Social education

Press, 22 June 1987, Page 20

Social education

Sir,—H. G. Oram (June 16) tries to whitewash the history of Christendom’s morbid excess by pointing to the “sheer prejudice” of charging this against the Bible. When, for example, people believed they should “suffer not a witch to live” or acted upon Jesus’ reminder, not to suppose he came to bring peace to the world, “but a sword,” is it prejudice to suggest that the burning alive of thousands of women and the savagery of the crusades, etc., ws the work of Christians following their Bible? The trouble with the Bible is that a divine ordinance can be cited to justify virtually anything. It can sanctify the work of a Torque-

mada or a Mother Teresa, an obscurantist or a philosopher, a millenarian fanatic or an eirenic scholar. When Christians select bits of Scripture and reject the contradictory bits, they employ criteria other than scriptural fidelity. Providing these selections are made on rational rather than religious grounds, they present no threat to social education.—Yours, etc., DAVID SHANKS. June 17, 1987.

Sir,—Much that Geoff Leicester advocates in his constructive letter (June 11) hinges on children acquiring the power to behave unselfishly and with discipline in their personal relationships. More thought needs to be given to the source of that power. I find I can easily make the subtle error of desiring good results without desiring their true source. Part of the requirement for a good social education is that it should give a person a lasting motivation and an empowering towards unselfish conduct. It is no coincidence that this is what a good Christian education does. Admittedly, it does cramp one’s style and put selfishness in its true perspective. Those who want a comfortable liberal philosophy in the short term .should perhaps take David Shanks’s advice and fight against Christian influences in the education of our children — but think what the later results may be. — Yours, etc., JOHN D. CANHAM. June 16, 1987.