The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1913-07-12
ENGLISH STATESMAN MAKES
POWERFUL PLEA FOR RE-
LIGION IN SCHOOL.
America and England Confronted
with Same Problem.


In the London Tablet we have the
report of a speech made by Mr.. Bal
four, the noted statesman, who pre-
sents the question of religion in the
schools from the viewpoint of a non
Catholic.
In the course of his speech at the
special meeting of the National So
ciety, Mr.. Balfour put the case for
denominational schools with great
force. He said:
Public opinion is strongly in favor
of religious training. Nevertheless,
in religious matters we are not as
one; and l do not believe any human
wisdom, however admirably exer-
cised-it has not always been exer-
cised to perfection-in this question
of dealing with religious education
in elementary schools could have
drawn a scheme without difficulties
and hardships to this or that section
of the community. The result of
that has been that large number of
people have got it into their heads
that because owing to our religious
differences, and for no other reason,
the State does not find it possible to
spend the money of the general tax
payer on religious matters with re-
gard to which the general taxpayer
is not agreed, religion, however
necessary to the child, should be
taught only at home, and the only
duty of the State is, or at all events
the fundamental duty of the State is
to provide what is called secular
training in the Public schools. That
division between religious and secu-
lar training is fundamentally errone-
Gus. 1t implies a dualism of object,
a divided object which no thinking
man, whatever his views are, can
really approve. The secularist might
say: ct do not approve of religious
training; think it is bad thing in
ITSELF" but, if he was a man who
knew his business, he would say:
eff religious training is good thing,
do not attempt to divorce it from the
general training of the mind. Do
not put it INTO separate compart-
ment, as it we're, IL be dealt with 81
entirely different principles and for
entirely different objects" The train
ing of the young people of the coun'
try is, and must be, an organic whole
You cannot cut it up into separate
compartments. A school is not, and
ought not to be, place merely fol
filling to the brim some unfortunate
child with what is called secular
learning.
An IndivisibIe Whole.
The object of education is training
which is an indivisible whole. Oi
course, l grant that towards this
single and indivisible object both
the home and the school must con
tribute That, of course, admit, and
indeed 1 suppose none of us would
deny that if you could get an ideal
home in which not only were the
moral and religious characteristics
of the parents highly developed, but
in which they had at their command
all the secular learning necessary
a better training in some senses
could be given at home than in any
school or than in any school ano
home combined, with this exception
that there is an education that boy
derives from collision with othel
boys and a young man derives from
mixing with his equals in age which
cannot easily be attained under ord1
nary home conditions. But with tha
exception l do not doubt, both on Tho
religious and the secular side, yoJ
can imagine home conditions better
than any conceivable school condi
tions. But when you are dealing
with a population of thirty-six millions
i do not remember the exact figure
of England and Wales at this mo
ment-when you are dealing with {
gigantic population of that kind an(
are considering the conditions under
which most parents work, it is quite
impossible, whatever their will, what
ever their moral qualifications, tha
they should do all the work of train
ing which is required. That is uni
versally recognized If that be so, anC
if my first proposition be accepted
that you cannot dichotomiZe educa
ton into secular on one side and re
ligious on the other, it follows tha
you ought to provide the parents witt
that kind of religious training, If any
which they desire in the schools tt
which you compel them to send thell
children. And, as matter of abstract
argument, / am quite unable t.
understand how any human being car
be found to controvert that PROPOSE
ton. 1t seems to me to follow with
an irresistible logic from premises
universally or almost universally
accepted. Why, then, is not this sim
pie piece of logic embodied in actual
legislation? Why is it not given
practical effect too in all the schools
of the country? The difficulties, as
we all know, are practical difficulties
They are not theoretical. 1t is very
hard to arrange matters, if the State
and so long as the State, thinks il
out of its power to help this or that
religious denomination, it is exces
sively difficult to arrange a system
which shall give the parents exactly
what they require. All you can dC
is to approximate on a historical
basis, as far as you can to that idea
gradually to mould your system