RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN STATE-AIDED SCHOOLS.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THIS "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—There is not the smallest warrant for your assertion that in my article in the current number of the Fortnightly Review I am "for kicking religious instruction out of the schools." In that article I do not deal with the religious difficulty at all, though I propose to do so in my next. Our view is that religious instruction may be given in the schools, provided it be given by the authorised representative of the sect, other than the teacher of secular instruction. We say to the clergy, "You may come and give us as much sectarian teaching as you choose at proper hours, but the official teacher must attend to his proper business, which is secular instruction. You, the spiritual guides of your people, are the fittest persons for imparting religious knowledge, and as the ratepayers and others desire that their children should have religious instruction, you are welcome to the use of the school house for that purpose." To call this invitation to give religious instruction "kicking religious instruction out," is to show that your anger against our principles prevents you from reflecting what those principles are.—I am, Sir, &c., JOHN MORLEY.
[Mr. Morley is angry, too, but he hits the point. Our view is that the ordinary lay master is the man to teach religion ; that to shut his mouth on that subject, is to make him utterly dishonest. How is he to teach English history without alluding to the Church, or geography without a word about Genesis ? It is Mr. Morley, not we, who wants priests in every school.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
