RELIGION IN SCHOOLS
Sm,—Mr. A. P. Kiely does not believe in Christianity, and therefore he does not wish it to be taught in our schools. That is very right and proper, for no good can result from an attempt to teach what we know to be untrue. But with all respect I suggest that Mr. Kiely might profit- ably consider two qtiestions: Does he understand the true nature of Christianity? and, What exactly does he propose to put in its place in our educational system? In his first letter Mr. Kiely gave the impression that he regards Christianity as a system of rigid dogmatism, confessedly incomprehensible, which can only be accepted when Reason is denied. If he will spend a few hours reading the New Testament, and then, let us say, the Church Catechisni, he will find that it is nothing of the kind. Christianity is a religion of which an exalted ethical system is an integral part, and it has its roots in a loving devotion to Christ who taught His followers how to live the good life in obedience to the will of God. Those who revere Him are united in a world-wide society which seeks to comprehend all men in a fellowship of love and service. The Church has its dogmas, of course, but dogmas are only attempts to rationalise spiritual experience, decisions reached after long and anxious debate under the guidance, as we hope, of the Spirit of God. Mr. Kiely need not fear them. It is not proposed to teach the Athanasian Creed in the primary schools, although some older people might study it with advantage ; they would learn that it was not written by Athanasius, that it is not a creed, and that it describes the Godhead, and not the faith, as " incomprehensible."
But secondly, does Mr. Kiely really wish our children to be taught a vague " synthesis of religions " ? Poor children! They could only become honorary members of all the faiths. 'Has Mr. Kiely tried to extract the highest common factor from Judaism, Mohammedanism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Christianity, and the opinions of Mr. Bertrand Russell, to mention only a few candidates for consideration? The most that could emerge from such an attempt would be some kind of Humanism such as has been so disastrously discredited in the last fifty years. Perhaps Mr. Kiely's eye fell on the letters concerning war-time morals which followed his own in your issue of August 6th. Does he really think that a system of good advice distilled democratically from all religions will prove adequate to curb and sublimate' the unruly passions of unregenerate human nature? Only faith and love can do that.—I am, yours faithfully,
Previous page
