Гуманитарные Ведомости. Выпуск 4(8).2013

Гуманитарные ведомости ТГПУ им . Л . Н . Толстого № 4 (8), декабрь 2013 г . 112 of religion. In this perspective a non-denominational teaching about religions and non-religious conceptions of life and world would become mandatory and would be organized and delivered according to the standards of other school teachings (that is without any control of religious authorities on teachers, programs, books and so on), although some kind of cooperation and consultation with the different stakeholders (families, religious communities, associations of teachers, etc.) would be advisable. What is more important deal of this topic: the child’s interests are not realized by the child himself or herself (which is understandable from the point of view of age and social maturity), but by other people, his parents or guardians, the state, school directors, and religious organizations. As a result, often each of the people and the organizations mentioned above consider themselves to be the most important, and sometimes the child is forgotten in the process. There is the good example in German experience. Children have their own right of self-determination regarding religion. If a married parent decides to take a child which has completed its tenth year of life out of Religious Education, the child must obey. At the age of 13 a child can no longer be forced by its parents and against its will to adopt another faith. At the age of 14 a child is considered religiously independent or rather has “religiously come of age.” By the end of their 14 th year, children have the right to decide their religious faith autonomously. In this context one of the most important Question in the religious education in general, and on treatment of religious minorities in Religious Education, WHO is the teacher? This Question is of very respect in Germany chapter. As Udo Schmelzle in his Gerrnany chapter points out, the schools had the task of developing conflict models in situations where the values and standards of parents and those in authority in schools cannot be reconciled. The historically growing distance between familial and school education increasingly leads to conflicts. This also applies to questions of sexual education, choice of school, determining secondary education of pupils, and last but not least Religious Education. The fact that schools are moving away from solely educational goals and relinquish the up-bringing of children is the pragmatic result. The scholars of Enlightenment, which stressed moral and patriotic education as being the duty of the state, justified the separation of home and school with the class identity bias of parents. Children should be shielded from their parents. Schools should treat all children equally and thereby contribute to overcoming the class-based society. This touches the roots of anti-familial models in pedagogical field, which in the assessment of parental education did not follow J.J. Rousseau, who in the first book of “Emil” develops a positive picture of “the father as an educator”: “As the mother is the true wet nurse, the father is the true teacher… The child is passed from the hands of one into the hands of the other. It is better to be educated by a decent, even if uneducated father, than by the best teacher in the world: since it is easier to replace talent with diligence, than diligence with