CANON GARLAND AND THE TEACHERS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 136, 5 December 1912, Page 8

CANON GARLAND AND THE TEACHERS

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — In a report of an address delivered by Canon Garland in Dunedin on 15th October, I find (see Otago Daily limes, 16th October), the following: "Ha (Canon Garland) had had in that rooit (Knox Church School Hall) an occurrence such ag 1 lie had never known before in all his experience. He had in his hand a letter. 'Is it advisable.' the writer asked, ' that school teachers of uncertain characler should, to a certain extent, overlook the religious or, rather, Biblical, studies of children?' That document was not signed. It was (he proceeded) an anonymous charge— a libel against the teachers of New Zealand. (Applause.) All . throughout New Zealand he had found a charge being made against the school teachers that they were not fit to be trusted with Bible instruction. Who made those charges? The opponents of the Bible-in-Schools League." Now, as you know, Mr. Editor, I have been for ten years raising my humble voice against introducing the Bible into our State schools, if the task of imparting Biblical instruction was to be imposed on State teachers, solely on the ground that to impose such a task upon them would inevitably involve a religious test, and greatly extend the not inconsiderable sectarian influences already at work in connection with the appointment of teachers. ' Now, Sir, during all those ten or more years I have been in, close touch with the opponents of the movement for introducing the Bible into State schools, and I never once heard, or read, of such a statement as Canon Garland attributes to the opponents of the Bible-in-Schools movement or League; and, Mr. Editor, I should be very much surprised if you had either heard or read of such. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask Canon Garland to furnish the names of the parties who have made such charges regarding the teachers. I should be sorry to think that he could, to serve purposes of his own, make so much of an anonymous scribbler ; or of a nameless heckler at one of the meetings (addressed this week by the rev. gentleman). The writer of the anonymous letter might very well be a member of the Bible-in-Schools League, who wished to provide material for a grand dramatic display of righteous indignation on the part of the unsuspecting Canon. At any rate, the statement attributed to the opponents of. the Bible-in-Schools movement looks very much like bluff or a "suggestio falsi." Here is another rhetorical flower culled from the Canon's same Dunedin address : "They (the Bible-in-Schools League) claimed that the vast majority of people did desire to have their children religiously instructed, and they were denied that liberty to-day." This is surely astounding, coming from a Christian clergyman. Who denies them this liberty? The State takes approximately one-fourth of the children's waking time during the course of the year. What are the Churches and the parents doing for their children during the other threefourths of the children s waking hours? Let me challenge Canon Garland and his league to answer the following questions publicly :—- 1. Would it not be as reasonable to ask the professors at Victoria College to impart religious instruction to their students as to ask teachers in our primary or secondary schools to conduct Bible lessons in their classes? 2. Would it not be as reasonable to submit the question as to whether "evolution" should be taught in our University Colleges to a referendum, or general plebiscite, as it would be to determine the Bible-in-Schools' issue by such means?— l am, etc., HUGH MACKENZIE. TO CBB EDItOB< Sir,— Canon Garland,'invite« me to explain my attitude. to bis pamphlet. I very cheerfully do co, and I feel sure that when I have done every openminded reader caxmot fail to see that teachers are right in holding the Canon's circular as both offensive and impertinent. It is worse, for under the guise of friendship, obviously insincere, and under the thin pretence of contradicting the statements, the pamphlet publishes abroad stupid slanders. Cannot Canon Garland understand that teachers are not concerned at the foolish talk of the man in the street? That they are quite able to take care of themselves? And that they resent the snug patronising defence offered by the clergy? And why this sudden unctuous friendliness on the part of the cloth, so opposite to its habitual attitude of superiority to teachers? "Timeo Danaos dona ferentes." Quite fairly paraphrased, but stripped of its slipshod obscurities, the paragraph means this:— *" Some fellows have been saying nasty things abotit you teachers. We clergy are very sorry for you poor people ; at present we don't believe these things, and are contradicting them for you. But if you don't help us to carry this Bible reading in schools we shall agree that the people of New Zealand are right in holding you as atheists, unbelievers, of uncertain character, and not to be trusted." The question Canon Garland should ask himself, and try to get an honest answer, is : "Is it the teachers or the parsons that the people distrust in this matter of Bible reading in schools?" Let me now quote the Canon's paragraph word for word, only interchanging "clergy" for "teachers," and vice versa: — "The teachers regret that statements are being made to the effect that the clergy of New Zealand cannot be trusted to give these lessons, it being said that the clergy will impart their particular ' isms,' and that so many of them are unbelievers that the children reading the lessons under their supervision will become atheists, and also that there are so many clergy of uncertain character that the whole profession is not worthy of being trusted with the Scripture lesson. The teachers officially, and without a shadow of reservation or hesitation, repudiate this charge made by their opponents,"' etc. (Very kind and condescending of the teachers, isn't it?) Now. if the teachers had issued such a pamphlet, and sent a copy to every minister, would tho clergy, or would they not, be right in characterising it as a piece of ill-bred impertinence? Finally, let me say that I do not for a moment ■ believe the Canon meant to be patronising or impertinent. He is simply dominated by the feeling of hi 3 caste towards teachers. But thoughtlessness is no excuse for wrong-doing.— I am, etc., CLEMENT .WATSON. sth December.

Archer's Drapery Store, Upper Cubastreet, advertises the commencement of ft great sale of a purchase from Melbourne. A list of goods is advertised in this issue. Me««rs. E. Johnston and Co. will ftellin their rooms to-morrow at 1.30, on account of Mrs. Murdoch, who is giving up housekeeping, her household furnishing* and effects, including upright grand piano. The Wellington Corporation employees' annual picnic, which was postponed last Saturday on account, of tho inclement weather, will be held on Trentham racecourse on Saturday next. A special train leaves Te Aro at 9.25 a.m. and Lambton at 9.35. Mrs. Cunnington, of. Chrutchurcb. who is on a visit to Wellington, will speak on "The Seed of Socialism." in the Empress Theatre, on Sunday night. A list of the winner* of th« Winfrfrd Cigaratt« Competition it advertu*d in tiui u£ue< ■ i