BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14761, 3 September 1913, Page 6

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

■» ■ TO THE EDITOa OF "THE PRESS. 5 ' Sir, —May I give what should be my final contribution to the correction of Canon Garland's grossly misleading version of Mr Knibbs's report. The defence by Canon Garland in your issue of the Ist inst. is almost worse than the original. He has only managed to make it clear that on Sunday his memory was sufficiently good to collect into one sentence four of the strongest expressions to be found anywhere in the report; that he took these each from its proper context where they related to different matters and so composed in support of the cause he was pleading a statement which, for superlatives and for emphasis and unqualified force is not to be equalled ra any part of the report as regards the point at issue. Moreover, his version of Mr Knibbs's report was so delivered that j in "The Press" report it appeared in in- | verted commas as the actual words of ! Mr Knibbs, and in-the "Times" report it drew forth a special capital heading: "Of Transcendental Importance." As the quotations in Canon Garland's introductory letter are repeated in the general defence headed (Enclosures), I .shall confine myself to the enclosures. Instead of admitting and regretting his distortion of the report, Canon Garland quotes, and in places mis-quotes, about 80 lines in your columns, to provo his first position. (1) In the first fifteen lines he proves exactly what I said, viz., that, by omitting the words, "religious people believe" before the words "National character cannot be built up without inculcating religious ideas," ho made Mr Knibbs say what he did not say either in page 27 oV in anything Canon Garland produces in support. As Canon Garland himself shows lower down," Mr Knibbs leaves it as an open question, "whether the teaching of religion is desirable or not," i.e., in State schools. Is this not an unwarranted way of producing evidence in support of the League's cause? (2) Then Canon Garland on that bnndav~ stated that Mr Knibbs reported to the Government: "The question of religious teaching in State schools was considered to be of transcendental importance by every country he visited.' In his enclosures, continuing from lino 16, Canon Garland gives about 80 lines more of quotation in support of the reasonable accuracy of his version. First he misquotes from page 27, clause 8. What the report does say is: "In regard to (a) the moral qualifications of the teacher himself, section 5 of chapter xv. makes some reference to what is demanded (a) of him in-the official programme of the Canton of Vaud. (b) These are important, as showing the view of a Protestant Canton, and (c) it may be said that Protestant and Catholic countries are agreed as to the importance of both religion and ethics. Canon Garland leaves out (a) and (b) above, which show unmistakably that (c). which he does quote, refers to "the moral qualifications of the teacher himself." This (c) is loft to make it appear that it is the question of religious instruction in Stato schools that ••Protestan' and Catholic countries are alike agreed" uponl What can we say of this? Canon Garland had here tho printed report before him. In the Canton. of Vaud it. is optional whether the teacher take part or not in the religious instruction. In the rest of Switzerland tiio teachers do not give religious teaching. They have a kind of .Nelson system, and it is specially enacted that "This instruction and also that intended for catechumens must not encroach on tho hours devoted to ordinary teaching, nor prevent pupils from being punctual in their entry into their classes." (Art. 127) quoted by Mr Knibbs. (3) The next 67 lines quoted by Canon Garland actually disprove tho very statement ho attributes to Mr Knibbs (see 2 above). This long extract of tho report is headed: "The Significance of florals in an .Educational System." Mr lvmbbs in almost every instance throughout the report makes a sharp distinction between moral instruction and religious instruction. In soino places the distinction is emphasised by putting each in italics. The distinction is clearly drawn in these \ T ery 67 lines, of which about 50 refer to moral instruction only. Note tho only two references in this extract to religious instruction, viz.: (a) "Whether ■ authorities admit that the teaching of religion is desirable or not; (b) there is an absolute consensus of opinion that all education must bo grounded in tho ethical bases of'our being,"-and again, "it is recognised by all educationists (b) that snfif-itic moral instruction is absolutely repaired, and (a) it is also very widely believed that unless it is founded on a religious bas.is it will bo inadequate. It was incumbent on the Commissioners, therefore, to at least observe the attitude of the various scholastic authorities in the countries through which they travelled, to this momeutoiis, question. This attitude (a) as regards the religious sido of the question naturally presents different aspects, (b) but, a& abovo stated, tho conviction that an educational system must take serious account of tho moral element is universal. ,, ' Note tho triplo distinctions between (a) (a) (a) religious instruction, and (b) (b) (b), tho moral instruction. Note, too, that the religious instruction is left as a disputed question, while it is only to (b) the moral instruction, that Canon Garland's term "of transcendental importance" can be truly applied, as it was actually applied by Mr Knibbs in its proper context on pago 28. Lot the public judge. (4) The next eight lines of Canon Garland's extracts make another serious omission. The report really says (pago 155): (a) Tho vigour of Scottish character is also a testimony to the force of tho moral elements of training, and so also is the politeness and amiability often co-existing with marked strenuousness of purpose that was seen (b) in many parts of tho world, (c) These are all testimonies as to what ethical and religious ideals are capable of doing to raise the character of a people. on its proper piano. Canon Garland.omits (a) and (b), which in another section Mr Knibbs shows are particularly marked in Franco and United States, where there is really no State religious instruction. "Those" in (c), are surely not qualities of any religious significance whatever, and how does the extract justify Canon Garland's version of Mr Knibbs's report as given in (2) ? (5) Tho last 20 lines of the enclosure do not in the slightest degree bear oat Canon Garland's statement attributed to Mr Knibbs. Is anything hero at all said to be of transcendent importance? Are the countries ho visited ever mentioned ? What is the use of making a, parade of utterly irrelevant matter? What could moro clearly betray the fact bhat the ret»ort cannot furnish anything to justify Canon Garland's version. But "immediately following Canon Garland's extract wo find in the report that Mr Knibbs, to supply the lack of religious instruction in >iew South Wales owing to the neglect by the clergy of the vaunted system, recommends none of the State religions instruction which he is supposed to have said "was considered of transcendent importance in every country he visited," but he recommends "A scheme of ethical instruction on very similar lines to the French, which is at once noble, and, as regards religious differences, neutral, is much to be desired." I have dealt with the whole of the extracts Canon Garland with the report before him can produce. Part of it refers to the qualifications of teachers, 50 lines to moral, as distinguished from religious instruction. The value of the latter is left open to debate in spito of Canon Garland's version (2, above). Let the public judge whether Canon Garland's version on Sunday even approximates to anything he can produce from the real report. I freely withdraw anything I said that would hurt - the

feelings of tho members of the League, and willingly dissociate them from any approval of unworthy methods. —Yours, JOHN' CAUGHLEY. [We have deleted from our corrjsrnndent's long letter a few lines \«lich have no relevance to the point in dispute.—Ed. "Press."] "CONTROVERSIAL METHODS." TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." gi ri —Et tv, Brute! When you-can forsake your customary judicial manner to deliver such an attack as that which appears this morning on the National Schools' Defence League, we havo a painful illustration of the deep and strong feelings which divide the community on the subject of religion, and so amply justify the policy of the Stato to let religion alone. I could havo understood and appreciated your intervention to remind both sides of the caution, and scrupulous fair play that were duo to each other, and were so needful to maintain the dignity of tho dobato. But I confess my surprise that on two occasions you should have so belaboured us of the Defence League, while you have had no fault tc find" with the very offensive way in which we have been denounced hy some of tho most prominent speakers of the Biblo-in-Schools' League, as if we were out-sido thc pale of Christianity. Quite commonly their references to us suggest tho assumption that they hold a monopoly of Almighty God. All who oppose their aims they seem to regard as the enemies of the Bible and religion. Because wo dare to believo that all State interference in religion is pernicious, and a meddling intrusion m a sphero in which it has no legitimate business, we are pagans! As we have been told, those who vote against the Bible-in-Schools' League in the proposed referendum will voto against God! Even you, sir, seem to bo not averse to using-- tho word "secular" in a sinister and unwarrantable- sense as applied to our public school system. ' Our school instruction is not secular in tho sense that it declares agaiinst holy things, and it is unjust and spiteful to hint that it is. I defy anybody to say that in the mental atmosphere of our primary schools there is anything to suggest disrespect for the Bible and religion. The attitude of tho State in this matter—an attitude which I will defend as long as I can speak, Or hold a pen—is that religion is a department of life in which culture can only be promoted by parents, by the church, and by such other agencies i as give free scope to personal conviction aud enthusiasm. Religion is essentially a thing of tho spirit which can be eerved only from spiritual motives, and by voluntary agencies. To invoke in its aid tho forced labour of a State department is to wrong it. It is both singular and significant that your sneering remark that "it is perhaps natural that the rough and bitter speech should come from those who opposo any interference with the glorious secularism of our schools" is about as "rough and bittor" as anything uttered on either side hitherto!— Yours, etc., I. SARGINSON. Septemer Ist. TO TUE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —Is it not possible for the Biblo-in-schools controversy to be carried on without so many isolated quotations from Huxley, etc.? Such quotations, taken apart from tho context, can never prove anything, and all thinking peoplo surely agree that any writer's opinions can only be based on his writings and teachings as a whole. If such wero not the case, probably botli tho Bible and Shakespeare would' be tabu. If Huxley's teaching aa a whole upholds Canon Garland's views, well and good. Many of us await conviction. As regards Mr Knibbs's report, I notice that the first clauso quoted in this morning's' issue of your paper concludes with these words: —"It is desirable that the Stato system afford every opportunity for efficient religious teaching by the clergy." ' Is this clause intended to prove the desirability jf: the school teachers giving that instruction ? If words mean anything at alii surely these are plain enough, and if the religious teaching proposed is to be administered by the clergy, then much opposition to thc movement will vanish. 1 have gathered from correspondenco and various articles,in your paper that the State school teachers aro the proposed instructors. No one has yet convincingly pointed out wherein our present system is at fault. Is immorality steadily increasing in our land, as - shown by statistics, and do we comparo unfavourably with New South Wales, where, I gather, religious teaching takes place in the schools? Although our ethical ideas are largely coincident with those promulgated by the Now Testament teaching, I think many will agree with mc in saying that no amount of religious teaching, religious history, and religious platitudes, plus moral deductions, will carry much weight with the children unless the lives of those surrounding the children, both in and out of school, hear outthe efficacy of such teaching. It is an old, but still true savins, that "an' ounce of example is worth a pound of precept." It is the homo life and influence, in particular, that affect a child's actions and mode of thought, and no amount of school teaching will alter that fact. —Yours etc.. M. B. XV.