“Education for Citizenship” is a course which has recently started in schools in Spain, declared obligatory by the Spanish government. Its introduction into the Spanish education system has sparked debates in public opinion. The Spanish Bishops’ Conference has also conveyed its concern in light of possible illegitimate government interference in the moral education of students, whose primary educators are their family and school. The course is “unacceptable in and of itself, because its contents constitute a threat to the integral development of the person.”
Fernando López Luengos has been teaching Philosophy for over 15 years. He is married and has three children. He is a member of a teachers’ association that works to defend education rights, focusing mainly on the intrinsic value of the human person. They are currently dedicating their time to giving talks on the new course, with the aim of informing parents about Education for Citizenship.

What is the Education for Citizenship course?
It is a course that the LOE (Socialist law for education) has decided to incorporate into the education system. The true motives have been of a political, ideological nature. It has been introduced with the excuse of following in the proverbial footsteps of the other European nations, but in the end, it is simply an instrument being used to begin transforming the conscience of the Spanish people. In fact, the beginning of the Decree states that the objective of the course is to form the moral conscience of the student. It is an intent to debunk the moral consciousness that has always existed in Spain, until now, and replace it.

What is included in this course?
There are two ways of interpreting education. One interpretation is when the government sees parents as collaborators in the education of their children. The other, is the belief that the government should collaborate with parents, as they are the ones primarily responsible. Included within my constitutional rights, is the right for me to decide upon the moral education of my child, not the government. The initial proposal of the course is clearly explicit in affirming that the course’s aim is towards the formation of the moral conscience. In the course on Ethics, there was a similar phrase. It had a completely different meaning, however. It clarified the fact that indoctrinating should not be permitted, that it should be an ideologically neutral course. However, in this course, none of this is mentioned and right away they begin to introduce subjects of profound moral relevance. For example, personal identity. The student should be informed regarding his identity; but is the government the one who should tell my child who he is? This depends on the government’s view of man. Does the government have to get involved in this question? Well, in this course, yes.
There is another subject called affective/emotional education, that is, the evaluation of feelings and attitudes; They evaluate not only the content of the subject, but also the emotions of the child. It’s everything that characterizes a relativistic moral thought. Imposing relativism leads us to the belief that things are no longer good or bad in and of themselves, but rather, depending on what the majority of people believe. This is an aberration. There are democrats that think that relativism is a truth, but there are also those of us who consider relativism a fallacy.
The course teaches that good and bad do not exist. It makes no reference whatsoever to the truth, or parental authority, or the moral good, or human nature. The only comment made by the course text is that there is an obligatory code of ethics for everyone: the good and the bad as it is dictated by human rights. Human rights are a good step in the right direction, but they cannot serve as a code of ethics. Human rights are founded upon the existence of good and bad. It’s the reverse. Obviously, it’s not easy to see these things at first glance, but any Philosophy teacher clearly recognizes it and discovers its ideological backdrop. The course implies the indoctrination of students, with the intent to make them think that neither good nor evil exist and thus, there is no need to seek it. My thought is different. And, of course, I do not wish to impose it upon anyone. In my classes, I remain ideologically neutral; I never give them the answer because they are minors. I’m not asking for permission to impose my view. What I am asking for and what I demand, is that they do not try to impose anything on my children. And this is what it is all about: not admitting a moral imposition.

What has the Church said?
In February, the Church issued a document. Before the laws were made public, statements came from the Church saying that the course was a threat. The fact that these laws were in their drafting stage, was already a threat. When the laws were finally officially publicized, there was a very clear message from the bishops, saying that this course could not be tolerated in and of itself. The bishops’ statement was unanimous, although the government-affiliated media claims that it was not. Further into the statement, the bishops spoke even more firmly, explicitly mentioning the freedom of conscience as a possible, although not exclusive, recourse in opposition to the course. No one can be forced to oppose something in conscience and no one can be kept from making an objection for reasons of conscience. In this sense, the bishops express themselves in a manner that is both clear and respectful because, although they will not be the ones actively opposing, they do have the moral obligation to illumine the faithful on the matter. Those who are still wavering on the subject are among those who, are afraid, and this is understandable, because they are Catholic school principals and it is an extremely complicated situation, and because opposing it would only imply more difficulties. But, of course, there is an entire spectrum of values between maintaining the stability of their school and being faithful to the Gospel. I am sure about by stance, although it may cost me everything, but this is the only solution: live it all with the courage of the first Christians.

And what can be done?
People should get informed, reading the education laws and trying to find out more about the citizenship course, and then, act accordingly. Invoking freedom of conscience is one way. This is the gravest problem; it is the most problematic, because it is a serious question. We’re not just talking about arriving at your high school and filling out a registration form, freely choosing to register for a religion class or another subject. On the contrary, this subject is obligatory. And if you do refuse to give the course, it is considered a legal transgression and you are liable to being dismissed from work.
The Spanish Constitution states, in article 27.3, that the parents have the right to educate their children according to their own religious and moral convictions, evidently within the context of the Constitution and its values. Parents are the primary educators. Alongside this article, is article 16, where it says that citizens have the right to their own convictions, that is, freedom of ideas and of conscience. According to this article, if there is a law contrary to your conscience, you can oppose, claiming freedom of conscience. The only exception is in case of military service. When freedom of conscience was invoked in the case of a draft, the first who tried resisting were thrown in jail. Later, more tried and were left with a court process…finally, the law was overturned.
Never before, in the history of Europe, has there been such a resistance as the one we are seeing now, invoking the freedom of conscience. There have already been 20,000 oppositions confirmed in Spain. In the entire history of the military, I believe there were only 70, 000 but that was in a span of over 10 years. In the case we are dealing with, in a period of only 4 or 5 months, we have already reached over 20, 000, something never before seen in Europe.
The Constitutional Tribunal that establishes a law of precedence, has stated in the Case 53/1985 that the objection invoking freedom of conscience is directly taken from article 16 of the Spanish Constitution, and therefore, is directly applicable, even if it is not regulated.
It is a battle that has to go to the courts. We want them to respect our constitutional rights; nothing more, nothing less. I am not going to insist that someone be prohibited from teaching this course, but teaching it should not be obligatory.

How has this course affected you personally?
It is a very tough and cruel subject: tough, because it is a course that has clearly been implemented for ideological reasons and cruel because it is being done to your own children. My children are not yet affected, as they are still young. But it is a shame that hours of Philosophy and other classes are replaced by this material that, because of ridiculous excuses, will lead to indoctrination. As a father, it’s not an easy thing to accept. It makes me cringe just thinking that my children are going to have to live in a society with these values and with this way of interpreting life. I can respect the fact that others may desire this, but I think it is harmful and that’s why I’ve had to say, “We’ve had it up to here already!” We’ve had to put up with quite a few deficiencies in the education system, but when they begin to enter into the privacy of your own home…I can only say, “We’ve had it up to here already!”.
In this sense, I don’t mind assuming responsibilities and declaring publicly that there are things that I am not going to teach as a professor. I refuse. I refuse to collaborate with the indoctrination. This means putting your job on the line, but I have no problem with that.

And what are you doing?
On a certain occasion, a fellow co-worker told me, “Enough already! We should stand our ground and say that we will not do it.” I looked at him, and I said, “Why not?”. He responded saying, “I have children and I can’t put my job on the line.” I was really struck by what he said and I thought, “It can’t be that we have to just put up with all this in order to defend our family economic stability. There must be some limit.” And that thought has stayed with me. When this course was introduced, I thought, “Now is the moment.” And ever since then, I have made every effort on my part to inform others about this course.
A fellow faculty member of the Philosophy department where I teach joined me and we began, almost a year ago, before the Decrees were made public, to spread information about what was then still just a draft underway. We even gave a conference. We placed ourselves in contact with professionals in the ethics field, and we began making it known. When the Decree came out, we held a demonstration with another group of over 100 teachers with whom we have made contact. We created a teachers’ association, not because of this course, but in order to support one another, share ideas, materials, enthusiasm… When the subject of this course came up, we were forced to address it. From that moment on, we began a campaign using communications media and giving talks throughout the entire province. As a result, our province is the one with the most opposition to the course, claiming freedom of conscience. Where we give talks, opposition increases. In our talks, all we do is explain what the course is and the Decrees, and the people are responding well.

Is it tough fighting in this way?
My wife is really carrying the biggest weight, because we have three small children and people are continually calling us from all over Spain to give talks, to collaborate with the communications media and we are constantly on the go. Obviously, our association has no budget. Our “budget” is formed by my salary and those of my co-workers. We have no outside support. So, in short, we do not lack complications. It is not pleasant having to see how the people criticize you, including people in the Church. It is a course that directly opposes human morality, as has been explicitly declared by the course’s authors in the course documents. There is no doubt about it. This is what makes it such a scandal to see that Christians are not reacting. This is tough. The people that speak out in favor of the course either don’t really know what it is, or they are cynical.
It’s a pity to see that the people that should be on your side never get there, or maybe they even put obstacles in your way. It’s also hard when they manipulate what is said, for example, when they say that not all the bishops are in agreement on the issue, when it is really the case that they had all signed the statement that they published. The differences come on the level of strategies on how to fight, some are more explicit than others.

Is there hope?
Man’s heart is capable of finding the best, because our conscience is always free. With the slightest imposition, the freedom cry is heard from among the people. When you are convinced that the good and loving your children are the most important, every sacrifice is bearable. This is a sign of hope. Without sacrifice, it is impossible. People are mistaken when they think that solutions will come from upper management. The matter is in our hands. Our hope comes from our acceptance of the suffering, in order to achieve a good. And this is what is important. That is why hope is so valuable. We are tired, we spend a lot of time working on a national level. There are those of us who make incredibly long trips just to give these talks. I received an e-mail, recently, that said, “I am worn out, but enthusiastic.” And that makes me happy. We are pretty tired from the schedule we have, but it is invigorating. Thus, there is hope. This is the moment of hope.

©HM Magazine No. 139 - November/December 2007