Berlin court bans Islamic prayer in schools
Justus Leicht | 06.06.2010 20:47 | Anti-racism | Education | World
Students in Berlin are not to be allowed to perform Islamic prayers on school grounds. While the Christian religion is routinely taught at public schools and—according to a 1979 Constitutional Court ruling—Christian school prayers can even be spoken during normal lessons, Islamic students are not allowed to perform their ritual prayers, even if they do this outside of lessons and only once a day.
This decision of the Berlin city government (Senate) was endorsed last week by the Superior Administrative Court in Berlin, overturning a ruling of the lower Administrative Court. The Social Democratic Party (SPD), which controls the Berlin Senate together with the Left Party and is responsible for school administration, welcomed the ruling, as did the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) and the Greens. The ruling may be contested by the plaintiffs.
What has happened? According to the Administrative Court, on November 1, 2007, at a secondary school in Berlin-Wedding, the plaintiff M. Yunus and other students had knelt on their jackets during a break in lessons and had prayed for about 10 minutes. This happened in a remote hallway of the school building that was not readily visible. They were observed by other students and a teacher, who informed the head teacher. The following day, the head teacher told the students concerned that it was not permitted to pray on school grounds and, according to the plaintiff, threatened them with expulsion from school.
The following day, the head teacher wrote a letter to the parents of M. Yunus warning, “Religious expressions—including prayers—belong in the private sphere or in places of worship. We have held an initial conversation with your son in which we explained to him the rules of conduct that apply at Berlin schools. I ask you, as parents, to support the school in its efforts”.
This rule of conduct, however, was created by the head teacher. A legal basis for it does not exist; and the student went to court.
In an interim decision, the Administrative Court said the school was obliged to allow students to carry out prayers outside of lessons. The school then provided an empty classroom that could be used during the break between the sixth and seventh lessons.
The court later found in favour of the plaintiffs on the substantive issue, ruling that a student is entitled to perform Islamic prayers once a day during school hours outside of lessons. The school administration had not demonstrated this would cause any specific problems for the school that could militate against it, the court said.
This ruling was met with harsh criticism in political circles. Kurt Wansner, responsible for the CDU’s integration policies, said the decision would damage integration, outweighing anything that would be gained by it. Özcan Mutlu, educational spokesperson for the Greens, described the ruling as sending the “wrong signal on integration policy”. And the Neukölln district mayor, Heinz Buschkowsky (SPD), warned: “This is a further step in the consolidation of a parallel society and toward social division”. The school administration appealed.
In the press, the verdict was mainly presented as if the Administrative Court had granted the students an entitlement to a prayer room. However, this was explicitly not the case, and this facility was never actually called for; the plaintiff had merely sought to oppose the ban on praying outside of lessons.
Nevertheless, the school had kept precise records about the use of the room, which M. Yunus had always needed to have unlocked by a teacher. During the appeal hearing it was then hotly debated as to how often he had used the prayer room—supposedly only 14 times. “I can’t unlock the room now”, was often the reply of the teacher, according to the student. For this reason he had conducted his noon prayers in another classroom or in the gym locker room. Later, he had waited until after school.
In its appeal against the verdict, the reasons cited by the SPD-led Berlin Senate committee responsible for schools in the first instance are extraordinary. The Superior Administrative Court has apparently essentially supported them, although its written judgment has not yet been published.
The misleading argument that “anybody could come and claim the need for a prayer room” was the most absurd, since not even the plaintiff had claimed entitlement to such a space, not to speak of classmates of other faiths. The case had begun not with a claim of entitlement, but with a ban by the school administration. In other schools in Berlin, such conflicts have been resolved by allowing students to use unoccupied or unused rooms.
The Senate representatives raised much more serious accusations. They linked the performing of Islamic prayers outside of religious education to all kinds of possible conflicts at school that might have a religious context: the mutual abuse of pupils of different religious communities, the mutual control of whether Ramadan is observed, insults against girls who do not wear headscarves, the justification of honour killings and expressions of anti-Semitic attitudes. It should be noted, however, that the Senate representatives did not even allege that the now 16-year-old plaintiff had been involved in any such incidents, nor did they seek to justify why permitting prayers would cause or intensify such conflicts.
The Superior Administrative Court not only accepted this defamation, it upheld the ban with an argument of perfidious subtlety that is probably only possible from the German judiciary.
First, the court found it plausible that the school might want to shield students engaged in prayer from those of other faiths and had therefore assigned a separate room for them. Second, the court said he was not entitled to such a room on the grounds of religious freedom, because it did not confer a right on believers to have their faith promoted. It was merely a defensive right against the state.
In other words, first the state is awarded the power to shield from others the Muslim who performs his religion visibly, i.e., to isolate him. In the second step it is stated that this isolation requires an organizational effort, to which the Muslim is not entitled. Derived from this is not the abandonment of the isolation, but a ban to practice one’s religion!
The Senate justified its support for a ban on praying with the argument that the state must be neutral on religious matters. But the student had asked for nothing more. He did not claim that the state must identify itself with his religion, as might be the case if a crucifix were hung in a classroom. He merely opposed the state ban on him practising his religion outside of lessons.
In the first instance, the Administrative Court had referred to a much more comprehensive ruling of the Constitutional Court in 1979. The Constitutional Court had declared admissible that Christian school prayers could be spoken at the suggestion of a teacher during normal lessons. Students of other religion or no religion had the opportunity to sit quietly or to leave the room.
This decision blatantly violated state neutrality in religious matters, but it concerned Christian prayers. Religious tolerance is traditionally seen by German jurists and politicians as imposing an obligation of non-Christians to accept the privileged position of Christianity, which is closely linked with the German state.
When it comes to Islamic prayers, the Senate lawyers judged them completely differently in the oral hearing. They claimed that they were demonstrative and missionary: to exercise a “collective rite of a political nature meant to influence others”. In a press release that welcomed the ruling of the Superior Administrative Court, the Senate claimed that other students were “put under pressure” by the Islamic prayers.
Ritual prayer, just as the confession of the faith, belongs to the five basic requirements or “pillars” of Islam. Its renaissance has undoubted political and social reasons, including discrimination, exclusion, war in the Middle East, and class divisions in society into rich and poor. Because these developments are supported and promoted by organizations such as the SPD, the Left Party and the unions, the opposition to them, in part, does not take on a left-wing, progressive form, but the form of an increase of religious tendencies. The SPD responds, as so often in its history, with oppression.
The Left Party has partially welcomed the ban on Islamic prayer by the Superior Administrative Court. While the Left Party’s education spokesperson in Berlin had supported the ruling of the lower court, and expressed “surprise” at the decision of the appellate court, the unofficial house organ of the Left Party, Neues Deutschland, quoted the Senate’s attorney with virtually undisguised approval. “The controversy over prayers has polarized students. Girls are being bullied because they were not wearing the headscarf correctly; there were disputes as to who was the better Muslim or which religion was of higher value.... Insistently, school administrators and teachers have warned of a slippery slope, should the judges confirm the lower court’s verdict. Senate representatives appeared much relieved after the decision”.
If the sentence stands, this indeed would be a slippery slope. So far in the debate about Islam in relation to schools it has mostly concerned female teachers wearing the headscarf; now it directly concerns the democratic rights of students. And if Islamic prayer is seen as a political demonstration of a coercive character, against the pressure of which the state must protect others through prohibitions, this argument can be easily transferred to schoolgirls wearing headscarves.
What has happened? According to the Administrative Court, on November 1, 2007, at a secondary school in Berlin-Wedding, the plaintiff M. Yunus and other students had knelt on their jackets during a break in lessons and had prayed for about 10 minutes. This happened in a remote hallway of the school building that was not readily visible. They were observed by other students and a teacher, who informed the head teacher. The following day, the head teacher told the students concerned that it was not permitted to pray on school grounds and, according to the plaintiff, threatened them with expulsion from school.
The following day, the head teacher wrote a letter to the parents of M. Yunus warning, “Religious expressions—including prayers—belong in the private sphere or in places of worship. We have held an initial conversation with your son in which we explained to him the rules of conduct that apply at Berlin schools. I ask you, as parents, to support the school in its efforts”.
This rule of conduct, however, was created by the head teacher. A legal basis for it does not exist; and the student went to court.
In an interim decision, the Administrative Court said the school was obliged to allow students to carry out prayers outside of lessons. The school then provided an empty classroom that could be used during the break between the sixth and seventh lessons.
The court later found in favour of the plaintiffs on the substantive issue, ruling that a student is entitled to perform Islamic prayers once a day during school hours outside of lessons. The school administration had not demonstrated this would cause any specific problems for the school that could militate against it, the court said.
This ruling was met with harsh criticism in political circles. Kurt Wansner, responsible for the CDU’s integration policies, said the decision would damage integration, outweighing anything that would be gained by it. Özcan Mutlu, educational spokesperson for the Greens, described the ruling as sending the “wrong signal on integration policy”. And the Neukölln district mayor, Heinz Buschkowsky (SPD), warned: “This is a further step in the consolidation of a parallel society and toward social division”. The school administration appealed.
In the press, the verdict was mainly presented as if the Administrative Court had granted the students an entitlement to a prayer room. However, this was explicitly not the case, and this facility was never actually called for; the plaintiff had merely sought to oppose the ban on praying outside of lessons.
Nevertheless, the school had kept precise records about the use of the room, which M. Yunus had always needed to have unlocked by a teacher. During the appeal hearing it was then hotly debated as to how often he had used the prayer room—supposedly only 14 times. “I can’t unlock the room now”, was often the reply of the teacher, according to the student. For this reason he had conducted his noon prayers in another classroom or in the gym locker room. Later, he had waited until after school.
In its appeal against the verdict, the reasons cited by the SPD-led Berlin Senate committee responsible for schools in the first instance are extraordinary. The Superior Administrative Court has apparently essentially supported them, although its written judgment has not yet been published.
The misleading argument that “anybody could come and claim the need for a prayer room” was the most absurd, since not even the plaintiff had claimed entitlement to such a space, not to speak of classmates of other faiths. The case had begun not with a claim of entitlement, but with a ban by the school administration. In other schools in Berlin, such conflicts have been resolved by allowing students to use unoccupied or unused rooms.
The Senate representatives raised much more serious accusations. They linked the performing of Islamic prayers outside of religious education to all kinds of possible conflicts at school that might have a religious context: the mutual abuse of pupils of different religious communities, the mutual control of whether Ramadan is observed, insults against girls who do not wear headscarves, the justification of honour killings and expressions of anti-Semitic attitudes. It should be noted, however, that the Senate representatives did not even allege that the now 16-year-old plaintiff had been involved in any such incidents, nor did they seek to justify why permitting prayers would cause or intensify such conflicts.
The Superior Administrative Court not only accepted this defamation, it upheld the ban with an argument of perfidious subtlety that is probably only possible from the German judiciary.
First, the court found it plausible that the school might want to shield students engaged in prayer from those of other faiths and had therefore assigned a separate room for them. Second, the court said he was not entitled to such a room on the grounds of religious freedom, because it did not confer a right on believers to have their faith promoted. It was merely a defensive right against the state.
In other words, first the state is awarded the power to shield from others the Muslim who performs his religion visibly, i.e., to isolate him. In the second step it is stated that this isolation requires an organizational effort, to which the Muslim is not entitled. Derived from this is not the abandonment of the isolation, but a ban to practice one’s religion!
The Senate justified its support for a ban on praying with the argument that the state must be neutral on religious matters. But the student had asked for nothing more. He did not claim that the state must identify itself with his religion, as might be the case if a crucifix were hung in a classroom. He merely opposed the state ban on him practising his religion outside of lessons.
In the first instance, the Administrative Court had referred to a much more comprehensive ruling of the Constitutional Court in 1979. The Constitutional Court had declared admissible that Christian school prayers could be spoken at the suggestion of a teacher during normal lessons. Students of other religion or no religion had the opportunity to sit quietly or to leave the room.
This decision blatantly violated state neutrality in religious matters, but it concerned Christian prayers. Religious tolerance is traditionally seen by German jurists and politicians as imposing an obligation of non-Christians to accept the privileged position of Christianity, which is closely linked with the German state.
When it comes to Islamic prayers, the Senate lawyers judged them completely differently in the oral hearing. They claimed that they were demonstrative and missionary: to exercise a “collective rite of a political nature meant to influence others”. In a press release that welcomed the ruling of the Superior Administrative Court, the Senate claimed that other students were “put under pressure” by the Islamic prayers.
Ritual prayer, just as the confession of the faith, belongs to the five basic requirements or “pillars” of Islam. Its renaissance has undoubted political and social reasons, including discrimination, exclusion, war in the Middle East, and class divisions in society into rich and poor. Because these developments are supported and promoted by organizations such as the SPD, the Left Party and the unions, the opposition to them, in part, does not take on a left-wing, progressive form, but the form of an increase of religious tendencies. The SPD responds, as so often in its history, with oppression.
The Left Party has partially welcomed the ban on Islamic prayer by the Superior Administrative Court. While the Left Party’s education spokesperson in Berlin had supported the ruling of the lower court, and expressed “surprise” at the decision of the appellate court, the unofficial house organ of the Left Party, Neues Deutschland, quoted the Senate’s attorney with virtually undisguised approval. “The controversy over prayers has polarized students. Girls are being bullied because they were not wearing the headscarf correctly; there were disputes as to who was the better Muslim or which religion was of higher value.... Insistently, school administrators and teachers have warned of a slippery slope, should the judges confirm the lower court’s verdict. Senate representatives appeared much relieved after the decision”.
If the sentence stands, this indeed would be a slippery slope. So far in the debate about Islam in relation to schools it has mostly concerned female teachers wearing the headscarf; now it directly concerns the democratic rights of students. And if Islamic prayer is seen as a political demonstration of a coercive character, against the pressure of which the state must protect others through prohibitions, this argument can be easily transferred to schoolgirls wearing headscarves.
Justus Leicht
Homepage:
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/berl-j05.shtml
Comments
Hide the following 16 comments
Good, just ban Christian prayer as well
07.06.2010 08:23
@theist
Ban's enforced by who?
07.06.2010 10:58
If that's your idea of atheism...
No Gods, No Masters
School bullies...
07.06.2010 11:49
What do I know?
re: "@theist" supports the state banning religion ...
07.06.2010 15:40
As you might have guessed from the "@", I don't support the state doing anything. It's up to all of us as individuals not to promote oppressive, brainwashing things like religion. The article explicitly says that German schools actively teach Christianity and prayers during lessons. I say schools shouldn't do this. If individuals want to pray themselves then it's not the school that should stop them doing it, but their own intelligence. Or more to the point, they shouldn't have been brainwashed into religion by their parents in the first place.
@theist
Sheer bloody arrogance
08.06.2010 08:32
I agree wholeheartedly that religion has been used to oppress, torture and kill but then so has the cause of atheism in Russia and China.I fail to see how someone going to church or casting spells in their front room is anyone elses business. If religion starts to get oppressive such as burning "witches" or stoning "adulterers" then yes the practitioners of atrocities become a target. Simple worship and good deeds such as the Hare Krishnars giving out food to the homeless are positive things. The Pope pontificating that condoms should not be used, thus condemning millions to death through HIV transmission is an appalling abuse of power which should be the subject of your annoyance and wrath.
Freedom to all to believe or to be cynical but never to oppress someone on the grounds of faith or lack of it.
@ Athiest
re: Sheer bloody arrogance
08.06.2010 11:13
NP
Are you suggesting that....
08.06.2010 13:37
I think that we have to ask ourselves what being "mentally ill" is and of course many people with mental illness are perfectly funtional, intelligent and capable, Winston Churchill was famously depressed as was Florence Nightingale.
Someone who is delusional and hallucinating is a different being altogether and it would probably take more than not agreeing with them to help them.
To be perfectly honest I am big enough to make my own mind up about whether or not I want to light a candle for the dead, attend a non secular funeral to show my respects, enjoy Christmas, or celebrate Samhain. I am sure that millions are also capable of making their choices too and finding peace however they can.
It is patronising when some Christians tell atheists that they will pray for their sins etc etc. It is just as patronising when some atheists try and apply their blanket views for everyone else. Humanity is diverse, unless someone is abusing another we simply must agree to differ.
Lynn Sawyer
Christians disbelieve in most gods too
09.06.2010 10:14
There's no rational reason why people follow a particular religion - it's usually just what they have been brought up with.
I'm sure some people find religion helpful to them - it was called the opium of the masses, after all - but at the end of the day it's still a falsehood. Anything that encourages dogma and represses critical thinking can't be good, even if you ignore all the sexism, homophobia, bigotry and hatred that goes along with religion.
When I said "Good" it was really just a knee-jerk reaction and the main point was that Christianity should be treated in the same way as Islam. Maybe the teacher involved was a racist idiot or a rampant Bible-basher, I don't know. Religion should be taught in schools as cultural myths. It's wrong to imply to children that things are true when they aren't.
@theist
Good-ish!
09.06.2010 13:00
Lynn, I am suggesting that most people who believev in God may not be mentally ill or stupid (but it sure helps!) but were rather indoctrinated into a dogmatic mindset as children. It'd be doubtful that any organised religous structure would prevail without adults brainwashing infants.
Converting kids should be seen as a breach of the human right of an individual being able to express themselves and determine their own philosophy an abused. Making kids pray, read scripture and sing holy verse is stripping kids of that right, and letting adults enforce THEIR views on others.
Cut it whatever way you like, it's not fair to say kids are consenting believers whilst saying they are incapable of consenting to most other things. Or are you suggesting human rights are only for adults???
@nother Atheist
People can make their own choices.
10.06.2010 10:56
As for children, well no parent is going to bring up a child in perfect isolation of their own central beliefs and morals. It is like saying that an anarchist parent should not share their views with their child until they are 16 so that their child is not brainwashed. As a vegan if I had a child that child would be given a vegan diet. Unless we want to live in a world of state control people have to make decisions on behalf of their children until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Of course if you as atheists do have children you might mention your views and quite rightly as is your perogative as faith will come up sooner or later e.g what is the nativity play about? why is that lady's face covered? why do people go to church? You would have to come up with answers and explain the world as you see it not launch into some cold generic crap which takes into account everybody elses view and hopefully not launch into some tirade about how how those people are a bunch of mad dingbats and how only atheists have any sense. Of course forcing a child into mad religious practices and terrifying them with hellfire is bordering on child abuse
I think in the case of this school Muslims should be able to pray, so should Christians in private during breaks if they so wish, atheists should also be able to meet up and discuss other things. I fail to see how each person doing their own thing impacts on anyone else. Of course there should be major ructions if Muslims insist on all women being covered, or the Christians start building pyres on which to burn witches.
I find it very patronising that you seem to think that the only way someone could not be an atheist is because they were utterly brainwashed by parents.
Lynn Sawyer
@ Lynn Sawyer
10.06.2010 20:58
NP
"Spare the rod, spoil the child."
12.06.2010 15:30
I know plenty of parents who don't consciously try to force their kids into a mindset. I even know an atheist mum with a Christian son... So, don't go projecting your own excuses onto teh rest of the world. Just because something is common doesn't make it right.
Terrorising children is NOT borderline abuse, it is factual abuse! And filling their heads up full of crap about invisible men that hate gays, or shaving, or state that women are just possessions like cattle is totally fucked up, and if you ever bother to pick up most religious books, they are filed with clear bigotted, hateful, violenent propaganda.
You want to defend educating kids from a book that calls for poofs to be stoned to death, or for girls to have theor clits cut out... on you go, but don't expect to loook credible.
@another atheist
WTF!!!
13.06.2010 10:58
As for children every single parent enforces a certain diet on their children as well as a lifestyle. Children make their own choices as soon as they are able. Are you seriously suggesting that a 3 year old who wants to eat chocolate all day should have their wishes indulged? Or if a child wants to eat Foie Gras the parent should immediately oblige? What if a 5 year old wants to attend a BNP rally, or kick to death the child next door, or take heroin their choice eh? I would not feed a child meat or dairy because I think that that is unethical and unhealthy just as presumably you would not take a child to church. In fact what if you have a child who at the age of 10 wants to become a christain, is that not their choice? Should you not take your child to church so they have the option of being christian following you own warped logic? Afterall parents feed their children meat but what if the child wants to be vegetarian, what about all the mechanically removed crap which is made into animal shapes to trick children into eating something rather bad for them, is that OK? I do think that children should decide things for themselves, I would not care what my child became , muslim, christian, atheist, agnostic as long as they did not become an ignorant, umimaginative, stupid, dictatorial bigot.
Lynn Sawyer
@ Ms. Hedgewitch
14.06.2010 15:01
NP
@NP
15.06.2010 09:07
Lynn Sawyer
Reality check.
15.06.2010 15:15
NP