The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1920-10-23
FAMOUS ENGLISH STATESMAN
AFFlRMs NEED OF RELIGION IN
EDUCATION - PAINTS CONDI-
TIONS IN ENGLAND WHICH ARE
APPLICABLE TO AMERICAN
LIFE TODAY.

Several years before the great war.
Mr.. Balfouf, the noted English states
man and scholar, thus spoke before
the National Society in London, on
the subject of religion and education:
Religious Training.
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
drawn 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
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 dualism of object,
a divided object which mo thinking
man, whatever his views are, can
really approve. The secularist might
say: Il do not approve of religious
training; l think it is a bad thing in
ITSELF" but, if he was man who
knew his business, he would say:
IF 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 were, to be dealt with on
entirely different principles and for
entirely different Objects The train
ing of the young people of the coun-
u 10, anu llluoI NC, oil VI SduiC WuOlC.
You cannot cut it up into separate
compartments. A school is not, and
ought not to be, place merely for
filling to the brim some unfortunate
child with what is called secular
learning.
Home and School.
The object of education is training
which is an indivisible whole. OF
course, | grant that towards this
single and indivisible object both
the home and the school must con
tribute. That, of course, admit, and
indeed l supposs/ 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 and
home combined, with this exception
that there is an education that boy
derives from collision with other
boys and young man derives from
mixing with his equals in age which
cannot easily be attained under ordi
nary home conditions. But with thai
exception / do not doubt, both on the
religious and the secular side, 70,
can imagine home conditions better
than any conceivable school condi
lions. But when you are dealing
with population of thirty-six million:
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 anc
are considering the conditions nnde
which most parents work, it is quite
impossible, whatever their will, what
ever their moral qualifications, tina
they should do all the work of train
ing which is required. That is uni
versally recognized. If that be, so, ant
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 tina
you ought to provide the parents witt