Few would argue with many of the views set out by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, Rev John Chalmers, in his new year message.

Speaking of the value of religious education in schools, he states children should be introduced to the power of critical enquiry and given the widest possible range of knowledge.

Indeed they should and the modern curriculum is largely shaped around the need to equip pupils with the ability to direct their own learning by employing such skills as critical thinking.

Religious eduction is all the more important when many threats to stability around the world are linked to religious fundamentalism, Rev Chalmers points out, warning of the dangers of the radicalised mind and the indoctrinated child.

This is uncontroversial and a position supported by many secular groups, most of which accept that receiving receive balanced information about world religions and exposure to a wide range of cultures is a necessary part of a rounded education.

Tolerance is the key to the argument the Moderator presents - pupils must be introduced to the 'wide ranging menu of different ideas that populate the world', he says.

However the Moderator's message falls prey to a problem which very often bedevils the debate about religious observance in schools. He blurs the distinction between the much less contentious issue of religious education and the more disputed territory of religious observance.

Although increasingly known as 'Time for Reflection', the requirement for schools to hold a daily assembly has been criticised by secular groups. Some fear requiring pupils to actively participate in religious practice itself amounts to indoctrination of children.

Rev Chalmers argues a lack of knowledge of the importance of religion to many people around the world could lead to intolerance. He says every child needs to know about religious practice, but it is a non sequitur to argue that this means they must practice it themselves.

Where assemblies are religious in nature, the religion concerned is almost always Christian. It is hard to see why this, rather than Muslim or Sikh assemblies, say, would encourage tolerance or mutual respect.

But those on all sides of this debate are guilty of setting up straw men. We should not turn school assemblies into a choice, Rev Chalmers says - but parents already can choose for their children to opt out of such observance.

Secular campaigners argue against religious observance, but in most schools assemblies are already wider and more inclusive, rather than religious in nature - which they support. Meanwhile if indoctrination is being attempted, falling attendances at churches suggest it is not having a big impact.

Time for reflection in schools is important. The George Square lorry tragedy is a case in point. Such events raise fundamental questions for many adults, let alone for their children - who are very often aware of them. From disturbing news to the ethos of the school as a community, space to address issues not readily dealt with in the classroom is valuable.

But most people wouldn't favour schools promoting a particular political philosophy or party, and there is no reason why non-faith schools should promote a particular religion.

The moderator makes a strong case for religious education. But it is not clear that his argument extends to religious observance and it is not clear such observance is necessary to tackle intolerance.