Tarna Kannisto

Arlen Sharp proposes that religious education (RE) should prioritise the majority religion of a country. Using Finnish religious education that favours Lutheranism as the benchmark, he argues that such an education may enhance societal cohesion and trust, because it resonates with, and helps to deliver the central values of Finnish society, such as trust, together with a sense of (national) identity. Sharp argues that RE would be able to bring about these benefits better than ethics education exactly because of the interconnectedness of Lutheranism and Finnish culture. In my paper, I consider Sharp’s argumentation from empirical, normative, and pedagogical perspectives. However, instead of solely focusing on RE, I discuss both RE and its alternative in Finnish schools, the philosophically oriented school subject ‘Culture, worldviews and ethics’ (ET) under the umbrella term of worldview education (WE). I claim that Sharp’s argument is problematic from three interrelated perspectives. First, I aim to show that Finnish society is not historically as monocultural as it at first sight may appear. Second, I argue that prioritising one worldview over others in mandatory public education, even when non-confessional, is problematic from the perspective of legitimacy on one hand, and from the perspective of both guardians’ and children’s rights on the other. My last argument is pedagogical: in a complex world, it is crucial that students are provided space and time to reflect on and discuss various matters concerning worldviews—their own choices, roles, and identity in relation with worldviews and ethics. This is best ensured by employing approaches that enable reflective discussion in the classroom, such as Philosophy for/with Children.