SiR,—May I defend myself against Fr. Prime's implied accusa-
tion that I apply the word " idiosyncrasies " to other men's views, but not to my own? I might even claim to surpass Fr. Prime himself in the matter of tolerant respect for contrary opinion, for I think that the " radical difference " between his standpoint and mine is that, whereas I am willing to admit that my own religious views are as likely to be erroneous as those of the majority of my fellow-countrymen, Fr. Prime is not willing to admit the same about his own. He writes of truth and error as if he had authentic information as to which was which. I neither claim such a privilege for myself nor accord it to others.
If it is true, as he says in his letter in your issue of May
1940, that our sons and daughters, on reaching maturity, are free to judge our religious views with unbiased minds (a statement not easily reconciled with the assertion, in his article, that the early training of a child orientates him for life), why should not parents wait till their children become able to accept their religious views on their merits? Surely the logical deduction
from the argument of Fr. Prime's letter is that religion need not be presented to children, either at home or at school, until the attainment of maturity.
To bring up children in an atmosphere in which controversial questions are systematically treated as if they had been finally settled is to foster fanaticism. It is no part of true education. I gather that Fr. Prime disapproves of Communist influences on children as strongly as he favours denominational schools. This policy really amounts to the suppression of secular fanaticism and the conservation of religious fanaticism.—Yours-faithfully,
6 Coates Gardens, Edinburgh, 12. JoHN W. CROFTS.
Previous page
