As the book, Summerhill (1960) notes, the Summerhill School does notoffer religious education. This however, does not mean that Summerhill is notconcerned with what might be loosely called the basic humanistic values.
Neill (1960) puts it succinctly:
"The battle is not between believers in human freedom andbelievers in the suppression of human freedom. I personally have nothing againstthe person who believes in a God—no matter what God. What I object to isthe individual who claims that his or her God is authority for his or herimposing restrictions on human growth and happiness. The battle is not betweenbelievers in theology and nonbelievers in theology; it is between believers inhuman freedom and believers in suppression of human freedom. Some day a newgeneration will not accept the obsolete religion and myths of today. When thenew religion comes, it will refute the idea of humankind's being born in sin. Anew religion will praise God by making humankind happy."
Neill (1967) later commented that:
"if one postulates that man is a sinner and needs to beredeemed, then the religionists are right. That is why I ask parents [andeducators, to some extent] to take a wider view, a view far outside theirimmediate circle. They need to foster a civilization will not have sin thrust onit at birth. I ask parents to eliminate any need for redemption, by telling thechild that he or she is born good—not born bad. I ask parents to tellchildren that it is this world that can and must be made better, to directenergies to the here-and-now, and not to a mythical eternal life to come."
Many researchers have disagreed with this principle, but nonetheless, it doesfunction as a core component of Neill's educational philosophy. To Neill,nothing including the belief of a higher power, should inhibit the actualizationof an individual.