Reflections and conclusions

3.3.1. Religion – perceptions

Religion does not have a very visible role in the lives and contexts of the young people and is often viewed as so personal and confidential that students hardly speak about it.

There was a rather sharp difference regarding the meaning of religion for Estonian and Russian-speaking students. Estonian-speaking students were much more distant towards religion than Russian-speaking. Family played a crucial role in the religiousness of Russian-speaking students by introducing them to their (mostly Orthodox) tradition. The importance of family for the Russian-speaking population has been pointed out by different surveys made in Estonia comparing national and religious backgrounds (Liiman, 2001). Also Masso and Vihalemm (2004) in their identity research have pointed out the bigger in-fluence of the family in identity-formation among Russian-speaking youngsters.

But the influence of the family cannot be taken as automatic and enforced obedience by the children, but rather as valued and internalised belief. In their answers students from School B showed personal attachment to religion, while talking about their experiences of religion.

From the answers to the current study religion appears to have a minor role in the view of Estonian-speaking students – they seldom regard themselves as belonging to any religious tradition, they have few experiences of religion, they almost never speak about religion with their peers. Even religious students who do speak about religion are more likely to speak about religion amongst like-minded people. This gives to religious education a great importance in creating a safe environment and teaching skills of intelligible dialogue about and among representatives of different religious and secular worldviews.

The religion, which students know more about, is Christianity, as it is intro-duced in school lessons or in the homes of the few religiously affiliated families. It is difficult for them to make choices based on such a small amount of knowledge about religion as they have. Also other surveys conducted about religiousness in Estonia report the low importance of religion to Estonian respondents. The proportion of people who cannot define their religious affiliation or worldview is very high (65–75%) according to different surveys made in Estonia (Statistical Office of Estonia, 2002; Liiman, 2001; Halman et al., 2005 etc). As presented in paragraph 2.1.1 the low importance of religion includes in addition to (not) belonging, also beliefs and values (European Commission, 2005; Rüütel&Tiit, 2005).

The reasons are manifold – they go back to atheistic propaganda conducted in Estonia, as well as to the fact that children usually have neither a religious upbringing at home nor religious education at school. Kilemit and Nõmmik conducted a research study (2002) regarding the understanding of the word

‘religion’ by Estonian adults and found it to be very confusing issue among respondents; it seemed to be too abstract and impersonal. Are the students inclined to untraditional, New Age movements, as could be suggested by the

results of Euro barometer survey, when 54% of Estonians believed in ‘some sort of spirit or life force’ (European Commission, 2005)? Nothing in the answers of students for this study alluded to their interest or acquaintance with it. The oral interviews gave an impression that the students lack knowledge about religions and that makes them difficult to specify their religious or unreligious affiliation, for example a girl without any religious affiliation told in her interview about her own relation to religion.

“In that sense that… I mean certainly there is somebody somewhere. I don’t deny that it is so. And I respect people who believe, it is their personal choice or so.

But in such a way that I myself, I don’t go to church. But I would like to be per-mitted to be baptised and be confirmed. I would like that. Why? Actually because I have an idée fixe that I want to get married at a church in a white dress and so on. And maybe I am not a confirmed atheist; I do believe in God and this. Maybe I don’t believe in that Christ’s crucifixion, in such a strict way, but in God generally I believe. Somebody helps indeed.” (Oral interview 2, female, no affi-liation)

Lea Altnurme has pointed out that although people in Estonia may have religious experiences, they are often unable to express them (2006, 306).

Kaisa-Kattri Niit in her research (2002) about social axioms held by university students in Estonia found that even if students scored very low in religiousness they demonstrated openness towards difference. This was probably true for the students of universities but it could not be said of the 14–

16 year old students surveyed at the time. Even if students held very optimistic positions regarding the possibility of different religions living peacefully together, it did not show their positive attitudes towards religion. Mostly religion was seen as neither a factor of conflict nor an area for dialogue. It was not believed that it could be taken seriously enough to inspire conflicts in society. More often religion was seen as something annoying and boring, rather than as a focus of discord.

3.3.2. Potentials of school

It is difficult to speak about any religious denomination in Estonia as a majority group (look at 2.1.1). Not only single denomination or religion, but the whole

‘religious community’ constitutes only a minority in Estonia. Even more – Kilemit and Nõmmik (2002) found that the word ‘believer’ has strong negative connotation for Estonians. It sheds some light on one of the reasons students do not like to speak about their religious convictions. And that could also explain the hesitation of female respondents to attach themselves to some religion. The religious person can end up as an outcast, as demonstrated in an oral interview:

“For example at school … there was a boy, I don’t even remember from what religion he was, I don’t know it even. He was kept at a distance – he had his own

friends who believed the same way. Because we didn’t believe we didn’t commu-nicate with him. Maybe we thought that we don’t have anything to talk with him or so.” (Oral interview 2, female, no affiliation)

In the situation, where families do not support the religious literacy of students, the school has a crucial role in supporting children’s ability to make informed choices on matters of religion, giving information about different religions and enhancing readiness for mutual understanding and respect. There is a strong need for a balanced approach to religion, showing the positive effects not just the dangers already known from other school subjects and the media.

The sociologist Aune Valk in her introduction to an anthology about diffe-rences of Estonians in comparison to other nations says:

“In the multicultural world it is possible to value differences and not to be afraid of them for a person who knows who he is and who are the others. Uncertainty and ignorance about oneself and fear in front of otherness go often hand in hand and is one of the main reasons in incipient ethnical conflicts.” (Valk, 2002a, 11–12) Most likely it is equally true for religious differences and clashes; fear in front of the ‘other’ could be lessened by increasing familiarity with different reli-gions. This can shed light on reasons why the students with no religious expe-rience scored least of all in believing in the peaceful co-existence of different worldviews, even less than those students who could only mention negative experiences of religion.

The introduction of religious education has a strong opposition in the media and in the educational circles of Estonia (see section 2.2.1). Mostly the people who are against it have no personal experience with religious education. In the survey, the way of looking at the place religion could have at school depends on the experiences students have. Students, who have not had religious education, are afraid of brainwashing and quarrels activated by religious education. Some of the students, even if they appreciate religious education, hesitate to choose the subject. In an oral interview a boy gave reasons why students do not choose an optional religious education:

“No, I do not know, some students are embarrassed certainly if religious edu-cation is a voluntary subject. I do not know how it could be solved in Estonia so that there isn’t be any mocking or so on. Certainly it is problematic in former classes. That the children [who choose the subject] would be blackguarded as believers or so on. They want … they do not want to be different from others and are afraid of being out of the circle of friends, of company. They are afraid of being different.” (Oral interview 4, male, protestant)

A similar bias and suspicious attitude to religious people can be traced in the view that the teacher’s secular non-religious worldview is seen as normative and neutral, while Christian or theistic worldview is biased and wrong.

3.3.3. Religious education changing attitudes

Does religious education have potential to change attitudes in order to increase tolerance? Beside national differences, experience with religious education seemed to be the most important factor; comparisons of the answers by classes were often most fruitful in finding differences and patterns. What are the characteristics of the students, who have had religious education compared to those who have not? First of all, they noticed or at least expressed that they had noticed the influences of religion in their surroundings and in the lives of people around them more than did students without religious education experience.

Also they demonstrated more complex ideas about religion and religious people, and were able to find examples of religion’s appearance in contempo-rary life. They found differences to be interesting and fascinating, while stu-dents without religious education showed their impatience with different ap-proaches from their own. Those, who had religious education, talked on reli-gious issues and noticed the positive influences of different religions and religious people. Religious education made them curious and also gave them the skills to talk on religious matters. Certainly, this can be only a hypotheses and without having a quantitative survey any far reaching conclusions would be inappropriate.

The complexity of thinking occurred most obviously in argumentation about the possibility for peaceful co-existence. They refused more than others to give simple answers, giving other preconditions to be fulfilled besides being reli-gious. Also when asked about the religiosity of the teacher they brought other factors into consideration, before they gave the last word pro or contra.

The main distinction occurred in answers regarding religious education where my findings correspond with those made in the study by Saar Poll (Saar, 2005). Although all the sample schools of my study with religious education practised joint studies for all, the students from these schools were almost unanimously in favour of joint religious education dealing with world religions.

The need for peaceful co-existence was appreciated in many answers. Stu-dents have developed many different solutions to avoid conflicts on religious terms: some do not speak about religious topics so as not to get hurt by remarks of peers; others want religion to be studied in separate groups so disagreements would not be aired; others yearn for a chance to share their own views and opinions in a safe environment, to build up common understanding instead of segregation. Religious education does not facilitate tolerance and mutual understanding per se but it has great potential, if the fears and expectations of students are taken seriously, and the possibility is provided to share own opinions or to meet representatives from different religions and speak to them.

The main results according to the actors voiced during the fieldwork:

1. Mostly religion was seen not as a factor of conflict as it is not important, nor as a dialogue. The religion is seen more as something annoying and boring, not as an apple of discord. Nevertheless, the not believing worldview is seen as

normative and neutral, while Christian or theistic worldview is biased and wrong.

2. The primary source of information about different worldviews is school.

The role of school in giving a balanced picture about religions can’t be sporadic or underestimated. The way of looking at the place religion could have at school depends on the experiences students have. Students who have not had religious education are afraid of brainwashing and quarrels actuated by religious education. The students were more open to speak on religious issues and to see good sides in religions and religious people having had religious education.

3. The views of Russian-speaking students and Estonian-speaking students differ greatly. Where Russian-speaking students tend to have more intimate relation to religion, it constitutes greatly their identity, then Estonians are more secularised but more in favour of studies about different religions.