Is Religion Really A Toxic Brand?

The editorial from February 17th argues that religious and moral teaching have failed to make people good, but this is overlooking the fact that character is what leads individuals to act rightly. Human instincts and virtues are located in a part of ourselves that is often unconscious. Good character is displayed by individuals who act courageously and compassionately without thinking about moral imperatives or self-interest. This cannot be taught; rather, it is something that must be nurtured from infancy. For this reason, schools alone are helpless in cultivating good character. Generous state support and provision for parents who are feckless, incapable, or unlucky are necessary. It is also important to shake up religious education, which should address philosophical, cultural, political, social, and historical perspectives that will encourage young people to ask questions and think critically about religious values and beliefs in the real world.

The term "toxic brand" has been applied to religion, which is very unfortunate. This ignores the good works that have been accomplished by religious people, such as building infrastructure for emergency services, support for refugees and the homeless, and soup kitchens. Although these are positive expressions of human kindness, they are not divorced from religious convictions. Any wrongdoing within religion can easily be chalked up to religious belief, but this is a flawed assumption.

The editorial in support of religious education in schools is well-meaning, but it disregards that the majority of Britons tend not to agree with laws created by the main churches which do not support equal marriage for gay couples or assisted dying for the terminally ill, and do not properly abide by the laws concerning equal opportunities for women. Religious education, which is too often taught in church schools by appointees of the church, cannot be trusted to support our nation’s values, including over abortion and contraception. Moral education, which has been available since the 1960s and offers an open debate for values free from censorship, is a better solution.