RELIGION IN SCHOOLS
Sut,—The courtesy with which your correspondents rebuke me is more disarming than are the objections they advance either relevant or cogent. BOth read into my letter things that were not there: Mr. P. A. Shaw, in his anxiety to obfuscate the issue, even resorts to the discredited expedient of inserting a misquotation in inverted commas. I wrote no word about strengthening " the ethical framework of Christian Society,"
although—since he has chosen to qualify my phrase—I do suggest, this is neither unnecessary nor impossible of achievement. Mr. Shw's action in attributing to me a statement I did not make reveals at least one case of ethical deficiency and is scarcely a recommendation for the Christian teaching for which he claims Divine authority. I did urge that open-mindedness and the development of a critical attitude were essential for the preservation of a democratic society and that a synthesis of religions was more likely to further world co-operation than a totalitarian emphasis on one religion. Neither Mr. Shaw nor Mr. Boyd Carpenter has persuaded me 1 am wrong.
Mr. Shaw accuses me of failing to distinguish between Christian doctrine and institutional religion. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. But is it not rather a case of Mr. Shaw confusing doctrine with ethics? I did not attack the moral principles of Christianity , I suggested, simply, that Christianity had not a monopoly of moral principles. Does Mr. Shaw claim that it has? And why should I have made a reference to " the Divine origin of the Christian faith "? That is a typical dogmatic statement. Mr. Shaw is entitled to believe in its truth, but not tq look Pharisaically upon those who may not. Of course, I agree with Mr. Boyd-Carpenter that one does not have to go to church to be a practising Christian. It may well be that the ethics of Christianity are practised more widely by those who refute particular dogmas or tenets than by those who accept or make an appearance of accepting them. The ethics, not the doctrine, form the " widespread social bond." It is surely inaccurate to claim that the teaching of Christianity has been " wholly neglected in our schools of every type." I know of few schools where Christian instruction is not given to a greater or lesser extent. Indeed, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter's sweeping statement will come in the nature-of a shock to innumerable teachers imparting denominational instruction, and doubtless will be resented by them—far more, perhaps, than my own relatively reasoned arguments in favour of a broadening of religious teaching. At least I may fairly suggest that " lack of facts " is not confined to me.
Finally, Sir, I should like to ask why Mr. Boyd-Carpenter takes the trouble to assure me that " the scepticism of Havelock Ellis was tempered by a profound respect for Christian ethics." It may have been ; I did not suggest otherwise. Ellis remained a sceptic, however. And on what authority is Bertrand Russell held to realise that Christianity " was likely to be a potent factor towards stabilising a strangely unstable world? " In his Power, Russell specifically accuses Christian teaching of having "involved a weakening of the State " and the claims of the Church as "likely to be such as the State will find intolerable." The conclusion he reaches—and how wholeheartedly I agree—is that " a diffused liberal sentiment, tinged with scepticism, makes social co-operation much less difficult and liberty correspondingly more possible." This is precisely the purport of my previous letter.—I am, Sir, yours, &c.,
Previous page
