RELIGION IN SCHOOLS

New Zealand Listener, Volume 12, Issue 289, 5 January 1945, Page 5

RELIGION IN SCHOOLS

Sir.-Your correspondent A.M.R. has performed a valuable service in pointing out that "teaching what Christianity is

and has done is another matter altogether" from "religious observances." But that "teachers themselves do not understand Christianity" is not the only reason, though it may be the main one, why they cannot give information about it "in as objective a fashion as they teach the rest of ‘social studies.’" Another reason is the ease with which illfeeling is stirred up on the subject — not necessarily ill-feeling between de« nominations (though that is not nonexistent), but certainly ill-feeling. I agree with A.M.R. that it is part of the State’s duty to see that such information is imparted; but would add that it is part of the Church’s duty to teach people to be less "touchy" about what teachers say-less ready to demand their silencing when their teaching does not suit them-and to set the example in this direction. Nor am I sure that his reasoning is sound in the earlier part of his letter. He writes, "If religion is a part of proper living it should be an integral part of school life, which is an early stage of living and a preparation for later stages." To yield A.M.R.’s conclusion, his last ‘premise must mean that "school life" is the whole of the "early stage of living" to which he refers. If life at school is even then only a part of life, it may not be the most appropriate part into which to introduce religious observances: and even supposing it were, the ends in view might be better served. by demanding subsidies to Church schools rather than relicious observances in State ones.

ARTHUR N.

PRIOR

(Military Camp).