EDUCATION AND RELIGION

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 49, 27 August 1934, Page 8

EDUCATION AND RELIGION

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —" Mankind owes to the child tho best it has to give," was tho slogan quoted with approval by one of the speakers at the recent Sunday's Bible in State Schools meeting; and could anyone guess what, under this slogan, ho proposed to offor the child? What olso but a makeshift compromise, the H.C.F. set of Bible lessons or roligious instruction. Why not faco tho fact that the H.C.F. of tho difforont sections is nil? But why should not those who bolievc tho Bible have it taught to their children under' the education system they aro paying for? It is bare justice; we only ask for justice, we wero told. The present system, of course, favours those who aro atheistic or indifferent in religion and penalises not only those who would be satisfied with the H.C.F. State-imposed religious lessons but also those to whom these State religious lessons arc equally an abomination and merely a caricature of religious education. In tho cry for justice it is not proposed to givo justice to thoso who desiro religious education but only to- those who want the league's makeshift. It is mocked by the name of justice; it should be called ti share in tho spoils.' There is to be no share and no justice for those who have for years borne tho burden of religious education. But if you help them that is helping the Catholics to teach their children tho Catholic religion! For tho same reason you, in Monday's leading article, stated that religion must bo kept out of the schools. Why not face tho bogy and recognise the facts? In addition to (1) Thoso. who want secular training and (2) those who want the Biblo in State schools there aro also (3) thoso who want religious education for their children.

At present all aro paying for a system that suits the first section; the proposed change will suit sections (1) and (2). Why not also try to do justice to class (3)9 Again it was proclaimed that no injustice could be dono to teachers under the proposed Bill. Do not tho secondary schools have religious lessons'! Has anyone been harmed thereby? Those who ask this rhetorical question aro not facing the facts. It has been pointed out frequently that the present system of religious exercises in secondary sehools tends to exclude from the higher positions those .who will not take part in tho roligious lessons. It is in short a test Act in favour of Protestants. And now we are asked to extend this test Act to the primary schools.

Lot us try to bo fair. Tho State system is plastic and can be developed to include schools to suit all. It lias served its turn and can be modified to meot modern conditions and not penalise and not favour any section; so why offer the child anything short of the best —a religious education'? —I am, etc., CATHOLIC.