CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 77, 1 April 1914, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE

THE ALARMISTS AND THE SCHOOLS ' TO THE EDITOR. Sir.— Scare headings of " Danger ! To the National Schools " are calculated to make one jump, Imfc not to make anyone think la this what your correspondent ■■<_}" desires? Between its iiUumist heading and its incredible ending, his letter winds its weary way of prejudice, mis-statement, and hostile suggestion. And \et. how legreUable it ill is I Your eortes-pondent is evidently one devoted to religious work, and yet how far he puts form above substance and religious division before religious content ! Like all opponents of Bible in schools, he ringo the changes on the uoul " sectarianism, " and at the same time supplies us with a pointed example of its worst meaning. Simplifying this long word, what does it mean? in its best sense, nierelj " separation " ; in its worst sense, separation and mutual hostility. A bright example of the pro-, grcssiye destruction of sectarianism, in both its senses, is provided by the frank union and co-operation of several churches for the purpose of benefiting the school children. A striking instance of the " mutual hostility " sectarianism ia supplied by the tone of such critics as your correspondent "G." Now, can your co-respondent point to any religious activity of any moment outside the "separate" denominations? It is idle to talk of undenominational leaching as meeting the child's need for the religious touch. Curry the argument to an absurdity and find the residuum of teaching left which will not offend the child of Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist. Unitarian, Adventist, or any other, and you have a cramped and feeble witness that is within hail of secularism. "G" is satisfied with the Nelson system because it just goes far enough to include him, but what of the injustice he is conniving at for Roman Catholics, Unitarians, and others. These he definitely shuts out. The Nelson system only exists because it is quasi-legal. Once make it the, law of the land, and the national system is doomed, for the Roman Catholics and others, justly holding that religion and education must not be divorced, would have an irresistible claim to consideration for their demands. This would mean denominational schools. The religious appeal is too spiritual and sacred to be made successfully by one who is conscientious enough not to enforce his particular views on the children ol patents of different views, and is continually hampered thereby in his utterance. Can "G" not rind reason other than the laziness and " determined sectarianism " of the clergy to account for the failure of the Nelson system? Does he not see that with many clergy loyalty to their own Church makes them all the more unable to teach the children of other Churches without unconsciously influencing them by their own direction? The historic fabrics of Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and other religious bodies still exist, and. so Jong as they are not merged, men of honour will hesitate about incurring, however unfairly, the charge of proselytising and caballing which "G," even beforehand, is prepared to bring up against them. What real objection can your correspondent find to the Bible-in-Schools programme except his vague and futile charge of sectarianism, which we have shown to be so illogical? He complains that the smaller religious bodies would suffer through having to be grouped. Why that's just hie Nelson system! How can ho-, complain && their being taught the residuum of Christian doctrine after only two or tlrree special features have been excluded, when ho would prefer to 'give undenominational teaching, excluding whole masses? Then we find " G " very tender of the conscience of. the teacher. Now, hei'e again is confusion of thought. He would hardly disassociate conscience, ' in this sense, from religion. So it is the teacher's religious convictions which may be violated by supervising the reading ol Scripture. But how many teachers have we whoso views are such that to them the Bible is definitely wrong in its teaching? Further, have they the right, under any system, to mould the character of Christian children when their whole influence must be conscientiously antagonistic to Christianity? For my part, I would bid such go to other spheres of employment where they can advance their views for the mature consideration of men, not impress them unauthorised upon children. For those teachers who are uninterested, or superficial, your correspondent can have no legitimate concern. To the extent to which they despise the moral side, to that extent they are deficient as true teachers, and are not to be studied. ' A^ain, he fears the undue influence of denominational feelings in the appointment of teachers. It is a significant fact that the parents at present, being denied their legitimate influence over their children in the autocratically imposed secular system, are cfriven to finding some precarious hold on the teacher by making committee elections very frequently turn on denominational considerations, while the committee in turn inclines towards a candidate of the right colour. Satisfy this parental instinct for controlling the ideals set before the children by allowing the parents' known and trusted minister to meet the child periodically in the school building, and the need for cabal will die quite away, leaving to the committees a freer field in their work. Your correspondent at least thinks the Bible-in-Schools programme good enough to submit to the electors alternately with the Nelson system and two others. That at least is satisfactory. If he persists in regarding the v Nelson system as the best solution, then he will either regard the above argument as the sophistry of a "-sectarian- conspirator" or l he will hasten to convince those of like views with myself of the error of our ways. The tone of lus last paragraph isfrankly deplorable. He pJa-ces iangiiag'3 too dreadful to repeat in the mouths- of Bible in schools supporters —language ■which he dare not attribute to any responsible person. — I am, etc., O. W. WILLIAMS. "OLD IDENTITIES" TO THK EDITOR. Sir, — In your issue of 23rd January there was a most interesting article relating the first leveo on the West Coast diggings, wherein it was said that Tliatcher. ihe comedian of fo/t-y odd years ago, invented the saying " Old Identities." Whilst I an not going to contradict I will weprpv <,ho opinion that the assertion is v/iong : that Tli&tchev made iis<' of it is likeh— he would witch hold of any taking expression and mako use of it. By ymir permission i will give a diftemir' uysion. Over thirty yp-ars ago I was a fellow-passenger from Port Chalmers to Adelaide with a Mr. M'Tntyre, a retired schoolmaster. There w.i.-; also a Air. M'lntosli on board, but I think Mr. M'Tntyre was the ivtired schoolmaster —a very inteiesting elderly gentleman jnd A bit of a politician. He told me the late Clip tain Cargill put up for Parliamentary honouis. and when stumping tin? dentorate held a meeting at ilr M'lntyie's house During the course of his address he wisher! lo distinguish between those who had settled in Otago previous to the discovery of gold and those who had come* to the diggings and those who settled later, and, being at a lose for ti mortiHflt how lo cApreae himself, cqigaed thft tg^m "Qjd Identities,"

which, as you are aware, has stuck to the old hands all through those long years, and apparently likely to for many years to come. With apologies to the narrator of that interesting reminiscence — I am, etc., AN OLD SUBSCRIBER. Mavlborough, 30th March.