THE D.D. AND THE M.H.R.-A CONTRAST.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 61, 9 September 1905, Page 14

THE D.D. AND THE M.H.R.-A CONTRAST.

TO THE EDITOR. "Le C'lericalisme,--voila Pennemi." ' — Gambetta. Sir,— There is probably.no another man in the community who has less right than Dr. Gibb to cliarge any man with inconsistency or lacK of straightforwardness. His gyrations, tergiversations,' and changes of iront during the * course ot his Jiible-in-schools propaganda are so well known in this part of the colony, where' he is best 'known, ' that", few pay any .attention to his sayings .or doings .in the matter now, ,and no one has exposed his .inconsistencies more thoiouuhJy than two 'clerical brethren— the Key. Mr. Hinton, a Baptist, and' the Rev. 1\ B. Eraser, a Presbyterian. Mr. Rutherford, M.H.R., had probably no conception how complete and crushing was nis answer to Dr. Gibb in pointing out the difference between a promise to support Bible-reading and one to support Bible-teaching. As w ill be seen irom the following tacts, Dr. Uibb, at one of the many and various sUges of his progress on this question, declared himself as opposed to the teaching of religion in the schools, whilst contending that the treading of Biblelessons does not amount to teaching religion. In the course of a discussion in the Otago Daily Times, extending over some months, in 1903 v in which the present writer was the main object of attack, the Rev. Mr. Saunders wrote seveial letters in which he professed to stale the position taken up by the Council of Churches, and in particular by Dr. Gibb. Mr., Saunders wrote: — '"We (the Council of Churches) are not asking for' religious instruction ; indeed, we heartily object to it for the reasons so cogently &et forth by Mr. MacGregor." „. . "In-^ answer to Mr. Chamberlain's question quoted by Mr. MacGregor— 'Are you prepared at this stage to forego all religious teaching in the national schools, and to leave the teaching to voluntary effort?' — our answer is in effect, 'Yes.'" In a subsequent letter Mr. Saunders wrote — "That I accurately described the aim of the Council no one has seriously questioned. Mr. Hinton did,- indeed, express in your columns some doubts concerning Dr. Gibb's position; but I wrote a third letter in which I gave' .assurance that Dr. Gibb. had. said of. my statement of the case that 'he would not wish to have one word altered.' " 'It thus appears that at this stage of his career as a propagandist Dr. Gibb deemed the distinction between "reading" and "teaching" Bible-lessons all important. From iDr. Gibb's own letter to Mr. Rutherford it appears that the "pledge" asked for and obtained from the membeis was to remit to the people the question of Bible-reading. But the proposal set out in the schedule to Dr. Gibb's Bill as introduced by Mr. Sidey was something quite different, namely, the teaching of Bible-lessons "by the teachers, and not -jierely the reading of such lessons. The writer has always contended that the reading of the Bible in school hours means the teaching of religion by the State, but Dr. Gibb maintained the opposite. Therefore it is not open to him now to charge a member with breaking a pledge in voting against the referendum on the question of reading Bible-lessons when the "pledge" was to support a referendum of the question of teaching such lessons. If this be a mere quibble, it is not for Dr. Gibb to say so. But it cannot be said against Mr. Rutherford that he relied on any such quibble, seeing that he has admitted outright that he had made a mistake in giving any such '"pledge," and has declared his opposition, not only, to Biblereading, but also to a referendum on tho question. There are members on both sides of the House for whom one would have more respect if they would declare themselves with equal frankness. One can respect the man who declares himself straight out in favour of either^ Bible-reading . or Bible-teaching in the schools and also of a referendum on the question, but it is difficult even to understand, and impossible to respect, the man who is opposed to the referendum on principle, who refrains from express^ ing an opinion of the question of Biblereading in school) and yet advocates the reference of the question to the people. This is the kind of shuffler that has all to gain by Dr. Gibb's organisation, which offers its support to the candidate who utters the shibboleth "Referendum" ; it is nothing to Dr. Gibb what the candidate's convictions may be (if one can imagine such creatures having convictions). Insincerity and opportunism are the l^ane our politics, and the organisation of our Presbyterian Laud and the Anglican Bishop of Wellington is designed for the express purpose of rewarding insincerity. It is difficult to imagine anything more pernicious and immoral — but apparently the end justifies the means. — I am, etc., J. M'GREGOR. Dunedin, 4th September.