Social education

Press, 11 June 1987, Page 12

Social education

Sir,—l believe that the most important issue concerning social education, and one that is being overlooked, is that of relationships: parents to children, friend to friend,' worker to employer, man to woman, subject to Queen or her representatives, to name some of our vital relationships. Now a major part of social education is imparted by participation in good relationships. Some of these are with equals, some with superiors and some with juniors. Every relationship has within it obligations, commitments and loyalties which need to be honoured if the relationship is to remain healthy. Sadly, as a society, we have little commitment to teaching our young just what these obligations and commitments are, and how they differ according to the kind of relationship involved. Relationship training lies at the heart, of social education. Hopefully, we may be able to discard false views of equality and freedom which can so easily cloud this issue. — Yours, etc., GEOFF LEICESTER. \June 5, . .

Sir,—The debate between David Shanks, John Canham and others fails to take account of the fact that there are two very different kinds of Christianity. A recent book, "The Messianic Legacy,” by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, points out that there is one sort of Christianity which emphasises love, compassion and “what men share” and another kind, “tribal Christianity," which manufactures “a scapegoat to serve as adversary” and which promotes intolerance and con-

fiict E. Steciurenko, in talking of “the devil and his brood,” illustrates this latter tendency. We are all human beings — some wiser than others — and, while evil should be resisted, none should be dismissed as mere agents of “the devil.” David Shanks, rightly, attacks that variety of Christianity which, since the time of Constantine, has promoted intolerance rather than compassion, but he is seeing only half of the picture if he thinks that this is the whole story. — Yours, etC"-•

MARK D. SADLER. June 7, 1987.

Sir,—ln spite of the commandment "Thou,shalt not kill,” one of your correspondents blatantly contends that justifiable violence is in keeping with Christian principles. Such arrogance eloquently demonstrates that Christians consider themselves the sole authority as to when violence “is” justifiable. Many utterances attributed to Christ are most definitely out of step with his image as Prince of Peace and defy whitewashing. Another Christian claims that Christ has affected many lives and this point must be conceded. Since the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and, in accordance with the Theodosian Code, millions had died premature horrific deaths. Inter-Christian wars and massacres, where the power of faith of the victims proved totally inadequate; repetitive slaughtering, plundering, raping crusades; many inquisitions, all perpetrated in the name of Christ over long terror-stricken centuries. Christian correspondents cannot rightfully complain if such irrefutable Christian truths become an integral part of social education. — Yours, etc., ARTHUR MAY. June 6, 1987.