18 DECEMBER 1936, Page 21

RELIGIOUS TEACHING

• [To the Editor of Tax SPECTATOR.] Sin,—As Sir ' Arnold Wilson demurs to my pointing out that Mill, Spencer and Russell might be considered as "seeking to subvert the faith of immature minds" and, as such, not to be "tolerated," may I ask whether he would and could draft a Bill in Parliament which would except those distinguished writers but would provide for the with- drawal of toleration from others who "subvert the faith " ? Or, if he were the appropriate Minister, how would he instruct his department to amend the present official attitude in respect of free thought ? The Blasphemy Acts, of which Sir Arnold Wilson makes mention, hardly apply. They would not be used today against sceptical writers.

L'appetit vient en tnangeant, as dictators soon discover. Once intoleration began, the writings of such men as Bertrand Russell would soon be attacked.

Sir Arnold stated in his article that "there are in every branch of knowledge men who are entitled by their learning and experience to speak with authority : in no department of life is this more true than of religion." Who is the Authority, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Moderator of the Free Church Council ? They say rather different things.

I have taught religious knowledge to schoolboys for 14

years. However irmnature their minds they are but little interested in things which they are told to believe, unless adequate reason is given them. I suggest that the proper attitude- towards all speakers and writers (unless they offend against good taste) is that recommended by Gainaliel, "Refrain from these men and let them alone : for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought : but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it : lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."—! am, &c.,

E. N. Mozunr.