Learning about What? Non-Confessional Religious Education after the Dissolution of the Binary Categories ‘Religion’ and ‘Secular’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please se the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please se the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for discussing an important but often simplified issue of the nature and goals of RE with the application of Horii's theory of deconstruction of the binary division between the religious and the secular.

The paper takes under consideration a singular model of RE, i.e. the non-confessional RE. Here is the point of departure of my main remark about the text presented - lack of clear definitions of the terms in use.

In lines 125-135 a non-confessional RE is presented as a form of dialogical RE, well known as a separate RE model in Austria - cf. Dialogic-Denominational Religious Education | Dialogisch-konfessioneller Religionsunterricht (dk:RU): https://interreligioeserdialog.at/en/dialogue-initiatives-in-austria/initiatives-of-institutions/dialogic-denominational-religious-education/

On the other side the theoretical framework should include the typology of RE models provided by e.g. P. Schreiner (Religious Education in the European Context, in: Religious Education in Europe. Situation and current trends in schools, red. E. Kuyk, R. Jensen, D. Lankshear, E. Löh Manna, P. Schreiner, Oslo 2007) or A. Jödicke (Religionsunterricht in Europa, in: L’Europe des Religions. Eléments d’analyse des champs religieux européens, red. R. Friedli, M. Schneuwly Purdie, „Studia religiosa helvetica jahrbuch” 8/9 (2002/2003), pp. 137-152).

In this way, the reader would obtain appropriate clarity of the concepts used in the context of the typology of RE models. If not, the title of the paper should be modified to represent the narrower context of the Swedish RE model as exemplified in the paper.

The bias in use of specific notions comes up in Paragraph 3, where the reader can get a conviction that there is an impassable gap between metaphysics and scienfic knowledge and this is named "European rationalism". It seems very unclear to me what metaphysics means here and what's specific in "universal meanings" - have we moved here from metaphysics to metalingual theories? Is cancelling all metaphysical questions the right solution? Is science the only possible way of exploring the world? What's the difference between spiritual and universal? Is "super language" a tool for communication or to make comprehensible the spiritual experience of every individual? I can't see the answers.  That's why the main goals of the paper are unclear for me.

I also have the impression that the author moves from one discussion platform to another without much explanation, e.g. from religious to cultural, from cultural to linguistic, to return to religious or cultural. Too easy transitions cause discontinuity in the understanding of the argument.

While presenting non-binary RE characteristics one can find in point (iii) a new definition of metaphysics. It seems very unclear. Of course some metaphysical issues can be conveyed either by culuture or religion or popular science, but how can this cover the gap between religion and science? Is there really existing that gap and how is it addressed by both sides? This seems to me a very narrow issue as far as the body of this paper and its goals are considered. Same for the conflict between religion and reason mentioned in line 566 where we find something that is a very general statement indicating that  the solution of the so-called opposition is buzz either: "conflicts are not removed, but they are plucked down form the 'super plane' above the lived reality where they were previously placed" (l. 568f).

Then, non-binary attempt to RE issues seems to suffer from similar disadvantages that are ascribed to other ways of non-confessional religiuos education. In l. 574-580 one can read that the non-binary RE "offers something more than an insider's perspective"that seems to depreciate all who are "insiders" to certain religions or worldviews on one hand, on the other the pure neutrality seems unreal. Furthermore, "rise above the multiplicity of 'religions'" (l. 577) entails the binary division between the lower and the higher platform with the religious or multiple one being the lower one.

I really appreciate taking into account the problem of the binary category religion and secular, when the common belief is that 'secular' is given a higher value. The problem has to be discussed and rational solutions found. However, I still feel that the purpose of the article was to find an illusory uniformity or to present non-denominational RE as a higher platform for gaining knowledge than other models of RE. Perhaps contextuality is missing here. However, mentioned several times the dominance of the West shows that the differences - cultural, religious or other - are part of our lives and in so many perspectives we need to learn to find common ground for discussion. Who – or what – can provide such a basis is still an open question to me.

It would also be good to present some examples of good practices in RE that that confirm the ideas presented by the author. At least some additional performance features of the proposed new RE model would be very interesting to add to the content of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for all amendments, additions and explanations added to the text in reply to my remarks. I find them very valuable and explanatory enough to what was unclear while I was studying your article. This of course makes my rating even higher than before.
However, I still disagree that the phrase “offers something more than” in line 551 (v2 of the text) is not loaded with hierarchical prejudices and/or value-judgements. In my opinion, this is determined by the context of the entire sentence (and the beginning of chapter 6: conclusion) that refers to a higher value of a non-binary non-confessional RE. Thus, it is a bit different case that the one mentioned in your response to my review: “The non-binary non-confessional model is superior, in my opinion, to the binary non-confessional model.” (author's response to my review) These two statements, placed side by side, seem to denote that non-binary non-confessional RE model is in fact superior to any other RE model. And that of course can be a justified position that you’re holding and supporting. A consequence of this approach to the issue, however, may be the suggestion that a non-binary approach can be adapted or used as a matrix to any, other than non-confessional, RE model and have similar outcomes. In this case, it becomes a general perspective for any RE model as it can be. But this – as you explained – is beyond the scope of the paper. However, this does not change the fact that we are dealing here with a value judgment.

To sum up, on this basis it can be concluded that the non-binary approach is "something different" than the insider's perspective and can be a valuable concept also for believers, which can offer "something more" than the insider-outsider binary opposition, without excluding both categories.