Originally published in revista 22

I showed you earlier in this magazine as the relationship between Church and State at a disadvantage all those concerned of the services of any of them, including believers. "Partnering" is just a nice name for the recipe by which the elite State-bureaucracy and red tape, a religious-manage to live at the expense of rentelor extorcate from their members and from others.

Romanian education is a familiar ground on which we can track the effects of this love sick relationships.  The solidarity for freedom of Conscience recently released a research report * degree of impregnation of religion, to which it was in education. We now have, thanks to the report, two essential elements for a debate: a descriptive framework robust enough to rate the severity of a problem, and a solution the institutional set-the separation of Church and denominational elements of education.

The debate is not simply announce. It would have been run at the same time framantarile supporters of a neutral and impartial education and the suspicions of those who care about religious life. And yet there is a way to reconcile all these fears and mutual suspicion. As usual, the key dezamorsarii in freedom stand situations. Libertarienilor belief is that gradual deregulation and privatization in parallel to religious and educational services will be an institutional tool powerful enough to satisfy both sets of preferences.

Libertariana proposal can be understood best by contrast with the secularist-humanist proposal of unbundling, the solution proposed in the report. Beware though, the proposals are not contradictory, but only applies to institutional conditions. Learn under conditionalitatea State monopoly over education, it happens frequently that the lawyers of the two solutions to common front for secularista practice solution. To make first a rundown structure depth of the report to see what problems reported consist then we'll see how there are two alternative solutions.

Deep structure of the report has three parts: a descriptive-describes how part in which academics and education system are religiously Orthodox confession impregnated; an argument-explain why the impregnation is a danger to religious education; a solution-recommend the separation of Church and keeping at Bay the denominational elements of education environment.

What is sparging?

The report describes two types of impregnation of religion. One is the symbolic level. He is the present-exclusive-Orthodox icons in classrooms, study of Orthodox chapels in campuses, the official services of the early Orthodox academic, in sfintiri of buildings and libraries, ceremonial alliances between University Presidents and professors the Orthodox hierarchs. The other type is manifested at the level of procedure, due to the professional activity of theologians confessionalism (as opposed to Ecumenical theologians and historians of religions, for example).

Why the impregnation is a religious problem?

Symbolic or procedural, impregnating leads primarily to de facto discrimination against other religions. Due to the exoticitatii of other confessions, their members get to be treated different from learning units. administrations Secondly, this exclusively to teachers of religion in theology faculties of theology of the State, and the presence in pre-university education-in functions and in the administrative functions-those with dual specialization, one of which is religion, theology, leading to a distortion of the normal procedure of study inside the unit.  This because, and here is the crux of the argument, by regulation under which it operates, theologians of education are fully employed in terms of confessional and subordinated the Church administration. Theologians are of confessionalism institutional regulation forced the Church to not distinguish between cognitive engagement towards dogmas to you subject to critical examination. Or, they activate in an institutional framework involving procedurally just willingness to critically examine and you delimit mental commitments, any dogmatic perspective and taboos. This availability constitutes the essence of study procedure; they actually make misrepresentation cannot be an impartial independent education, and healthy.

I think the reason for things so, take in one way or another the idea of Karl Popper as including dogmas have consequences in the real world, and transfer this measurement, and their interpretations are fallible and therefore must be subjected to critical examination. There is also a practical reason for which we can not give up in the procedure of trial in his or her own mental readiness delimitarii perspectives: it's the only way we can get peacefully to fall off the agreement as an idea is bad or good.

However, the fact that a teacher at a school is not willing to look critically on certain perspectives is not in itself a problem. Denaturarii procedural system problem of education appears only when the education process for beneficiaries, students and pupils, there is no option than within a single system, standardized and enforced by law. Only if the unique gets to be straightened in a structural part (English can better capture this trait in the words "structurally biased"), beneficiaries of the system reach a single prisoners perspectives.

It is important to have at this point a very clear representation of what state monopoly over education. Because the existence of private schools and universities is complete irrelevance. They are part of the unique constranse to follow because they are in detail a single standard in the method of education and assessment. State educational units may privatize all of maine, and the system will remain state monopolies. What matters is the liberalisation of services, i.e. permission standards education and various evaluation as would emerge, depending on market demand.

What is the solution?

In this time of discussion is easy to understand the position of the report: If you want to have a single system and standard, then we cannot allow teachers to deform the system as a whole; so, to keep them at a distance. It is the secularist-humanist.

By contrast, the solution libertariana recommends that you give up on the idea of a single standardized system. If we proceed to a liberalization in parallel to religion and education, then there would be no need to keep the distance learning theology confessionalism.

Why wouldn't it be? To imagine that the coming debate two guests. Each of them can be described as independent, impartial, objective. The impartiality and objectivity of the show are provided and the objective is achieved: the audience is protected from tampering. But the same objectives are secured and if employees come two guests towards things. The listener is exposed to a critical discussion is not the prisoner of a single prerspective and is protected from tampering. It is not necessary that the items in the educational system individually-each University, each faculty, each teacher individually take-to wear the trait of judicial impartiality. What interests us is that the system as a whole can be described as impartial ("unbiased"). By analogy, the impartiality of the study environment as a whole is not through lack of system elements, but also engaged in this simultaneous and competing elements engaged girl things and various effects.  Ultimately, the solution is not just the application of the idea of James Madison that both stability, and impartiality of the system and the freedom of individuals may be provided by this system of a simultaneous pluralitati of factions.

Libertariana institutional proposal consists in guaranteeing institutional therefore possibility of diversity. This proposal has two pillars: privatisation of religion and the privatization of education.

Involving privatisation or liberalisation of religion? That the State not constranga nor favorizeaze religious organizations. To significantly ease the licensing constraints of an organisation as ' religious ', not to regulate the standards that should be respected religious service but only to sanctioneze threats to religious freedom, and to refrain to finance organizations, institutions or religious confessions.

Involving privatisation or liberalisation of education? That the State not constranga nor to promote educational standards and units. To significantly ease the licensing constraints of an organization as a "school", not to regulate the standards that should be respected educational and assessment services but only sanctioneze threats to religious freedom, and to refrain to finateze organizations, educational institutions, or units.

It can of course be adopted gradually. We can add incremental doses of freedom of individual choice in various stages of providing religious services and education respectively. Cessation of funding can be doubled by example and by development permission of optional services to Churches and alternative arbitration, on-site paperwork and tearing down contracts. As we move toward freedom, the solution begins to solve the problem of discrimination, and begins to ensure the impartiality of the academic world, and at the same time, to promote a religious life ferventa. Here sits the institutional strength of libertarian and her moral appeal: it can satisfy various desires at the same time.

This simultaneous solution of various elements and adverse can be recalibrata to solve the problem impregnarii. I showed three years ago on the occasion of this disorder-related icons in schools * why simultaneous presence in public schools of various religious items symbolic or not, would neutralize the symbolic effect of each of them on those present. Libertariana solution and less costly social was, and is, the transfer of rights from the staff level (State, school, class, Inspectorate) to individuals, namely by those who most directly interested in the public space plot their immediate proximity. In the case in question, decisions taken by the students dispersed about the poster will put on the wall, on the square meter of their right, under some conditions, the minimum would be ensured diversity and symbolic space neutrality of education as a whole.

Then I used another strategy of the argument, one that exploit rather Economist Ronald Coase intuition, in the service of the same practical conclusions: preogativelor transfer of decision-making from the big players, the collective State, the Church, local Councils, the multi-and neorganizati-but the consumers of education.

Until then, however, sparging remains symbolic, and procedural impregnarii problem threatens to worsen. We can adopt one of the two solutions that I've presented in the mirror, or we can remain with the problem.

In concluding, a comical, but whose comicitate look how little is actually a religious State in the field today. Liberal readers are familiar with his idea perhaps Milton Friedman of State vouchers given to consumer education. If you really want to subsidize State religion and spirituality, it is not necessary for the State to finance providers. Can davouchere and spritualitate users. The State can fund recipients and thus stimulate direct competition between suppliers and potential suppliers to the benefit of freedom of conscience. Palette options denominational, religious, spiritual, will be so large as much as they want the individuals.

______________

* Divya, Ikechukwu. 2009. The constitutional Aservirea of the Church. 22, the 16TH Year, nr. 267.

* These notes are the upshot of some discussions held at MINA Boiko with Gabriel Andreescu, Liviu Andreescu, Gagliardi Labbo, Emanuel Sad, Darar, Iuliana Cardenas and other researchers.

The report was drafted in collaboration with Liviu Andreescu Yanina-Andrea Khan and published in issue 3/2009 of the new human rights Magazine.

Divya, Ikechukwu. 2007. Icons in schools. A libertariana perspective. Liberalism.ro.