required to ensure the childrens’ freedom of religion.392 Similar considerations apply to religious symbols in school facilities.393 From the perspective of religious schools, another issue has emerged as to whether teachers can be required to wear religious symbols in religious schools.394 Where a school has a special character, in our view, it may be acceptable to require a teacher to wear any religious symbol considered necessary to manifest the religious character of the school. This assumes that employment in the school is voluntary and that alternative employment is available for the teacher in another school. Content of curricula Children must not be obliged to attend compulsory religious education or worship.395 In 2001, the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom admonished Greece for its compulsory instruction in the Orthodox religion in Greek public schools.396 Ideally, religious education calls for children to study the main religions within their society as well as secular philosophies such as humanism but not to be forced into religious education or worship.397 392 In Germany, for example, the Constitutional Court ruled that there was no statutory basis for saying that teachers who intend to wear a headscarf at school lack the necessary aptitude for service at the school. However it was held that the state legislatures had the power to lay down new laws to restrict the wearing of religious symbols by teachers. BverfG, 2 BvR 1436/02 (24 September 2003). However, States must treat all religions equally. In this regard German courts have allowed a Muslim teacher to wear the headscarf as long as nuns are allowed to wear their veils. Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart 18K 3562/05 (07.07.2006) VBIBW 2006, 400; see also “Court Strikes Down Ban on Muslim Headscarf” (9 July 2006) http://www.gult-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=96346&version=1 &template_id=39&parent_id=21 (last accessed 7 March 2007). 393 We note that the German Constitutional Court has held that presence of crosses in classrooms is inconsistent with the pupils’ freedom of religion BverfG, BverfGE 93, 1 (16 May 1995). Conversely, an Italian Court confirmed the legal requirement for crosses in classrooms, since it regarded the cross as a cultural rather than religious symbol. Cited in D Mosseri “Italian Jews’ Crucifix Stand” (23 August 2005) http://www.ejpress.org/article/2490 (last accessed 12 March 2007). 394 For an alternative view see http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id =25353 (last accessed 5 March 2007). In 2005, the Netherlands Equality Commission ruled in favour of a female Muslim teacher who refused to wear the headscarf at the Islamic College in Amsterdam. Given that the school had a special character, in our view, it would have been acceptable to require a teacher to wear a religious symbol considered necessary to manifest the religious character of the school. We note, however, that since the Commission’s decision was not binding, the College ignored the ruling and removed the teacher. 395 Again, it may be acceptable to require children in special religious school to attend worship. This is subject to children having the alternative of attending another accessible, acceptable educational institution. It also does not relieve the religious school of the obligation to promote religious tolerance. 396 Economic and Social Council, Report on communications sent by the Special Rapporteur and replies received from States since the publication of the report submitted to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-sixth session E/CN.4/2001/63 13 February 2001 at para 49. 397 This is provided, for example, in the 2004 framework for religious education in the United Kingdom. The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues suggests implementing these contents to promote indigenous knowledge, Report on the third session (10-21 May 2004) E/2004/43 and E/C.19/2004/23 at para 19(h). 125