Instead of an introduction: Church and state

Religious life takes place in pastoral communities in the same way that political life takes place in states. In the oldest kinship communities, the difference between religion and politics cannot be clearly underlined because there is no difference between religious and political functions. Community and activities are sacred, while the leader is the high priest. Very often, Čupić notes, the religious community and the state were formed simultaneously, or the religious community was the founder of the state. With the emergence of states, new communities are constituted. They are based on shared space, language, as well as on interests and needs. Spiritual connection and common values are gaining in importance with the advent of the church. The relationship between the church and politics is complicated. Thus, it happens that the church, as a religious organization, is not immune to the influence of politics, just as politics, as a practical activity, is not resistant to the impact of the church. Changes in society and the state also affect changes in all their institutions and organizations and, hence, religious institutional changes. Both society and the state foster change. Processes of homogenization and integration of people in political and religious institutions are common in times of social crisis. In addition to the differences and influences between the church and the state, there are also similarities between them. Both the church and the state are institutions of society. The institutions of modern society should ensure peace, prosperity, and order: the earthly order should be in harmony with the heavenly order. Both the church and the state influence the lives of believing citizens. The church does it with knowledge, absolute and mystical power, and the state with authority. Such influence produces consequences. The consequences express the relationship between the church (religion) and the state (politics) in its fullness. As the most complex institutions and organizations, the church and the state are always present, while the believers and the citizens come and go. Both the church and the state suffer from old age diseases, but they do not perish. The church and the state regulate life through norms, and both are hierarchically organized. When it comes to norms, the church regulates life through sacred legislation, while the state uses secular laws. Both the church and the state have the means to coerce, and both intend to expand. The state does it by conquests, and the church by converting

“believers of other religions into their faith (missionary work, proselytism, etc.) … These two institutions use their symbols in a similar way: ‘mythical symbols provide mediation between different and opposite desires and needs of believers and thus protect the community from deeper divisions and upheavals, while through political symbols every citizen establishes emotional ties with the impersonal state, making it sacred (‘mother’) and acting in such a way as to overshadow the sharp difference between the secular and the sacred’ – (Šušnjić, 1998: 90) – both institutions can be and most often have been authoritarian throughout history” (Čupić, 2002, pp. 114-115).

The wise agree on one thing: the transition from the rule of arbitrariness to the rule of law and wisdom is democracy. Today, politics is almost synonymous with democracy. To talk about politics in modern society means to speak of democracy and what it implies (the rule of law, the existence of political opposition, equality of citizens before the law, human rights and freedoms, freedom of the media, the free market of ideas, education for tolerance, etc.) (Šušnjić, 1997). Mutual relations were constituted during the development of the church and the state. There are five forms of relations:

• (1) Subordination of church to state;

• (2) Subordination of state to church;

• (3) Mutual assistance;

• (4) Initiation of changes, and

• (5) Separation of the church from state or state from church (Čupić, 2002, p. 116).

Both the church and the state preserve autonomy. Loss of autonomy would mean impoverishing both institutions and causing conflicts. Cooperation between the church and the state has been more of a necessity than a free choice. Numerous occurrences appearing in the development of the church and the state and the interpretation of the relationship between them prove this argument. The harmony of the church and the state has undoubtedly had its advantages. Apart from establishing agreement on cooperation, their mutual assistance is also essential. The downfall of one institution did not mean the collapse of another. Strong collaboration between the church and the state did not mean the loss of their internal properties. Although faced with disasters, historical churches have survived, while states collapsed and emerged again. The characteristic of modern, democratic societies is the separation of the church and the state, so it is said: the church is free in a free state. This condition enables “their autonomous activities and developments, but also the development of a critical relationship with each other. A critical attitude is mutually beneficial, for both believers and citizens, the church and the state” (Čupić, 2002, pp. 117-118).

Definition of religion: A conversation with god

Both secular and spiritual creators have defined religion differently. The nature of religion, its essence, role, and even its characteristics were the subject of controversy both in the past and in our contemporary world. From the multitude of definitions of religion, those that are “structural and phenomenological” stand out (Ivković, 2003, p. 188). One of the determinants, which is structural-phenomenological, reads: “Religion is an organized set of knowledge, feelings, symbols, cultural activities, moral, and other regulations and beliefs related to the idea of a transcendental being.” In the same place, the definition of religion is descriptive. Religion is a human, cultural-historical fact, a system of ideas, beliefs and practices, a specific form of practical attitude towards the world, nature, society and man” (Đorđević, 1995, p. 30, in Ivković, 2003, p. 188). The second determinant, which is also structural-phenomenological, was offered to us by the eminent sociologist of religion Đuro Šušnjić (Šušnjić, 1998). His meticulous analysis of religion paves the way for a proper definition of religion – what it is and what it is not. Let us consider the latter.

Faith in God is the most common determinant of religion. On the other hand, some religions do not have God, i.e., religious life is possible without God. Second, religion is not a belief in the supernatural. Some religions teach that God is in nature itself. Third, religion is not a belief in the sacred. Supernatural is holy in one culture and not in another. The notion of the sacred is in itself broader than the idea of the supernatural. Fourth, religion is not a spiritual expression of feelings of dependence. Every relationship is, according to many interpretations, a relationship of dependency. Moreover, not every relationship of support is a religious relationship. The religious relationship is unique, so it is in itself abstract. Fifth, religion cannot be understood, interpreted, and explained as an attempt to build a world of order versus a world of disorder. This interpretation would mean that all human activities and all social institutions have religious significance and meaning because they create an order for us. And not only do they create order, but they also reveal it to us and bring it into everyday life. Sixth, religion in itself is not overcoming death. If we look at this from another angle, then the boundary between religion and symbols is erased. Both religion and symbols are attempts to overcome death. Seventh, religion is not, nor can it be, a belief in the supersensible and transcendent. There are phenomena that do not have a religious character. Eighth, religion cannot be interpreted as the last meaning of human life and death.

“If all those ideas, beliefs, and actions that are related to the questions about the last meaning of life and death are considered religious, then it is not clear why philosophy, which also seeks an answer to those questions, would not enter the framework of religion. The weakness of this definition of religion is that the “ultimate meaning” can be determined for one community of believers, while for another the same meaning does not necessarily apply” (Ivković, 2003, p. 190).

Ninth, religion is not a landmark in a world full of uncertainty. Tenth, religion is not defined as the intention of an individual, whether conscious or unconscious, to discover the path that leads to peace of mind through all the uncertainties in everyday life. Eleventh, religion cannot be interpreted; i.e., it is not a form of social consciousness. Religion is understood as a way of knowing the truth about the world and human being. That knowledge is not irrational. It is rational. Religion is understood

“as a way of rational cognition of the world, expressed in a system of cognitive expressions, where irrational layers of religion are neglected or silenced, and where religion is defined in value-negative terms (delusion, illusion, opium for the people). If religion is a form of alienated consciousness, then nothing positive can be said about it. The theory of alienation itself determines the limits of understanding religion” (Ivković, 2003, p. 191).

What is religion? Đuro Šušnjić (1998) offers us a definition of religion, which has transcended all descriptions and all pitfalls in the field of sociology and philosophy of religion and especially in the research field of these two disciplines. According to this author, religion is a belief in power. By this, he means mysticism, absolutism, dependence, control, and influence. Experience that is cognitive, emotional, action-oriented, and mystical emerges as relevant. In addition to power and expertise, Šušnjić cites historical forms as the third element: myth, ritual, community (by which he means an organization or institution) and personality.

“Therefore, by religion we consider any belief in the absolute and mystical power, on which a human being depends and which controls his life and death, but also the one which can influence if one behaves in certain ways. One can express their experiences with this power in a cognitive, emotional, practical, and mystical way, i.e., in the form of teachings, rituals, a community of believers or charismatic personality. Gaining and expressing experience with that power has a certain meaning for that individual. At the same time, it also has certain significance for the community because without that, this individual’s life and the life of the community would look completely different” (Šušnjić, 1998, p. 50).

A human being believes in a mystical power that is absolute; one depends on it, it sustains the individual and, in the end, this individual, as a true believer, dies with it. Without faith, a human being and social communities have no meaning. They are simply doomed to pave the way to an abyss. Religion is not only a social fact; it is also a personal fact and a personal experience with God.

The essential components of religion are ritual and organization. The first consists of actions that affect the world. The second concerns the Church. Every man needs peace and order. This requirement is accomplished by rites and customs. In this way, one can keep in mind some characteristics (good, evil, beautiful, ugly, useful, harmful, successful, unsuccessful, true, false) that are important for life. If rituals and customs are violated – for example, by disrespecting the rules that apply to them – then a different experience is gained, which is also necessary for a person’s daily functioning: spontaneity and naivety. This disharmony can be interpreted as follows: “taking drugs is understood as a search for one’s identity, inconsistency as a need for freedom, destruction of everything as a sign of a desire for a call” (Šušnjić, 1997, p. 37). In religion, implying both ritual and organization, Prayer has a central place. “God calls the man; the man responds to God – in prayer. It is the man’s answer to the challenges of the sacred secret” (Šušnjić, 1997, p. 38). One is always exhilarated by the sight of holy places and sacred secrets:

“to kneel before altars and icons of saints, and to be reminded of what is sacred in life and what is worldly. God arms with faith those who He does not want to see defeated in the struggles of life. Faith in God does not relieve suffering, but it helps to endure it with as few losses as possible” (Šušnjić, 1997, p. 38).

Religion is not only crucial for the individual and the social community; it is also essential for culture. Its role is critical to maintaining and spreading morality, love, truth and establishing good and beautiful social relationships. It connects individuals and spreads tolerance. Spirituality and morality are correlated; more precisely, they form a link between individuals. And not only among individuals but also between and within communities. Where there is no spirituality and morality, there is no community. If there is no community, there is only society, which, just like a community, has its rules of the game, goals, and interests.

Religion and politics

Religion is important for a person’s life, while politics presents a practical necessity. For religion, we say that it is the need of every individual in the social community; it is simply a spiritual need. Both politics and religion prove to be human necessities. Politics is also a practical activity, and it deals with the regulation of relations between individuals and groups. Furthermore, with the help of politics, the needs and different interests are satisfied, while, most importantly, human desires are fulfilled too. Choice plays a major role here. Both politics and religion have their autonomy and, as such, they are evolving.

“When people consistently follow their logic and place it correctly in their lives, they do not question each other. Their different places and human needs only expand and deepen both in their macro and micro infinity. What brings these two different needs into conflict is the reduction of both to their parts. Religion is reduced to its organization – the church, while politics is, for now, reduced to its most powerful organization – the state” (Čupić, 2002, p. 112).

Politics and religion should not be in conflict. If they are, it is caused by ideology. If ideologies are exclusive, then the conflict is dangerous and destruction can occur. It would be desirable for both politics and religion, which is one of the characteristics of modern democratic societies, to encourage individuals to make peace, tolerate, understand, help, and especially develop fair and pleasant social relations in the community. Both politics and religion, as anthropologists and sociologists claim, have coercive means. They have similar characteristics. A detailed interpretation of these features, which are the basis for generalization, is the subject of the anthropology of religion. Here we can cite a nice example: both traditional and modern societies “have some form of belief in absolute and mystical power, and that these beliefs are expressed through some organizational form, initially without the church and later with the church at its centre” (Čupić, 2002, p. 113).

Different religious teachings are desirable because they encourage peace and patience. On the other hand, strained relations between religion and politics should not lead to war. A notable example of conflict or, rather, bad experiences we find in the Balkans. It is an area of borders of “cultures, empires, civilizations. Borders are points of contact that can lead those who border into conflicts or fruitful permeations and refinements. Living at the borders can lead to bad experiences – which, unfortunately, there have been many in the Balkans” (Čupić, 2002, p. 119). These conflicts can produce scars that will not be transient, but permanent. From these experiences, an authoritarian political culture emerges that produces insecurity, intolerance, selfish interests, terror, critical situations, and bad feelings.

Society of differences: Democracy, upbringing, and education

Democracy, in the simplest terms, is defined as the rule of the people (Haralambos, 1989). This is, at the same time, the shortest definition of this popular socio-political term, which, as is generally known, was created by incorporating two ancient Greek terms: demos (people) and kreatin (rule) (Tadić, 1996). Democracy, therefore, implies such a political system in which the people, and not a totalitarian or authoritarian or “sultanist” leader, rule. During the complex development of society as a community of citizens, democracy changed its course, content and its meticulous values: from omnicracy (rule of simple majority) to procedural democracy (rule of differentiated procedures) (Čupić, 2002, p. 156). What are the meticulous values on which procedural democracy is based? According to Bobbio, these are: the ideal of tolerance (upbringing and education for tolerance), the pursuit of non-violence, the purpose of brotherhood, and the ideal of

“gradual renewal of society through free discussion of ideas and changes in the way of thinking and living: only democracy allows silent revolutions to spread, as in these last decades have happened with the change of relations between the sexes, which is perhaps the greatest revolution of our time” (Bobbio, 1990, pp. 37-38).

True democracy implies political pluralism but also pluralistic autonomy in all other segments of social reality: upbringing, education, economy, culture and the like (Linz, Stepan, 1998). Of essential relevance is that democracy implies a free individual, free groups, a free community of citizens. To be more specific, democracy refers to a policy that is efficient and under the absolute control of the community of citizen. It assumes responsible executive power, honesty and responsibility in various segments of political life, political participation, developed political culture, political equality, civic values, protection of rights, and the defence of shared values and interests. The essence of democracy consists of universal suffrage and free, fair, and secret elections, as well as of the government that emerged as a result of such elections (Huntington, 2004).

In modern society, where education for tolerance is at work, democratic politics is public. It implies freedom, permanent critical re-examination, group decisions, compromises in various socio-political actions – it implies publicity of diversity. Such public does not terrorize anyone, not even a minority group. Democratic politics, which is free and open, is politics of choice, no more and no less. Individuals and groups in such a democratic environment have a developed awareness of choice between different options. Democratic politics relies on rational action, and it strictly considers essential values such as (Čupić, 2001): honesty, honour, good and truth. In such politics, moral responsibility has the most important place (Čupić, 2010). An ethical individual is also a responsible individual. If there is no morality, there is no individual responsibility, and without it, there is no group responsibility. Without these two responsibilities, there is no democratic society. In such a society, the intelligent majority plays a major role. Democracy is a guarantee for all individuals in the community. This means that it implies and guarantees the existence of different ideas – a range of opinions. Democracy does not stifle them, but it is difficult to impose radical ideas in a democratic community, ideas against reality and life, without questioning and abolishing them. In terms of content, it is a pluralistic policy. Democracy allows the existence of all ideas and forms of organization, but not the dominance of any. It is dominated and governed only by the most reasonable, sober, and tolerant ideas. Morally autonomous individuals and groups dominate democratic politics. Namely, democracy implies freedom for all, freedom of choice, freedom of action, and people of free will” (Čupić, 2001, p. 53). A free, responsible, moral individual, a range of ideas, quality upbringing and education, tolerance, public diversity, and capable, smart managers are necessary and sufficient conditions for the successful functioning of an exemplary democratic society.

“Democracy is a system of values, representing a desirable form of people’s rule, as the term directly indicates. Therefore, democracy carries a charged value meaning expressed in the common-sense interpretation and understanding of this concept” (Pantić, 1999, p. 94). It can be defined as

“‘a political system that provides regular constitutional opportunities for the removal of government officials and provides a social mechanism allowing the largest possible part of the population to influence important decisions based on elections among those vying for political office’ (M. Weber). For many prominent writers, democracy is almost synonymous with freedom” (Pantić, 1999, p. 93).

At the same time, freedom, like democracy, is a value, i.e., it is an exact human value.

For the democratic system to function successfully and the educational system within it, it is necessary, above all, to satisfy, in addition to the elements that we have already considered, the following two conditions. The two most important are: a stable political structure and a developed democratic – participatory – political culture. According to Čupić (2002), if the political structure is not stable, then it is inevitable that those conditions essential for democracy will not be able to function (some of these conditions are: respect for the law, dialogue, tolerance, upbringing and education, etc.). The fact is that the functioning of these conditions is only possible in those situations when the political structure is stable. Of course, this condition is not comfortable, but we cannot talk about real democracy without it. The second condition, a developed democratic – participatory – political culture, implies development of the following elements: agreement on social, educational and political values, guaranteeing and respecting individual and collective rights and freedoms, low level of violence, democratic leaders, social homogeneity (racial, religious, etc.), creating a sense of trust between individuals and between individuals and those who govern and lead, that is, those in power, a low level of extremism, primarily political, and responsibility for every word that is spoken publicly. If these two conditions are met, it can be said that democracy will function well. The state plays an important role here, if not the most important. It should be fully activated to meet these conditions. Not only the state, but also society should be activated. “Today, society and the state, as the most powerful organization, are so connected that they cannot ‘do without each other.’ A democratic state has its functions, forms and customs. It is not only the most powerful, but also ‘the most complex organization in the social and political field’” (Pantić, 1999, p. 11).

To establish the rule of law, which is the basis of modern democratic society, it is vital to constitute those compact mechanisms that will rigidly control those in power and those around the government – individuals and institutions in society. It is necessary to make a decisive division of power in society and to guarantee every individual branch of the government – executive, legislative and judicial – unhindered action, i.e., autonomy. Professional skills should be critical factors. Local government needs to be given more importance, which will only be achieved through the decentralization process. The social community, which can be seen with the naked eye, is convincingly the best for democratic life. In such a community, everything is visible, including the educational system; it is easier to control and make and implement a variety of decisions, which support the process of democratic consolidation. In a democratic community, the best individuals stand out. They are educated, tolerant, competent, and, most importantly, prudent. Here, non-governmental organizations again have an essential function: to provide an outer envelope of complete control of the government and the executive, legislative, and judicial powers. They criticize the government and help it correct mistakes and make certain decisions easier to implement. The more NGOs, the better. It is a signal that all issues of political life are covered. Therefore, non-governmental organizations should be relied on and supported in their formation process (Čupić, 2010).

Non-governmental organizations help solve problems in society and combat unwanted phenomena, such as corruption, discrimination, endangering the environment, respect for human rights and freedoms, and the like. They enrich society and simply help in the successful functioning of the social system of differences.

Religion in the domain of upbringing and education

The relationship between religion and upbringing is necessary, and so is the relationship between religion and culture. The first relationship is very complex but also crucial for the whole social community. Knowledge plays the most important role here. It is the fundamental connection, i.e., everything derives from the knowledge about religion, so this knowledge spreads to other segments of the social community. There are two basic levels at which the relationship between religion and upbringing can be interpreted. More precisely, there are more of them, but the ones we will consider are of particular relevance. The first level is where upbringing, and even education, is realized as a complex process of acquiring knowledge about religious facts, more precisely, knowledge about religion and from religion itself. What does the latter mean? It implies an individual interpretation of religious truths, that is, an interpretation of God. Religion, which is filled with spiritual creations, is a social reality, i.e., a social fact – a fact without which an individual, social groups, and society would not be able to function. Religious facts are learned in an organized way, in church or school, and in an unorganized way – individually, in groups and through the media (radio, television, Internet, etc.). As a transmission force, education and upbringing are simply correlated with religion and personality. Without knowledge of religion, the individual would remain at the level of abstraction; more precisely his/her basic knowledge would remain at that level. The second level refers to religious instruction or education. It is a unique curriculum and is very specific in its essence. As a subject, it is realized in “lay” schools or regular schools of primary, secondary and higher education, i.e., in the educational system or, to be more specific, in a religious school. On the other hand, the church has a very important, if not the most important, role. The church is a holy temple. Here we can also mention many other connections and relations. The following stand out: (1) the relation of “religion to education” and vice versa (2) the relation of “education to religion” (Ivković, 2003, p. 193).

Let us consider the above-mentioned relations. The first one is dealt with in detail by sociological and pedagogical sciences. Religion has specific individual strongholds, and they are the ones that articulate upbringing and education, no less and no more. The incorporation of religious norms, dogmas, various activities, behaviours, and the like is necessary for the construction of the personality system and, thus, for the educational system’s development. It is not important only for the two mentioned systems but also for the broader social structure. In the upbringing and education process and while learning about politics or, to be more precise, about democracy, pluralism of influences prevails, both external and internal. These influences change the view of individuals and groups on everyday life in the social community. This view should not be enforced, and if it is, it is only achievable in those societies in which church and state policies are incorporated. Democracy (democratic worldviews), which implies diversity, understands the absence of coercion. Once again, morality plays an important role here. As a regulatory idea, ethics affects “the behaviour, character, conscience, obligation and value of individuals, social groups and society ... It is expressed in the attributes of good and evil” (Čupić, 2002, p. 43). Morality and religion, as well as upbringing and education, are correlated. Goodness, love, and forgiveness are the basis of Christianity, and they are also the basis of morality.

Another relationship arises from the above. The grounding of upbringing that is moral or, in other words, the grounding of moral upbringing imbued with religious norms and culture is of essential significance, meaning, and purport. Tradition has an essential function here.

“According to the traditional understanding, morality and religion are inseparable because people’s moral obligations and rights derive from religious ethics. However, with the development of society and the dominance of the world’s scientific view, which puts ratio, not ethos, at the centre (Ivanović, 1998, p. 131)

morality is separated from religion, even moral education is separated from religious education. The religious opinion is only one of the opinions in modern pluralism of opinions. However, this does not mean that the question of the relationship between education and religion has lost its relevance” (Ivković, 2003, p. 194). This issue should be considered and actualized in more detail. In addition, greater involvement of experts in the field of sociology of upbringing, education, and religion is needed. Furthermore, when it comes to the second relationship, values are also important because living without values is the same as living without sense and, therefore, being very dangerous. Values help us in life, in building a moral individual. On the other hand, without values, we create space for the development of bad feelings and pointless and harmful states. “Awareness of values is acquired only in freedom and in the conditions that offer free choice. Where there is no choice and where at least a few possibilities do not exist, awareness of the importance of values for life cannot be gained” (Čupić, 2002, p. 27). Awareness of values for life is acquired through morality and learning about religion and from religion itself. These always imply each other; they are in a constant, unremitting relationship. From them arise other connections and relationships necessary for the development of the entire human personality and the community. In a democratic community in which we have democratic upbringing and education, a developed democratic political culture, the most attractive are moral and, at the same time, religious and liberal individuals. In such a community, those who engage in politics strictly take care not to rise to the level of God or to fall to the “level” of the Beast.

In addition to the elements we have considered essential for the relation: religion–upbringing and upbringing–religion, other categories are mentioned, such as (Čupić, 2002, p. 31):

• - Emotional – pleasant and/or unpleasant;

• - Moral – good and/or evil;

• - Aesthetic – beautiful, artistic and/or ugly, inartistic;

• - Religious – sacred and/or secular;

• - Pragmatic – useful and/or harmful;

• - Practical – exact, right and/or wrong;

• - Target – successful and/or unsuccessful;

• - Logical – truth and/or lie.

These categories are connected in modern democratic society, but each of the listed ones has its specifics, which can be further meticulously analyzed, understood, interpreted, and explained.

Upbringing and education in the domain of religion

Consideration of the complex relationship between upbringing and religion in the field of sociology of religion, upbringing, and education has a long tradition. It is a field of detailed interpretation and explanation. The church influenced the school’s development, and the school influenced the development of the church. The church also appeared as the founder and even the financier of the entire school system. Here we can point out other elements that are important for the mentioned relationship, and they are (Ivković, 2003, p. 195): 1) The church as an organizer of boarding schools and houses for students; 2) “Activation” of church organizations, especially humanitarian ones; 3) Organizer of the election; 4) Training organizer; 5) Supervision over the work of the school, and 6) Organizing religious education classes.

With the strength it has always had, and with the truth and even the objectivity of the facts it promoted, religion has influenced the development of society. The school came from religion. During the development of the social community, the school gradually began to develop its autonomy. Both programmatically and managerially and, ultimately, politically and legally.

“There was a long way of development from the church school through the non-confessional and state school to the secular or folk school, so young people have been experimented with. The church did not accept such a development, so it (especially the Catholic Church) formed schools that can be said to have become a parallel school system in many societies” (Ivković, 2003, p. 195).

The church has always had confessional schools, both in the past and today. In Europe, separation of church and school was politically and legally realized for the first time in France at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1904, religious organizations were forbidden to act in school. The school was proclaimed to be state-run, secular, and peoples’ schools. In the Americas, this separation was realized earlier in comparison to Europe. The separation of the two organizations entered the Constitution in many Western societies, while in the territory of the former USSR, it took place in 1920. In the territory of former Yugoslavia, the school and the church separated in 1946. In both the USSR and former Greater Yugoslavia, not only was the separation of school and church rapid, but a robust antithetical upbringing and education developed in the school system as well. Those elements that explain phenomena in the field of religion began to be introduced in the curricula, while church dogmas also contributed to transparency in explaining them. The question is: Should the church be present in the school or not? The answer to this question is offered by the spiritual father Justin Popović: “‘School is the other half of the God-man’s heart, while the church is the first’ (Popović, 1991: p. 155). Why are the Orthodox Church and its spiritual fathers against humanistic education, humanistic pedagogy, as they say, of the European type? Against the one that is developed and that is still developing in Europe in which confessional (but not religious) education has its place? Certainly because of the importance education has in the development and formation of personality and in the development and maintenance of society” (Ivković, 2003, p. 196).

Should religious education be introduced in schools? There is another question: who should introduce young people to the essence of religion and its phenomena? Students in the classroom would have to get acquainted with the same and, thus, they will be able to develop a religious culture and discover their identity. Moreover, that is how believers are formed and how they reach desirable upbringing and education. The aim to which we strive is achieved in this way. On the other hand, religious culture also affects the personality system, i.e., the system of opinions, behaviour, and evaluation. Religious and confessional cultures are differentiated by several criteria. Religious culture, which has its specifics, implies knowledge of religious phenomena. In contrast, confessional culture has its characteristics, implies “belief, evaluation, and behaviour in accordance with certain determinations. That is why confessional culture is not and cannot be the goal of education, nor can it function in school. The functions of religious culture are realized in the church and should be left to it” (Ivković, 2003, p. 196). Young individuals should be introduced to the essence of religion and religious phenomena through one subject in school. Science, more precisely, didactics, and the church dealt with this problem in detail.

Scientific disciplines such as sociology and philosophy of religion, for example, should have several program units that include the same topics, such as (Ivković, 2003, p. 199): 1) “Religion and the sciences that study it: history of religion, sociology of religion, philosophy of religion, psychology of religion”; 2) “Basic religious concepts: natural religions, myth, magic, animism, totemism, superstition, holiness, cult and idolatry. Religion, religious feelings, religious consciousness, religious life, divinity, death and immortality, religious morality”; 3) “Great world religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, religious morality”; 4) “Religion and art: the influence of religion on architecture, painting, theatre, music”; 5) “Religion and the modern world and man. Religion and secularism.” When it comes to primary school, these subjects, philosophy and sociology of religion, should be introduced in the eighth (or ninth) grade of primary school. When it comes to secondary school, these subjects should be instructed in the third or fourth grade. Of particular importance is religious culture, which should be taught in primary and secondary school and at university. Thus, school pupils and university students will get acquainted with religious phenomena and then with religious rituals. However, these issues are rather the subject of church activity.

Through these subjects, students in primary or secondary school will be able to get acquainted with the essence of Christianity and other religions (Judaism, Islam). In addition to the church, when it comes to Christianity, students will be able to learn or remind themselves that Jesus Christ saved the world with his death and resurrection, that he saved the human race from ruin and that one day the same (the human race) will be with him (The Second Coming) – God, “who is essentially Being and essentially Life. Christ somehow enabled them to bridge the gap that separates God from men” (Armstrong, 1995, p. 119). Furthermore, through the above-mentioned subjects, they will be able to consider the questions: How did Jesus Christ do that? “Which side of the border is he on? There was no more Pleroma, a place of the abundance of intermediaries and aeons. Christ, the Word, belongs either to the divine kingdom (which is now only the domain of God himself) or to the fragile created order. Arias and Athanasius placed him on the opposite side of the abyss: Athanasius in the divine world, and Arias in the created order. Arius wanted to emphasize the essential difference between one God and all his creatures. As he wrote to Bishop Alexander, God is ‘the only unborn, the only eternal, the only without beginning, the only true, the only immortal, the only wise, the only good, the only ruler’” (Armstrong, 1995, p. 119). For Athanasius, God is a perfect being and only with God can man avoid destruction. “Only he, who created the world, can save it, which means that Christ, the Logos who became man, must be of the same nature as the Father. As Athanasius said, the Word became man so that we could become divine” (Armstrong, 1995, p. 119). According to Athanasius, Jesus Christ “is not just an ordinary creature or an aeon.” According to him, “the Creator and the Redeemer are one” (Armstrong, 1995, p. 122). For Jesus Christ is the true God. Jesus Christ is the son and word of God. Jesus Christ is the lamb without blemish. Jesus Christ is a beautiful shepherd. Jesus Christ is the nurturer in childhood. Jesus Christ is the guardian in youth. Jesus Christ is praise in old age. Jesus Christ is hope while dying. Jesus Christ is the comforter of the soul. Jesus Christ is love unspoken. Jesus Christ is the most radiant beauty. Jesus Christ is infinite grace. Jesus Christ is an invincible force. Jesus Christ is the all-knowing king. Jesus Christ is a long-suffering master. Jesus Christ is the enlightener of the mind. Jesus Christ is the joy of the heart. Jesus Christ is the all-merciful salvation. Jesus Christ is an indescribable Deity. Jesus Christ will have mercy on sinners and help them.

All of the above is the basis of knowledge about the (Christian) religion, as the last meaning of human life and death! As Šušnjić (1997, p. 40) states,

“If everyone has the right to experience and understand religious truths following their experience and possibilities of understanding, then no one has the right to declare anyone else an apostate from the true faith. Faith is the freedom to believe in what one wants and in the way one wants. If I am in this world by what I do, I am not in it by what I want. It is one thing to know the inner depths and meaning of religion, and it is another to know the forms and institutions through which that faith is imposed.”

Conclusion

Society is not the same as the state, just as religion is not the same as the church. Although this has been known from Hobbes to the present day, many social theorists equate society and the state (especially those of a functionalist orientation). In accordance with the first, it is noted that individuals’ wishes, interests, and needs are much more profound and broader than the state and its institutions. Likewise, the needs and interests of believers are much deeper and more expansive than the church. Hence, social life, as is generally known, takes place outside state institutions, just as religious life takes place outside religious institutions. There are religions without a church, just as there are societies without a state (Čupić, 2002). Likewise, the science of religion must not be limited to the church, just as the science of politics must not be limited to the state. In relation to the church and state, the field of religion and the field of politics are wider. The theory of religion must be separated from the idea of the church. Likewise, the theory of politics must be separated from the theory of the state. Religion precedes churches, just as politics precedes states. It is necessary to identify the border that distinguishes the religious and state field from the political field. It becomes clear that religious and political life takes place in the mutual relations of individuals, not only in the relations of institutions. Without studying the complex relationship between the state and the church, studying the relationship between politics and religion would not be complete (Šušnjić, 1998).

The relation of religion and politics, which, by its nature, is both simple and complex at the same time, can provoke conflicts. These conflicts are the product of ideological intentions.

“If religions, i.e., their organizations – churches, adhered to their original teachings, there would be no conflict, and pretensions would be limited to the spiritual and practical upliftment of believers. Others would be respected and treated with sincerity, trust and friendship. In that case, the differences would not be a vestibule of conflict but of better acquaintance” (Čupić, 2002, pp. 118-119).

By getting to know others, one expands one’s experience and, thus, one’s view of the world. This means that an individual does not lose but gains. The conflict between religions, where states are most often involved, usually took place in sacred spaces. Conflicts or strained relationships leave permanent scars. Permanent scars can strengthen a person or make him/her insecure and destroy him/her. Consequently, both religion and politics, and thus society, are brought into question.

A reasonable educational system must meet seven conditions: pass on the cultural heritage to younger generations; prepare young individuals to take on some of the operational roles in society; create value awareness and conscience in young individuals; to enable the unhindered development of the possibilities of each individual (meaning intellect, morals, culture); provide conditions for the unhindered acquisition and expansion of knowledge about and from religion; to provide requirements for acquiring knowledge in politics and democracy (the rule of law, free market of ideas). Finally, what is essential “is the educational system’s attitude towards the exceptional – the gifted and the geniuses” (Šušnjić, 1997, p. 229). It would not be suitable for an educational system, as a subsystem of the social system, to ruin the exceptional ones for average individuals’ benefit. The average measure of man does not measure man, Šušnjić points out. The average individual does not count as a measure. “Life that is lived in the first person – is not the life of the average. The institution is tailored mainly for the average; it is mostly an industrial form of upbringing and education: generations are formed to order!” (Šušnjić, 1997, p. 229), and it is very often by order of the political nomenclature.

Without religion, upbringing, and education, society lacks air, pure truths about it. Without religion, upbringing, and education, darkness would move into all of us and build a specific form for itself: we would make a pact “that binds us to the ninth circle of hell”. Those dark expectations would come true; what we fear most would come true for us. As Šušnjić (1997, p. 18) says, we live in a “century that has gambled away its human possibilities”; it is a bloody age. We are witnessing the time when most blood is shed: “we are losing our heads, while we have plenty of cutthroats” (Čupić, 2002, p. 18). This is the age of numbers, organizations, violence, even in the educational system; the age in which we have almost lost a clear idea of what we should do, that is, what we want and what we can do.