for a foreigner from the United States to 253

understand German culture or the German school system, to

which I responded:

Simel - I try very hard to understand it. And what I understand...is that the majority thinks that they are tolerant; that they want to be tolerant, but that they can not understand the minority, and say that the minorities do not have problems because they don't want to believe that children, for example, could have problems singing Christian songs. It never crossed their minds not to sing because there is one child in the class who is disturbed by that.

And this was his response:

That is right (lowering voice). The notion of tolerance in Germany is questionable. Very questionable. And one must say that in the basic situation, the German government demands total assimilation. When someone comes here from Turkey, and goes to school, it is ensured that he must liquidate his feelings of belonging to Turkey, and he must fit in totally with the German community. Basically, he must be Christianized. And when he does not assimilate, and when he further practices his religion, lowering his head when he comes into the school, then he is immediately someone who does not belong. And the furthering of assimilation is a furthering of the task to make him give up his own culture to accept another culture. And that is not democratic.

THE FUTURE OF THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

When asked whether compulsory religious instruction should continue in the public schools, the principal of the Deutsche-

Islamische Schule responded that he "would put it another way.

I would say that it should be a possibility, that it should at least be offered. Or at least that it should be the same situation as it is with the Catholic religion. At least." 254

I asked the director of the Jewish elementary school what

would happen if the situation did not change, for example,

with the legal provisions for religious instruction for

Islamic children. She responded in the following way:

Then they will be so without orientation as they are now. When one listens to a Turkish child and when one asks, 'Where is your home? Where do you feel at home? Where do you belong?1 They do not know. They say that they belong there not and there not. When it has to do with religious upbringing, for example, it is at public schools so far as it is now, the feeling of where one belongs comes from many different components together. One of these components is the school, naturally. And on the other side there are many who receive instruction in their mother language, in Turkish for example. And I believe that is the way in which to give them the feeling that they belong, together with religious classes. The language for Turkish children is very important. Not only the religious classes.

The advisor, commenting on the assimilation of Jews, said that

the parents wanted the newly-established Jewish Gymnasium in

Berlin so that children did not lose their Jewish identity.

"In the last consequence," he said, "one must succeed with a

Jewish university." Earlier, however, he had told me that as many as ninety percent of the Jewish students in Munich

completing their Abitur chose to go abroad to study. Perhaps

the establishment of a Jewish university, the advisor

indicated, would rectify the situation which has developed in

the past three years that so many Jewish graduates go abroad

to study. 255

I asked the advisor what would be the ideal relationship,

in his view, between church and state in Germany. This was his response:

Advisor - Certainly the absolute ideal is the total separation of church and state, like it is written in all modern constitutions. In France there was just a storm of protest when the government wanted to give private confessional schools money. And the Parliament changed that. And I think, rightly, that in a modern community that there are many different religions, also in Germany. There are Muslims and Christians, and Protestants, and Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox - a very mixed community. When the church and the state are together that is truly a dictatorship...The separation of church and state is a theory from Montesquieu; I am not certain. But in all modern constitutions, whether it is in America, in England, in France, or also in Germany it is so. But in Bavaria it exists only on paper.

Simel - Does that belong to a democracy?

Advisor - This separation? Absolutely. Otherwise there is the possibility that the church dominates the state, as {it does) in many religious countries. And it was that way in the Middle Ages. But in a modern community that is not necessary.

Neither the advisor's ideal - the separation of church and state - or the principal of the Deutsche Islamische Schule's vision - that Islam is given the same legal provisions as for the Christian majority - seems likely of coming about any time in the near future.

Several school authorities with whom I spoke mentioned the possible future course of Christian influence in the schools, but this course had nothing to do with giving minority religious community equal provisions, or in taking the 256

influence of Christianity out of the schools. Several principals said that they would favor the elimination of

confessional religious classes, and would instead support the

arrangement whereby all Christians would be taught together.

All of the Christian parents whom I interviewed reacted

favorably to these discussion now underway. None, however, wanted to do away with religious instruction in Christianity,

and none could foresee, or wanted, that the schools eliminate

their Christian orientation.

Herr Mahler provided an illumination on the maintenance of

the status quo.

Simel - I know about all of the laws. I know about the history, about what took place in Rome and about the different Konkordats. But it is different now. Many Germans say, 'Yes, but that is our law, and that is our history, and it goes together.1 And perhaps that is the problem.

Mahler - There is a principle; it is always hard to explain. I understand you, and I would also say, and this is my personal work, 'How can I make the German people finally understand that they are no longer a homogeneous Volk. As you have just said, I am stirred to think of my experiences outside of Germany, and through my entire acquaintances (in Germany), and I have come to the conclusion, although I was very motivated, that is a question, and a thing which will take very long. (Quietly) Generations. Generations.

And here I come to another problem, one of every civil servant. There is a great sentence, 'Nichts ist schwerer als etwas was schon einmal in einer Verfassung steht heraus zu bekommen'. (ie., 'Nothing is, harder than to take something out of a regulation once it has been put in.') 257

CONCLUSION

The most pronounced difference of opinion was over what

constitutes religion and what constitutes culture. All of the

Christian respondents thought that symbols meant to build a

sense of community in the school - the celebrating of

Christmas, Advent, Easter, school prayer - belonged to the

German culture and not to the culture of religion. An

illustration of such sentiments is provided in the following

responses of a Protestant and Catholic mother in Munich:

Simel - In your opinion, when Santa Claus comes (into the school) is that religious or is that cultural.

Protestant mother - That is not religion. That is not religion. That is secular. Christmas too...When they are young children they do not think whether it is religious. They think of the joy that they have with it. No one was frozen out. All played along. No one said that they would not allow that.

Catholic mother - Yes, I find that totally without confession.

Protestant mother - And if a parent would object then they only have to say something.

Simel - And what would happen if a parent would object?

Catholic mother - Then the child would be very unhappy because he would not be allowed to play along.

Protestant mother - And that is not the wish of parents (to make their children unhappy).

Inasmuch as the aforementioned symbols were felt by Christians

to be symbols of German culture, and that all were free to participate in the ritualistic celebrations of these symbols, f

258 or not to participate when they so desired, non-minorities saw this as representing tolerance to those of minority religions.

However, the rituals and symbols used to unite the

Christian community represent those very same things which give a foreign status to the minority religious communities.

While willing to share in the German culture, minority communities see Christian symbols and ritual celebrations as being religious, and not a part of their culture. Inasmuch as there was disagreement about the interpretations of these symbols and rituals, there was also disagreement as to the notion of tolerance. For example, I had this exchange with a

Jewish father and mother whose son attended the Jewish elementary school in Munich:

Simel - School directors and parents have told me that 'Advent, Christmas, and Easter celebrations are secular in Germany. For this reason, every one can participate. These things are not really religious. This is culture; it is German culture, and for this reason we leave no one out.'

Mother - That is disconcerting.

Father - That is crazy. That is a falsification of their religion, as well as a falsification of all religions. I am interested to know what a Catholic priest would have to say about that. That is a total falsification. One must not tell children that. I have nothing against a Christian celebrating Christmas or Advent, but I do have something against lying. That is a total falsification. That is not the truth. What can possibly be secular about Christmas or about the Advent time? A Christian theologian should explain that, please.

Simel - It was explained to me that all children receive something positive, for example, when they light 259

candles, when they sit very quietly and that prayer is not necessarily religious but cultural.

Father - In their (the Christian) sense, yes. But a psychologist could also say that lighting candles would be beneficial for his patients. One could say that. But when it appears together with Christmas? Symbols are always used for one's own designs. One could secularize it, and say, okay, I will take the symbols, the candles, the quiet, and do something with it psychologically. But not when it has something to do with Christinas time and with Advent.

Mother - I believe that if it seen in this way then it is indeed intolerant. Father - I must say quite honestly that I do not have a problem with my children learning about the Christian religion. But I do have a problem if they are lied to. That one might give them the impression that Christmas or Advent is secular and belongs to the German culture. That is not my German culture.

While all minority representatives suggested that some level

of integration into German society was acceptable, to whatever degree, all agreed that in the Christian public schools, that

there was no harm in their children learning about the

Christian religion, but they also acknowledged that minority

children could not participate in what they saw as Christian rituals, which was by definition, not their own ritual.

Had the Christian representatives believed that Christian rituals and symbols were based on religion, perhaps they would have questioned the level of tolerance shown to religious minorities in the schools. Since they saw these rituals as being cultural, and freely invited religious minorities to enter into the Christian-based community of Germans, they felt 260 strongly that tolerance was being shown. For this reason the

Christian representatives saw no discrimination in the unequal provisions for religious instruction for minorities, nor did they view minority religious identity formation as being problematic. That religious minorities often had to establish religious instruction outside of the realm of public schools was not viewed by Christians as causing them problems, since

Christians held the view that really Christian religious instruction was more cultural lessons in German history and ethics, albeit through the Bible, than they were religious.

In short, they did not view that the Christian religion was given any preferential treatment in the public schools, and they saw no reason why minority religious instruction should get preferential treatment. That German culture is Christian culture was seen as being a matter of fact.

Conversely, had the minority representatives viewed such practices as being secular and as a part of German culture, they would perhaps feel free to participate. However, inasmuch as the minorities viewed such ritual and symbolism to be based on Christian culture, participation was impossible, and these religious minorities therefore showed concern that minority religions were discriminated against, questioned the level of tolerance of the majority, and questioned whether tolerance even went far enough. CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

There is a long history of church involvement in the

German public schools. A review of this history allows for several conclusions. First, there has been no era since 1794 that church influence in the schools has not been in question.

It has been questioned by the Social Democrats, both in

1848/49, and during Weimar, on the grounds that allowing the churches to interfere with school practices is not reflective of the spirit of democracy. Church interference in the schools was also at times outlawed by Bismarck and the Nazis.

Hence, the post World War II claim that making provisions for continued church influence in the schools is reflective of a commitment toward democracy, while not allowing church influence would be a reflection of Fascism, does not take into account that church influence in the schools has been attacked not only by fascists, but by democrats as well. Arguments for decreased or increased church influence could be used from all sides of the political spectrum and according to different agendas.

Secondly, since there have always been those in favor of, and those against church interference in the schools, that

261 262 influence does not enjoy an historical mandate. Additionally, if it is true that school authorities after WWII wanted to restore at least some of the democratic aspects of Weimar schooling, then it would appear inevitable that conflicts should have again arisen in the post World War II discussions, as conflicts had abounded during Weimar. This did not happen, as those who initially fought against confessional schooling were accused of supporting a centralized school system, just as the Nazis had supported.

Thirdly, the Jewish community was, until the Nazi Era, divided regarding schooling. A review of the history shows that the state played on these divisions in order to discourage placing Jewish religious schooling on equal footing to that of Protestant and Catholic schooling.

Fourthly, the state played on the internal conflicts of the

Jewish community in order to justify not granting legal equality of schooling for Jewish students and of Jewish religious instruction. There is evidence that the state is using the internal conflicts of the Islamic community in post

World War II Germany to thwart efforts to grant legal equality to the instruction of Islam.

Fifthly, private Jewish schooling in post World War II

Germany was not the inevitable result of common experiences of the Holocaust. While the Holocaust shaped a collective identity in that post World War Two experiences have been 263 filtered through reflections of the Holocaust, Jewish DP's still in Germany in the late forties once again ventured out into German society, and they were joined by still more Jewish refugees from the east during the fifties and up until the present. Since the 1800s, the Jewish belief has been that emancipation will not be fully completed until Jews can enjoy the same rights and obligations as their Christian neighbors within a secular state. Christians in Germany view their state as being secular. The Jewish minority does not.

Inasmuch as it does not view the state as being secular, the

Jewish community has established private schooling. There seems to be somewhat of a consensus, at least among the Jewish community in Munich and the surrounding area, that the formation of a Jewish identity, with an eye toward the future, can not be advanced in a Christian public school system.

Sixth, based on my interviews, it is probable that interconfessional Christian instruction will replace confessional religious instruction in Bavaria in the not-to- distant future. There is the notion, expressed by Christian respondents and school authorities, that the separation of students for religious instruction does not pose a particular hardship on non-Protestant and non-Catholic students, since

Catholic and Protestant students are separated as well. Based on this argument, the further solidification of Christians may 264

further enhance minority feelings of being set apart from the

majority.

Seventh, the situation of unequal provisions for Islamic

instruction will not change unless there is a demand from this

community made by a representative who is accepted from all

quarters of the Islamic community. This demand will only be

accepted if there is a politicalization of the Islamic

community, which because of the nature of the Islamic

religion, is not bound to occur. Additionally, if the

Bavarian school authorities fail to recognize that the Turkish

government represents government, and not religious interests,

instruction for Islamic students will continue to be

controlled by German, and not Islamic religious authorities.

This will result in continued unequal provisions for religious

instruction in the Islamic community.

Eighth, it is safe to say that the churches have not lost

a controlling interest over popular attitudes, as some

historians have claimed. They have not because they have

treated popular views as being innately Christian, and in so

doing have elevated their status to that of a Christian civil religion. Because of this, the displaying of Christian symbols in the public schools enjoy a "legitimate" place since the majority Christian population views these things as being consistent with German culture. The presence of Christian rituals and symbolism in the schools has been elevated to a 265

civil religion based on Christianity since the majority no

longer views the presence of Christian ritual and symbolism as

being religious. Rather, these rituals and symbolisms are

seen by the majority as being part and parcel of German

culture. This civil religion, however, is not a part of every

one's German culture. And as long as this is not

acknowledged, minority religions will not enjoy equal

consideration in the Christian public school system. Minority

communities and minority individuals will continue not to have

options along the continuum of separatism and assimilation.

Identity formation will continue to be difficult, and if the

German state allows it, further minority privatization may be

the result.

Ninth, as one respondent put it, "with the Jews there is

always the problem of the Holocaust." Such a view absolves

the German majority population from addressing post-World War

II inequalities for Jewish schooling, because of the belief

that anything it does will result in further Jewish privatization anyway. Jewish privatization of schooling was not the inevitable result of a linear development related to the Holocaust; rather, it has resulted from inadequacies in post World War II German schooling that have yet to be addressed.

Lastly, there is not a conflict in political theory and practice when non-democratic countries do not offer the same 266

rights and obligations to all of its citizens. In post World

War II democratic Germany, there may be indeed a conflict between theory and practice which has relevancy for the

concept of democracy.

RELEVANCY FOR DEMOCRACY

This work has relevancy for the concept of democracy and

for democratic education. I have worked under the premise,

shared by many educational philosophers, that democratic education is (1) nonrepressive, (2) nondiscriminatory, and (3) must rest on 'democratic virtue' (Gutmann, p. 46).

The first principle, that education must be nonrepressive, is based on the idea that "Because social reproduction is the primary ideal of democratic education, communities must be prevented from using education to stifle rational deliberation of competing conceptions of the good life and the good society" (Gutmann, p. 45) . In order to be counted as democratic education, education toward democratic virtue is a constant. What is not a constant are those "ways of life most favored by parental and political authorities." John Dewey

(1937) held that "The trouble, at least one great trouble, is that we have taken democracy for granted; we have thought and acted as if our forefathers had founded it once and for all.

We have forgotten that it has to be enacted anew in every 267

generation, in every year and day, in the living relations of person to person in all social forms and institutions". The

dialogue changes every generation according to what parents

and political authorities favor; however, in order for

education to be democratic, and with schools in democratic

societies reflecting democratic institutions, every generation must ask itself, "Given what parents and political authorities

favor, given the current dialogue, are children given the

capacity to reevaluate whatever dialogue is currently under way?" Going a step further, to fulfill these premises of democratic education, schools must elicit in children the

capacity even to begin dialogues.

As written above, the first premise of democratic education holds that schools must not stifle rational deliberations of competing conceptions of the good life. The dialogue fulfilling this premise in recent years has centered around the definition of pluralism - what this concept means? how it is to be applied? which group/s should benefit from this concept? This is not merely an American dialogue; these concepts have become abstractions whose very meanings are rooted in democratic behavior. In short, the "contemporary" dialogue of what makes a country democratic, of what makes schools a reflection of that democracy, seems to be the level at which they pursue activities which embrace pluralism. 268

So too are religious leaders and educators grappling with

the concept of pluralism in religious teachings and many

conclude that religious instruction by definition can not,

without great difficulty, be pluralistic (Greenberg, 1986).

The dilemma in teaching religion from a multicultural

perspective is that "That challenge to our reason may be

viewed as the analogue of the challenge with which the

injunction 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself'

confronts our biologically rooted self-love. That is the

basic challenge which pluralism presents to those who view it

not merely as an existential reality but primarily as a

valuation concept which enjoins us to bestow upon life-styles

and thought-patterns that differ from ours a legitimacy equal

to that of our own" (Greenberg, p. 23).

Siers (1992) makes the argument that enculturation (Siers,

1992) , or rather, "a process of integration into Christian (or

into whatever religious body one belongs) and a process of

Christianity (or whatever religion) taking root," (Siers, p.

622) is the objective of religious education. Hence, the objective of religious education is to inculturate one to be

"rooted" in a religious body so as to be able to participate in that religion as an adult. This concept of the objective of religious education is in conflict with the notion that religious education be pluralistic, for how can one 269 participate fully in his/her church if one accepts as

legitimate other life-styles and other world views?

This is not to say that religious educators should give up on the notion of educating for pluralism, and many educators have offered suggestions as to the necessary steps toward this goal. But the notion of "tolerance" is not reflective of a pluralistic state of consciousness because "Tolerance has overtones which in relation to the tolerated are both pejorative and condescending" (Greenberg, p. 22). Moreover,

"that which is tolerated does not have equal legal standing with that which is legitimate" (Greenberg, p. 22).

Activities which take place in schools, in order to be said that the school is moving toward pluralism, must accord to each child the ability to say that other belief systems and other ways of life are equally valid (Greenberg) , that what others favor is contextually grounded. A pluralistic person has the ability to say, "'your ideas and practices are spiritually and ethically as valid - that is as capable of being justified, supported and defended as mine,' and yet remain firmly committed to your own ideas and practices"

(Greenberg, p. 23), without evidence, and with blind faith.

That is a difficult task for the religious person.

Anything less than the pursuit of pluralism in schools is in contradiction to the first premise that a democratic society, if its schools are to reflect democratic principles, 270 must prevent communities from using education to stifle rational deliberation of competing conceptions of the good life.

If one accepts the first premise, that democratic education be nonrepressive, it follows logically that he/she will accept the second premise, that democratic education must be nondiscriminatory, "since states and families can be selectively repressive by excluding entire groups of children from schooling or by denying them an education conducive to deliberation among conceptions of the good life and the good society" (Gutmann, p. 45) . As concerns religious influence and religious instruction in the schools, the acceptance of pluralism would mean equitable time allotted for all children to discuss all world religions. If, as a theoretical, or as a practical matter, this can not be accomplished, then the school can be said to be selectively repressive and therefore not fulfilling a democratic function in the sense that it

"stifles rational deliberation of competing conceptions of the good life".

Furthermore, the school is not fulfilling the second premise of democratic education if it merely tolerates, and does not accept as legitimate, competing conceptions of the good life, and can therefore be said to be discriminatory.

Toleration, as has been noted, implies a second-rate status to those being tolerated, and assumes an air of condescension to 271 those being tolerated. In this sense, toleration, and not an acceptance of legitimacy of minority religious views, is discriminatory. Again, if the school either has laws or practices which are not equitably distributed to those holding minority conceptions of the good life, then minority religions are not given the same legitimacy as are majority religions, and minority as well as majority students are thus being denied an education conducive to deliberation among conceptions of the good life and the good society.

Furthermore, if a society segregates children based on their perceived or real differing conceptions of the good life, it disables both children of the minority as well as children of the majority from rationally deliberating among the conceptions of the good life and the good society.

The third premise, that education tries to teach democratic virtue, stems from the concept that "Like the state of individuals, a democratic state defends a degree of professional authority over education - not on grounds of liberal neutrality, but to the extent necessary to provide children with the capacity to evaluate those ways of life most favored by parental and political authorities" (Gutmann, p.

46) . That the state would be neutral inplies a degree of pragmatism; however, "pragmatic considerations alone cannot bestow ultimate spiritual legitimacy upon pluralism"

(Greenberg, p. 24) . In democratic societies, in order to 272 count as democratic, schooling must not be relegated to parental prerogatives alone. The state has a public responsibility to ensure that children have the capacity to evaluate what is most favored by parental and political authorities.

States can be organized along political/religious grounds or they can be states in which the civil life becomes the value system. In either case, one is substituted for the other. If a society, however, purports not to be religious

(ie., to have a civil religion), but has a religious base, then conflicts arise. In this example, it hardly matters to minorities if they are allowed to use the majority's institutions if these are not their institutions. And this exposes the basic problem with Bellah's concept of civil religion; civil religion does not take into account that a society sets itself up to be a certain way institutionally while not doing so in practice. Besides offering a theoretical challenge to the concept of civil religion, this study has potential importance for a theory of democracy and pluralism.

That the Jewish population and the Muslim population feel themselves excluded is important in itself. But what matters for this study is how institutions have been set up.

Institutions have been set up to exclude whole populations and the excluded populations feel that. Evidence of this is the 273 documented historical record, backed by a sociological inquiry which has put stock in the authoritative nature of those who have articulated that there is currently a problem.

POSSIBLE AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY

This work has provided evidence that members of minority religions are discriminated against in a public school system which has institutionalized and therefore legitimized

Christianity, and the implication of this for the concept of civil religion, democratic education, and pluralism. This work is not prescriptive, and has not attempted to offer suggestions of how to rectify this situation. Indeed, in order for minority concerns to be addressed, there needs to be the recognition that there is indeed a "situation". Surveys of minority students' parents would indicate the extent to which change is warranted, given the acceptance of the

Catholic assumption that schooling is a parental right.

The comparative possibilities of this study are many. One comparison might include a study of the newly-formed religious classes in former East Germany. Also, a closer look at the ethics classes which are being developed and established in former East Berlin might be evaluated to determine whether they address some of the issues as presented in this study. This study has particular relevance in a time during which many western democracies have had legal questions concerning the role that religion should play in public schooling.

Comparisons, for instance, with other western democracies, the

United States for instance, might show the extent to which states purport to do one thing while practicing another. APPENDIX A

LETTERS SOLICITING PARTICIPANTS TO BE INTERVIEWED

275 276

SAMPLE LETTER ASKING FOR PERSONAL INTERVIEWS WITH THE HEAD, OR HIS/HER REPRESENTATIVE, OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN BAVARIA FROM THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, THE HEADS OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY AND TURKISH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN MUNICH OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE HEADS OF ONE JEWISH AND ONE TURKISH MUSLIM PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL IN MUNICH.

Dear :

I am an American doctoral student in the Department of Educational Policy and Leadership at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

I am writing a dissertation on the effect of religious instruction in German public schools on the integration of religious minorities into German society. I will be in Munich between December 15, 1993 and January 31, 1994, conducting interviews with six h.s. principals, students, parents, and community leaders. I am writing to ask if you would be willing to spare me an hour of your time, at your convenience and between these dates, so that I may ask you your views on the effects of religious instruction on religious minorities. If that is possible, please return the enclosed "Consent Form" in the self-addressed stamped envelope that I have provided for your convenience.

The interview will, naturally, be conducted in the German language. However, since my German language skills are not 100 percent, I will ask you at the time of the interview if I may audio tape your responses for transcription. Your confidentiality will, nevertheless, be ensured, as only I will have access to these transcripts.

As do all researchers here at the Ohio State University, I have gone through a process with a research review committee ensuring that the procedure to be followed for our interview constitutes a minimal risk to subjects. Nevertheless, as I will be trying to ascertain attitudes about religious instruction and about members of minority religions, you may feel free not to answer any questions that you deem too personal or sensitive. 277

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at the above address, or to contact Professor Robert F. Lawson, Chairman, the Department of Educational Policy and Leadership, the Ohio State University.

I have enclosed a "Consent for Participation in Social and Behavioral Research" form which, if you agree to be interviewed, I would appreciate your signing and returning in the self-addressed enclosed envelope.

Thank you for your time,

Dana L. Simel, Doctoral Candidate 278

SAMPLE LETTER ASKING FOR PERSONAL INTERVIEWS WITH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

Dear :

I am an American doctoral student in the Department of Educational Policy and Leadership at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

I am writing a dissertation on the effect of religious instruction in German public schools on the integration of religious minorities into German society.

I will be in Munich between December 15, 1993 and January 31, 1994, conducting interviews with six h.s. principals, students, parents, and community leaders. I am writing to ask if you would be willing to spare me an hour of your time, at your convenience and between these dates, so that I may ask you your views on the effects of religious instruction on religious minorities. If that is possible, please return the enclosed "Consent Form" in the self-addressed stamped envelope that I have provided for your convenience.

Thank you for your time,

Dana L. Simel, Doctoral Candidate 280

SAMPLE LETTER TO PARENTS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENTS ASKING IF THEIR CHILDREN AND THEY WOULD CONSENT TO BE INTERVIEWED

Dear ______:

I am a doctoral student completing my dissertation on the effect of religious instruction in German public schools on the integration of students of religious minorities into German society.

I will be in Germany in December, 1993 to January, 1994, conducting interviews with school directors, community leaders, educational policy makers, students, and their parents. I requested, from your son1s/daughter1s school principal, that this letter be forwarded to several parents whose child possesses the qualities of being (1) student leaders; and (2) articulate. The school director has chosen your child because of these qualities which he/she feels your child possesses.

I am writing to ask if, with your child's full consent, you would allow me to conduct an interview with your child, and if so, if you would allow me to interview you as well. I would spend approximately an hour with your child and an hour with you. Depending upon your availability, and the availability of your child, is it possible for you to spare me this time during the dates indicated? If so, please fill out the "Consent Form" in the self-addressed stamped envelope for your convenience, and please contact me at (089)854-2565 or (089) 265076 to set up an interview time and location.

The interview will take approximately one hour, during which time you will be asked to answer questions regarding minority and majority religious groups' objectives of religious schooling, as you see them; whether those objectives are being met; and how you know they are or are not. I will be asking your child questions relating to his/her sense of religious identity, to ascertain whether that sense is attributable to his/her religious school instruction.

The interviews will, naturally, take place in the German language. However, I will ask you at the time of the interview if I may make an audio tape of it since my German language skills are not 100%. However, as only I will have access to the transcripts of the audio-tape, I will ensure your confidentiality and the confidentiality your child.

I have enclosed a "Consent for Participation in Social and Behavioral Research," which, if you agree to the interview of yourself and your child, I would appreciate your signing and returning in the self-addressed enclosed envelope.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at the above address, or to contact Robert F. Lawson, Professor and Chair, The Department of Educational Policy and Leadership, the Ohio State University.

Thank you for your time,

Dana Simel, Ph.D. Candidate 282

LETTER TO DIRECTORS OF PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS

Dear :

I am an American Doctoral student in the Department of Educational Policy and Leadership at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

I am writing a dissertation on the effect of religious instruction in German public schools on the integration of religious minorities. While my dissertation will not be on private religious schools per se, an interview with you,as the director of a private religious school, could be invaluable to my research.

The interview will, naturally, be conducted in the German language. However, since my German language skills are not 100 percent, I will ask you at the time of the interview if I may audio tape your responses for transcription. Your confidentiality will, nevertheless be ensured, as only I will have access to these transcripts.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at the above address, or to contact Professor Robert F. 283

Lawson, Chairman, the Department of Educational Policy and Leadership, the Ohio State University.

Thank you for your time,

Dana L. Simel, Doctoral Candidate 284

LETTERS TO COMMUNITY LEADERS AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY MAKERS

Dear :

I am an American doctoral student in the Department of Educational Policy and Leadership at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

The interview will, naturally, be conducted in the German language. However, since my German language skills are not 100 percent, I will ask you at the time of the interview if I may audio tape your responses for transcription. Your confidentiality will, nevertheless be ensured, as only I will have access to these transcripts.

Thank you for your time,

Dana L. Simel, Doctoral Candidate APPENDIX B

SAMPLE CONSENT FORMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL RESEARCH

286 287

PARENTS' CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN

SOCIAL RESEARCH

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, COLUMBUS, OHIO

I consent to participating in research entitled Education for Democracy? A Contemporary and Historical Look at Religious Instruction in the German Public School System. The interview will take place between December 15 and January 31, at your convenience. The interview will last approximately one hour. Since I do not have your name, please call me at (089)265076, or at (089)854-2565, to set up an appointment time and location.

Dana Simel has explained the purpose of the study, the procedures to be followed, and the expected duration of my participation. Possible benefits of the study have been described. I am aware that Ms. Simel may want to quote me in later publications and reports. I am also aware that Ms. Simel will ensure my confidentiality.

I acknowledge that I have had the opportunity to obtain additional information regarding the study and that any questions I have raised have been answered to my full satisfaction. Further, I understand that I am free to withdraw consent at any time and to discontinue participation in the study without prejudice to me.

Finally, I acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the consent form. I sign it freely and voluntary. I also acknowledge that this consent form will be kept confidential. A copy has been given to me. 288

CHILD'S CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL RESEARCH

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, COLUMBUS, OHIO, U.S.A.

I consent to my child's participation in research entitled Education for Democracy? A Contemporary and Historical Look at Religious Instruction in the German Public School System. The interview will take place between December 15 and January 31, at your convenience. The interview will last approximately one hour. Since I do not have your name, please call me at (089)265076, or at (089)854-2565, to set up an appointment time and location.

Dana Simel has explained the purpose of the study, the procedures to be followed, and the expected duration of my child's participation. Possible benefits of the study have been described. I am aware that Ms. Simel may want to quote my child in later publications and reports. I am also aware that Ms. Simel will ensure my child's anonymity.

I acknowledge that I have had the opportunity to obtain additional information regarding the study and that any questions I have raised have been answered to my full satisfaction. Further, I understand that my child is free to withdraw consent at any time and to discontinue participation in the study without prejudice to him/her.

Finally, I acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the consent form. I sign it freely and voluntary. Also, I acknowledge that this consent form will be kept confidential. A copy has been given to me. 289

CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL RESEARCH

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, COLUMBUS, OHIO, U.S.A.

I consent to participating in research entitled Education for Democracy? A Contemporary and Historical Look at Religious Instruction in the German Public School System. The interview will take approximately one hour. I have enclosed a self- addressed stamped envelope for your convenience. Please return it to me, indicating the date, time, and location which would be of most convenience to you. I will confirm our appointment several weeks prior to the date that you have indicated. If you have any questions prior to our interview, please feel free to contact me at the above address.

I acknowledge that I have - had the opportunity to obtain additional information regarding the study and that any questions I have raised have been answered to my full satisfaction. Further, I understand that I am free to withdraw consent at any time and to discontinue participation in the study without prejudice to me.

Finally, I acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the consent form. I sign it freely and voluntary. Also, I acknowledge that this consent form is confidential. A copy has been given to me. APPENDIX C

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

290 291

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

1. Are you aware of any curricula concerns surrounding compulsory religious instruction in the schools? What are these concerns and what group/s is/are expressing them?

2. Are you aware of any other concerns surrounding compulsory religious instruction? What are these concerns and what group/s is/are expressing them?

3. In your view, what is the purpose of religious instruction? Is this objective being met? How? How do you know that it is/is not being met?

4. In your school, is there an equal percentage of Protestants and Catholics enrolled in the religious classes versus ethics classes? Why do you think this is/is not?

5. Do you think that there would be an equal percentage of religious minority children enrolled In religious classes if these classes were made available to these minorities? Why or why not?

6 . What are and have been the practical reasons why religious classes have not been made available to religious minorities?

7. What are and have been the theoretical reasons why religious classes have not been made available to religious minorities?

8 . Do you feel that students enrolled in religious classes gain a sense of religious loyalty due to the classes? Do you feel that students gain a feeling of being a part of a religious body arising from their participation in the religious classes? How do you know this?

9. Do you feel that minority religious groups are at a disadvantage where the above is concerned? 292

10. Have you received complaints, or have teachers received complaints about the religious instruction? What are the most often-heard complaints?

11. To your knowledge, do religious minorities want religious instruction in their religion/s? What groups? Why or why not? What have these groups' actions been? What will be the result if religious instruction is not provided for these groups?

12. How is the school made aware of the religious instruction preference of each child? When does this occur? In your knowledge, do you have students who are enrolled in religious classes which are not of their religious orientation? Why do you think this is so?

13. In your opinion, does the separation of students for a portion of the day, based on their religion, add to or decrease the social harmony of children of different religions? 293

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ASKED TO 10 YEAR OLD CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT STUDENTS:

1 . At what age did you become aware that there were people in the world with other religions?

2. Do you remember the circumstances of this awareness?

3. How did you feel about that?

4. Do you remember being asked about your religion in school for the purposes of religious instruction? How did this make you feel? Did you feel a sense of kinship with the other people of your same religion?

5. Were you ever separated from friends or potential friends for these classes? How did this make you feel? Do you know any one who is of a minority religion? How do you think this separation made/makes them feel?

6 . Do you know the confession of most of your teachers? How do you know this?

7. Do you know the confession of most of your fellow students? How do you know this?

8 . Were your religious beliefs ever different from your teacher's religious beliefs? If so, how did you deal with this? How did your teacher deal with this?

9. Does your religious instruction, in your opinion, prepare you for life in the church as an adult? How? Why not? 294

10. What else does it prepare you for? What do you think is the goal of this instruction?

11. Do you wish that you could learn more, or less, about other religions in your religious classes?

12. Are you acquainted with at least one member of a minority religious group? If so, how did you make that acquaintance? Have any of your attitudes about the acquaintance's minority group been confirmed/not confirmed by this acquaintance? If so, which ones? How were they confirmed/not confirmed?

13. From where did you get most of your opinions and knowledge about members of minority groups: from family? from the community? from religious instruction provided in school? from religious instruction provided in church? from personal experience? from personal reading?

14. Do you remember any value comments made about members of other religious groups or about the groups' members during the religious instruction? What were these comments?

15. Do you think that all foreigners should accept Catholicism/Protestantism? Is one's religion connected with being a German citizen and with attitudes toward other people?

16. Would you be enrolled in religious instruction if it was not your parents choice? When you are of age, will you continue with this religious instruction?

17. What religion are you? How do you know this? 295

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO PARENTS OF CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT PARENTS

1. What do you think is the purpose of religious instruction? Is this objective being met? Why or why not?

2. Is this your purpose for choosing to send your child to religious instruction? Is your objective being met?

3. Are you aware of any conflicts that your child has with his/her religious instructor over the course content? What are these conflicts? 4. Do you agree with the way in which the instructor is dealing with the conflict? Why or why not?

5. How important is this religious instruction to your child's sense of knowing his/her religious heritage? By what other methods does your child learn about his/her religion?

6 . Do you think that religious instruction should be offered to members of minority religions? Why or why not? What would be the practical problems of offering this instruction to religious minorities? What would be the theoretical problems?

7. Since this instruction is not available to minority religious groups, how do you think that parents instill a sense of religious belonging in their children?

8 . As far as you know, what is the religious preference of most of your child's friends? Where did s/he become acquainted with these friends?

9. Would you support your child if he/she decided to enroll in an ethics class, instead of the religious instruction class? Why? Why not? 296

10. Are you acquainted with the debates about religious instruction? What is your viewpoint on these debates?

11. Do you know of Catholic or Protestant parents who chose to enroll their children in ethics classes? Why do you think that they did this?

12. Are you satisfied with your child’s religious instruction? Why? Why not?

13. How were you asked/notified of your child's preference for the type of religious instruction which s/he is receiving?

14. would you object to your child's attendance of a non confessional school if most of the children were of the X-tian confession? Why? Why not?

15. Would you object to your child's attendance of a non confessional school if most of the children were of a minority religion? Why? Why not?

16. If religious instruction were suddenly discontinued in your child's school, what would be your response? Why? Would you make provisions for your child to receive religious instruction elsewhere? Why? Why not? What would be your options? 297

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO COMMUNITY LEADERS AND TO EDUCATIONAL POLICY MAKERS

1. Are you aware of any curricula concerns surrounding compulsory religious instruction in the schools? What are these concerns and what group/s is/are expressing them?

2. Are you aware of any other concerns surrounding compulsory religious instruction? What are these concerns and what group/s is/are expressing them?

3. In your view, what is the purpose of religious instruction? Is this objective being met? How? How do you know that it is/is not being met?

4. Do you think that there would be an equal number of religious minority children enrolled in religious classes if these classes were made available to these minorities? Why or why not?

5. What are and have been the practical reasons why religious classes have not been made available to religious minorities?

6 . What are and have been the theoretical reasons why religious classes have not been made available to religious minorities?

7. Do you feel that students enrolled in religious classes gain a sense of religious loyalty due to the classes? Do you feel that students gain a feeling of being a part of a religious body arising from their participation in the religious classes? How do you know this?

8 . Do you feel that minority religious groups are at a disadvantage where the above is concerned?

9. What are the most common complaints that you have heard expressed about religious instruction? 298

10. To your knowledge, do religious minorities want religious instruction in their religion/s to take place in public school? What groups? Why or why not? What have these groups' actions been? What will be the result if religious instruction is not provided for these groups?

11. Upon what grounds are these groups advocating religious instruction for their minority? How is the general public receiving their request?

12. How is the school made aware of the religious instruction preference of each child? When does this occur? In your knowledge, do you have students-who are enrolled in religious classes which are not of their religious orientation? Why do you think this is so?

13. In your opinion, does the separation of students for a portion of the day, based on their religion, add to or decrease the social harmony of children of different religions?

14. Are there reforms now underway to change or to equalize the relationship between church and state in the offering of religious instruction in the schools? By whom are these reforms being advocated? Upon what grounds? How are they approaching their advocacy? Are their claims being well received? Why or why not?

15. What would be the ideal relationship between church and state as regards religious instruction in the schools? What would be an acceptable relationship? For whom? What will happen if this acceptable relationship is not achieved? What will happen if it is? 299

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ASKED OP RELIGIOUS SCHOOL DIRECTORS

1. Why do parents choose to send their children to this school?

2. Do you think that the secular teaching of the school is better than what their children could obtain in the German public schools?

3. Would most parents would be more inclined to have their children attend public schools if they could get instruction there in Judaism/Islam?

4. Would most parents be more inclined to have their children attend public schools if they were not of a "general X- tian nature" as defined by the Bavarian Constitution?

5. Do you think that parents view the social contacts in this school to be important? Do you feel that they are?

6 . Do you feel that the sentiments of the public schools are against Jewish/Islamic religion? Against Jews or Muslims? How do you know this? Do you think that most parents feel the same way?

7. Do you feel that compulsory religious instruction has a place in the public schools? Why? Why not? Do other groups agree with you? Why or why not? What steps are they taking to ensure its continuance or its discontinuance? Have they been successful? Why? Why not?

8 . What are the religious objectives of this school? Are they being met? How do you know this? Are the objectives of this school unique to this area and for these students? Why? Why not?

9. What are the secular objectives of this school? Are they being met? How do you know this? Are the objectives of this school unique to this area and for these students? Why? Why not ? 300

10. Many of your students will attend the German public schools when they are older. What are your concerns, if any, for them? Are any of these concerns related to being separated for a portion of the day from their peers due to religious instruction? How do you prepare them for this? What evidence do you have that these concerns are legitimate ones?

11. Do you have students who have come from the public schools? How do you think that they felt upon being separated for a portion of the day due to religious instruction? Why do you think that they felt this way?

12. How will the attendance of this religious private school help or hinder your students' integration into German society?

13. What would be the ideal relationship between church and state as regard religious instruction in the schools? What would be an acceptable relationship? For whom? What will happen if this acceptable relationship is not achieved? What will happen if it is? 301

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ASKED OF RELIGIOUS SCHOOL PARENTS

1. Why do you chose to send their children to this school?

2. Do you think that the secular teaching of the school is better than what you child/ren could obtain in the German public schools?

3. Would you be more inclined to have your child/ren attend public schools if they could get instruction there in Judaism/1 si am?

4. Would you be more inclined to have your child/ren attend public schools if they were not of a "general X-tian nature" as defined by the Bavarian Constitution?

5. Do you that the social contacts your child makes in this school to be important?

6 . Do you feel that the sentiments of the public schools are against Jewish/Islamic religion? Against Jews or Muslims? How do you know this? Do you think that most parents feel the same way?

8 . What are the religious objectives of this school? Are they being met? How do you know this?

9. What are the secular objectives of this school? Are they being met? How do you know this? 302

10. What are your concerns for your child, if any, upon their attendance at the public schools? Are any of these concerns related to being separated for a portion of the day from their peers due to religious instruction? How do you prepare them for this? What evidence do you have that these concerns are legitimate ones? Have you heard of problems relating to religious instruction, either in what is taught or in the separation of children?

11. How will your child feel upon being separated for a portion of the day due to provisions for religious instruction? How will you feel?

12. Would religious instruction be more acceptable if the release time for those not participating were in the first thing in the morning or at the end of the day?

13. How important is your child's sense of religious identity tied with his/her attendance of a religious school? Could he/she achieve this same identification if it were not for the religious school? Could he/she receive this identification in public secular schools? Why? Why not? Could he/she achieve this identification in confessional schools as they now exist? If not, what would have to change?

14. How will your child's/ren's attendance of the religious school help or hinder your child's/ren1 s integration into German society?

15. What would be the ideal relationship between church and state as regard religious instruction in the schools? What would be an acceptable relationship? For whom? What will happen if this acceptable relationship is not achieved? What will happen if it is? 303

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ASKED OF TEN YEAR OLD RELIGIOUS SCHOOL STUDENTS: (USUALLY THE LAST YEAR OF ATTENDANCE AT A PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL

1. Why do you think that your parents choose to send you to this school?

2. Do you think that the secular teaching of the school is better than what you could obtain in the German public schools?

3. Would you like to attend public school? Why or why not?

4. Did you know that the public schools in Bavaria are designated to be of a "general X-tian nature"? What do you think this means? How does this make you feel? Would this effect your wanting to attend the schools? What if this were changed?

5. Do most of your friends go to your school?

6 . Do you think that the program of public schools intentionally excludes the Jewish/Islamic religion? How do you know this? Do you think that your parents feel the same way?

7. Is it okay that Protestants and Catholics have religious instruction in the schools? Why don't you think that Jews and Muslims don't?

8 . How do you know you are Jewish/Muslim? Do you feel Jewish/Muslim? What does that feel like? How did you get to feel this way?

9. Do you have any concerns about one day attending the public school? What are these concerns? How do you know that these are problems? How would you like to spend your time while Protestant and Catholic children receive instruction in their religion?

10. Would you feel better if no one was taught religion in the public schools? Why or why not? 304

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ASKED TO REPRESENTATIVES OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS

1. Are you aware of any curricula concerns surrounding compulsory religious instruction in the schools? What are these concerns and what group/s is/are expressing them?

2. Are you aware of any other concerns surrounding compulsory religious instruction? What are these concerns and what group/s is/are expressing them?

3. In your view, what is the purpose of religious instruction? Is this objective being met? How? How do you know that it is/is not being met?

4. Do you think that there would be an equal number of religious minority children enrolled in religious classes if these classes were made available to these minorities? Why or why not?

5. What are and have been the practical reasons why religious classes have not been made available to religious minorities?

6 . What are and have been the theoretical reasons why religious classes have not been made available to religious minorities?

8. Do you feel that minority religious groups are at a disadvantage where the above is concerned?

9. What are the most common complaints that you have heard expressed about religious instruction? 305

11. Upon what grounds are these groups advocating religious instruction for their minority? How is the general public receiving their request?

13. In your opinion, does the separation of students for a portion of the day, based on their religion, add to or decrease the social harmony of children of different religions?

14. Why do parents choose to send their children to Jewish/Muslim schools?

15. Do you think that the secular teaching of religious schools is better than what their children could obtain in the public schools?

16. Would most parents would be more inclined to have their children attend public schools if they could get instruction there in Judaism/Islam?

17. Would most parents be more inclined to have their children attend public schools if they were not of a "general X-tian nature" as defined by the Bavarian Constitution?

18. Do you think that parents view the social contacts in religious schools to be important? Do you feel that they are?

19. Do you feel that the sentiments of the public schools are against Jewish/Islamic religion? Against Jews or Muslims? How do you know this? Do you think that most parents feel the same way?

20. Do you feel that compulsory religious instruction has a place in the public schools? Why? Why not? Do other groups agree with you? Why or why not? What steps are 306

they taking to ensure its continuance or its discontinuance? Have they been successful? Why? Why not?

21. What are the religious objectives of religious schools? Are they being met? How do you know this? Are the objectives of this Jewish/Muslim schools unique to this area and for these students? Why? Why not?

22. What are the secular objectives of the Jewish/Muslim school in this community? Are they being met? How do you know this? Are the objectives of this school unique to this area and for these students? Why? Why not?

23. Many of your students who now attend the Jewish/Muslim school will attend the German public schools when they are older. What are your concerns, if any, for them? Are any of these concerns related to being separated for a portion of the day from their peers due to religious instruction? How do you prepare them for this? What evidence do you have that these concerns are legitimate ones?

24. How do you think students feel when they are separated for a portion of the day due to religious instruction? Why do you think that they felt this way?

25. How will the attendance of this religious private school help or hinder your students' integration into German society?

26. Release time for minority children often occurs in the middle of the day? What do these students do while their peers are being instructed in religion? Is this okay? Would it be better if release time were at the beginning or end of the day? Why hasn't this been done?

27. What would be the ideal relationship between church and state as regard religious instruction in the schools? What would be an acceptable relationship? For whom? What will happen if this acceptable relationship is not achieved? What will happen if it is? BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albisetti, J. (1983). Secondary School Reform in Imperial Germany. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Allen, W. (1984) . The Nazi Seizure of Power. New York: Franklin Watts, Inc.

Auslandische Schuler und Schulabsolventen 1983 &LS 199.2.,. (1994) . Statistische Veroffentlichungen der Kultusministerkonferenz. Dokumentation Nr. 128, Januar 1994. Bonn: Sekretariat der Stcindigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Lander in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

Amery, 1986, J. (1986). "On the Necessity and Impossibility of Being a Jew" in Germans and Jews_ Since theHolocaust. A. Rabinbach and J. Zipes (ed) . New York: Holmes & Meier.

Ardagh, J. (1987). Germany and the Germans: An Anatomy of Society Today. New York: Harper & Row.

Basic Programme of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. (1959). Social Democratic Party of Germany, in Spotts.

Beckford, J. (1989) . Religion and Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Bellah, R. (1967). The Broken Covenant. New York: The Seabury Press.

Berger, P. (1967) The Sacred Cannon:____ Elements__ qJL Sociological Theory of Religion... Garden city, NY: Doubleday & Co.

Berkowitz, M. (1993) . Zionist Culture and West European Jewry before the First World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Best, J. (1970). Research in Education. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

307 308

Birnbaum, M. (1980). "On the Jewish Struggle for Religious Equality in Prussia: 1897-1914," in the Leo Baeck institute Yearbook. 1980. London: Martin Seeker & Warburg Limited. Blackbourn, D. & Eley, G. (1989). The Peculiarities of German History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth- Century Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bracey, J.; Meier, A.; & Rudwick (1972). The Afro-Americans: Selected Documents. (ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Broder, H. & Lang, M. (1979). Fremd in Eigenem Land, (ed). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.

Carsten, F. L. (1980). The Rise of Facism. (2nd ed.) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Church Construction Tax Case, Judgment of December 14, 1965, 19 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts.

Clayton, R. and Gladden, J. (1974). "The Five Dimensions of Religiosity: Toward Demythologizing a Sacred Artifact" in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.,- No. 13.

Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Coleman, J. (1990). Equality of Achievement in Education. Boulder: Westview Press.

Coons, J. (1986). "Educational Choice and the Courts: U.S. and Germany" in The American Journal of Comparative Law. Winter, 1986, v. 34, n. 1, pp. 1 - 44.

Craig, G. (1982). The Germans. NY: Penguin Books.

Dewey, J. (1937) . "Education and Social Change" in Social Frontier, Vol. 3, May, 1937, pp. 235-237.

Diner, D. (1986). "Fragments of an Uncompleted Journey: On Jewish Socialization and Political Identity in West Germany" in Germans and Jews since the Holocaust:__ The Changing Situation of West Germany. A. Rabinback & J. Zipes (ed.) New York: Holmes & Meier. 309

Dokumenten Sammlung iiber die Entrechtung, Achtung und Vemichtung der Juden in Deutschland seit der Regierung Adolf Hitler. (published in October, 1936, editor unknown).

Engelmann, S. (1945). German Education and Re-Education. New York: International Universities Press.

Ehrmann, E. (1939) . "Jewish Education in Germany, 11 in Jewish Education. September, 1939, v. 2, No. 2. New York: National Council for Jewish Education.

Epstein, E. (1978). "Ideological Factors in Soviet Educational Policy Toward Jews," in Education and Urban Society, v. 10. n. 2. February. Sage Publications, pp. 223-254.

Epstein, E. (1988) . "The Problematic Meaning of Comparison in Comparative Education," in Jurgen Schriever and B. Holmes (eds.) Theories and Methods in Comparative Education. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, pp. 3-23.

Epstein, E. (1992). "Social Paradox American Education," in Oxford Review of Education, v. 18, no. 3, p. 201-212.

Eyck, E. (1968). Bismarck and the German Empire. New York: Norton .

Field, G. (1980). Religion in the German Volksschule, 1890- 1928. In the Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook: 1980. London: Martin Seeker Warburg, Ltd.

Fishman, S. & Martin, L. (1987) eds. Estranged Twi n s ; Education and Society . in the Two Germanies. New York: Praeger.

Fukuyama, Y. (1961). "The Major Dimensions of Church Membership" in Review of Religious Research 2.

Gay, R. (1992) . The Jews of Germany: A Historical Portrait. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Glasner, P. (1977). The Sociology of Secularization. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Glenn, C. (1989). Choice of Schools in Six Nations Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 310

Glock, C. (1965) . Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Greenberg, S. (1986). "Pluralism and Jewish Education" in Religious Education, Vol. 81. No. 1, Winter, 1989.

Grossman, A. (1986). "Questions of Jewish Identity: A Letter from New York" in Germans and Jews Since the Holocaust. A. Rabinbach & J. Zipes (ed). New York: Holmes & Meier.

Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic Education. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Hammond, P. (Ed.). (1976). The Sacred in a Secular Age: Toward Revision in the Scientific Study of Religion. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.

Helmreich, E. (1959). Religious Education in German Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hearnden, A. (1976). Education. Culture, and Politics in West Germany. New York: Pergamon Press.

Hearnden, A. (1976) . Education in the Two Germanies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Heyman, R., Lawson, R., & Stamp, R. (1972). Studies in Educational Change. Toronto: Hold, Rinehard and Winston of Canada, Ltd.

Herbst, J. (1965). The German Historical School in American Scholarship: A Study in the Transfer of Culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Herrlitz, H. Hopf, W. & Titze, H. (1986). Deutsche Schulgeschichte von 1800 his zum Gegenwart, 2d ed., Koenigstein/Ts.: Athenaeum.

Hoffmann, C. (1990). StundenNull: Vergangenheitsbewaltigung in Deutschland 1945 und 1989. Bonn: Bouvier.

Jacoby, J. (1867) in Modern Germany. K. Pinson. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Jones, A. (1991). Problems in the Schools. In A. Jones (Ed) , Soviet Social Problems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Katcher, L. (1968). Post Mortem: The Jews in Germany Today. New York: Delacorte Press. 311

Kommers, D. (1990) . West German Constitutionalism and Church- State Relations, in German Politics and Society, v. 19, Spring, 1990.

Lande, W. Die Schule in der Reichsverfassung: Ein Kommentar. Berlin.

Lamberti, M. (1978). The Struggle for the Legal Equality of Religions in Imperial Germany, in The Leo Baeck Institute Year Book XXIII.

Lamberti, M. (1977) . Jewish Activism in Imperial Germany and the Struggle for Civil Equality. New Haven.

Lamberti, M. (1989) . State .■Society, and the Elementary School in Imperial Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lawson, R. (1965) . Reform of the West German School System: 1945-1962. Malloy Lithoprinting.

Lenski, G. (1963) . The Religious Factor; A Sociological Study of Religion's Impact on Politics. Economics and Family Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, in Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Luxemburg, R. (1988). Reform or Revolution. 6th Edition. New York: Pathfinder Press.

Macionis, J. (1989). Sociology (2nded.). Englewood Cliffs: NJ.

McGuire, M. (1981). Religion. The Social Context. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Mahler, G. (1989) . ”Religiose Unterweisung fur tiirkische Schuler muslimischen Glauhens in Bayern’1. Z.f. Pad., 35. Jg, Nr. 3.

Mann, E. (1938). School for Barbarians. New York: Modern New Age Books.

Massing, P. (1949). Rehearsal for Destruction, a Study of Political Anti-Semitism in Imperial Germany. New York. 312

Meyer, F. (1976) . Schule der Untertanen. Lehrer und Politik in Preussen: 1848-1900. Hamburg. In The Leo Baeck Yearbook: 1980. London: Martin Seeker Warburg, Ltd.

Meyer, M. (1967) . The Origins of the Modern Jew: Jewish Identity and European Culture in Germany: 1749-1824. Wayne State University Press.

Meyer, M. (1980) . The Orthodox and the Enlightened: An Unpublished Contemporary Analysis of Berlin Jewry's Spiritual Condition in the Early Nineteenth Century.

Miller, L. (1992) . Agricultural Education: Research Methods. The Ohio State University.

Military Government Regulations, Title 8, Education and Religion (1945 ff.) paragraph 8-111, Control of Religious Aff a i r s . Moodie, D. (1975) . The Rise of Afrikanerdom. Berkely, CA: The University of California Press.

Mosse, G. (1990). Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory of the World Wars. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mosse, G. (1966). Nazi Culture. New York: Schocken Books.

Muller, D., Ringer, F., & Simon, F. (eds.) (1987). The Rise of the Modern Education System: Structural Change and Social Reproduction. 1870-1920. NY: Cambridge University P r e s s .

Murray, G. Denominational Education in Germany. British HQ/Educ/82350/Int: Intelligence and Information Section, October 1948. Mimeographed.

Myrdal, G. (1962) . An American Dilemma:__The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

Nichols, J. (1958) . Germany after Bismarck. The Caorivi Era. 1890-1894. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Noelle, E. & Neumann, E. (1967). The Germans: Public Opinion Polls 1947-1966. trans. Gerard Finan. Bonn: Verlag fur Demoskopie.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 313

Pinson, K. (1947) . "Jewish Life in Liberated Germany" in Jewish Social Studies, v. IX.

Pinson, K. (1966). Modern Germany. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Prestel, C. (1989) . Jiidisches Schul- und Erziehungswesen in Bayern: 1804-1933. Gottingen: Vandenhock & Ruprecht.

Ragins, S. (1980) . Jewish Responses to Anti-Semitism: 1870- 1914. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press.

Reuter, L. (1989). "Minorities in Germany after 1945: Discussion Papers". Presented at the Annual Conference of the German Studies Association (13th, Milwaukee, WI, October 5-8, 1989) .

Ringer, F. (1969) . The Decline of the German Mandarins:__ Ike German Academic Community:___ 1.89-0-19-23.^ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ringer, F. (1979). Education in Society in Modern Europe. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Ritter, w. (1964) . Kurt Schumacher:___ Eine_ Untersuchung seiner politischen Konzeption.

Robertson, I. (1987). Sociology (3rd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Robertson, R. (1978) . Meaning and Change:___ Explorations in the Cultural Sociology of Modern Societies. New York: New York University Press.

Rohl, J. (1967) . Germany without Bismarck:__ The Crises of Government in the Second Reich. 1890-1900. Berkeley.

Rdnne, L. von, ed. Das Unterrichtswesen des preussischen Staates. 2 vols., Berlin, 1855 in M. Lamberti State. Society, and the Elementary School in Imperial Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rust, V. (1984) . Education in East and West Germany. New York: Garland Publishing.

Sachar, H. (1977). The Course of Modern Jewish History. New York: Delta Books.

Sachar, H. (1985). Diaspora. New York: Harper & Row. 314

Die Schulordnung der Volksschule: Bayerisches Gesetz uber das Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesen (BayEUG) und Volksschulordnung (VSO); Lesebl.-Kommentar/hrsg. von Karl Klaus Kaiser; Gerhardt Mahler. - Kronach/Bayern; Miinchen: Link. - Losebl. -Ausg. (Carl-Link -Vorschriftensammlung). 1983. Schwabe, K. (1990) . Scholars Must Help the People of a Reunified Germany Reinterpret the Past, in Chronicle of Higher Education. 37:A 56, October 10, 1990.

Shils, E. & Young, M. (1953) . The Meaning of the Coronation. Sociological Review 1: 63-81.

Shupe, A. & Bromley, D. (1985) "Social Responses to Cults" in The Sacred in a Secular Age. Berkeley: University of California Press. Siers, L. (1992). "Inculturation and Religious Education - Where do we Stand?" in Religious Education, Vol. 87 No. 4, Fall, 1992.

Simel, D. (1991) . "Jewish Schools in Interwar Poland: Should Jews feel Gratitude to the Polish State for their Existence?" The Ohio State University. D. Simel: Columbus, Ohio, unpublished.

Smolicz, J. (1981). "Culture, Ethnicity, and Education" in World Yearbook of Education. 1981; Education of Minorities. J. Megarry, S. Nisbet, & E. Hoyle (eds.). New York: Nichols Publishing.

Sperber, M. (1986) . "My Jewishness" in Germans and Jews Since the Holocaust: The Changing Situation in West Germany, in A. Rabinbach & J. Zipes (ed.). New York: Holmes & Meier.

Speer, A. (1970) . Inside the Third Reich:__M s m p i r s....Qf Albert Speer. Intro, by E. Davidson. Trans. Richard and Clara Winston. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Spotts, F. (1973) . The Churches and Politics in Germany.. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Spring, J. (1994). The American School. New York: McGraw Hill.

Stem, F. (1961). The Politics of Cultural Despair:__A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 315

Stern, F. (1984). Dreams and Delusions: National Socialism in the Drama of the German Past. New York: Vintage Boo k s . Strauss, H. (1980). "Jewish Emigration from Germany: Nazi Policies and Jewish Responses" in The Leo Baeck Yearbook: 1980. London: Martin Seeker Warburg, Ltd.

Tal, U. (1974). Christians and Jews in Germany. Re.Ligi-<2h, Politics, and Ideology in the Second Reich. 187Q-1914, Ithaca, New York.

Titze, H. (1973) . Die Politisierung der Erziehung. Untersuchungen iiber die soziale und politische Funktion der Erziehung von der Aufklarung bis zum Hochkapitalismus. Frankfurt am Main.

Westhoff, P. (1931). Verfassungsrecht der deutschen Schule. Beitrage zur Auslegung der Schulartikel der Reichsverfas sung vom 11. August 1919. Diisseldorf.

Weigert, A. and Thomas, D. (1969). "Religiosity in 5-D: A critical Note" in Social Forces No. 48.

Weiler, H. (1971). "Education and the Formation of Social and Civic Attitudes: Summary of Research." Final Report. EDU Eric Microfiche ED059954.

Weiler, H. (1981). "Education, Public Confidence and the Legitimacy of the Modern State. Is there a 'Crises' Somewhere?" EDU Eric Microfiche ED224141.

Weiler, H. (1981). "Equal Protection, Legitimacy, and the Legalization of Education: The Role of the Federal Constitutional Court in West Germany." Eric Microfiche ED208575.

Wertheimer, J. (1987) . Unwelcome Strangers:__ E a s.t- E u r .QB.ea u Jews in Imperial Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.

World War II Allies Mark D-Day 50th Anniversary: Thousands of Veterans Remember Invasion" (June 9, 1994). Facts on File World News Digest. Facts on File, Inc.

Wittstadt, K. (1988) . Die katholische Kirche und das Judentum nach 1945, in Geschichte und Kultur der Juden in Bayern. ed. M. Treml & J. Kirmeier. Miinchen: Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte. 316

Yago-Jung, Y. (1986) . "Growing Up in Germany: After the War - After Hitler - 'Afterwards'" in Germans and Jews Since the Holocaust. A. Rabinbach and J. Zipes (ed) . New York: Holmes Sc Meier.

Zipes, J. (1986). "The Vicissitudes of Being Jewish in West Germany" in Germans and Jews Since the Holocaust. A. Rabinbach and J. Zipes (ed). New York: Holmes & Meier.