SIR,—I wonder if you will allow be to try again
to elicit a reply to my question, which was: What democratic principle can be invoked to defend the discrimination in favour of non-religious education? In your footnote to Dom Ralph Russell's letter in the Spectator of February 10th you say: "The whole question turns on the alleged ' right ' to denominational education at the expense of the State." The State, of course, has no money except what it collects from the pockets of private individuals. In the course of collection no one is asked what religious denomination he favours, or if he favours any ; we are all just taxpayers. It is only when the money has been collected, and so become " public money " and is ripe for disbursement, that the question becomes important.
The non-denominationalist then gets his full share, and the type of education he requires for his children is provided for him at the public expense, and no questions asked. But when the denominationalist asks for his type of education he is told he can't have it—unless he is prepared to dip again into his private pocket. Why ?—Yours, &c., S. J. Gosuric.
The Priest's House, Alton, Stoke-on-Trent.
[Roman Catholics alone describe the education in publicly-supported schools as " non-religious." If they want a different type of school for their own children it is not unreasonable to require that they shall pay a small proportion of the cost of providing and running such schools.— ED., Spectator.]
Previous page
