Andrew Wright has recently criticized an article penned by the author, which suggests that no good reasons have been given why religious education should be a compulsory school subject. In this article, the author explains the two misunderstandings Wright has about his position. First, Wright characterized the author's thesis as arguing "from the irrelevance of religion in society "to" the conclusion that religious education is no longer tenable as a compulsory subject." The author contends that while its true that he has suggested in his introduction that "organized religion plays little or no part in the great majority of people's lives," he did not use this claim as "premiss" for his conclusion. Wright also spoke of the author's presumption that his "preferred secular world view should be adopted as the normative foundation for education in contemporary Britain" and, linked with this, of the danger of children being "inducted in an uncritical manner into the values of secular humanism." But the fact that the author held secular beliefs did not imply that he wanted children to be taught such things uncritically--any more than a committed Roman Catholic would want pupils to be indoctrinated into Catholicism.