THE NEW CONCORDAT

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 36, 11 August 1930, Page 8

THE NEW CONCORDAT

(To tho Editor.) Sir,—The Rev. B. 0, Blamircs writes a column and a quarter about the new concordat, but says little really affecting the true position of what lie advocates—tho Bible-in-Schools. For over fifty years this subject has been revived and revived again and again, but without effect. Why? One denomination, the Roman Catholic, act up their own schools in order that the tenets of that faith might be taught to the children of Catholics. That denomination has shown .the way to solve the secular system of education, and tho other denominations still want the State to do what they should, like the CatlioUca, do for themselves. Why haven't they? .Because they are not so decidedly religious as to be willing to make sacrifices for the spiritual woll-being of their children. The new concordat doea not provido for tne possibility of the Roman Catholics relinQuishinK theiv claims for a capitation grant if the Bible is to be taught m the primary schools; they would have a just claim against the State were our schools thrown open to all other denominations. The now concordat does not solve the question«t all.-lmn, etc., MR PLAY. (To the Editor.) g; l% _It has been said that "with words we govern men." Consciously or unconsciously, your corrcspndent, the Rev. li-. 0. Blamires, makes skilful play with^the word "conscience," in his defence of "the new concordat." For it is a term which makes at once a strong emotional appeal to all who value human freedom. May I ask two questions? First; What precisely is douotcd by the phrase "the Protestant and Roman Catholic consoience," in tho sentence "So the Protestant and Roman Catholics-con-science the secular system is directly opposed"? What, for example, is "tlio Protestant conscience"? Are we to understand that every nominal Protestant in this counry is deeply shocked at our secular system and consumed witU a P«»' sioa for religious instruction in schools? Or is it true that no small number of those who call themselves Protestants are actually in favour of the existing system and tliftt a far greater number are merely indifferent? 'Is it just possible that the "Protestant conscience" invoked by your correspondent is in fact no move than the organised consciences-of the Bible-in-SohoQls League? This is not a quibble. I* submit that the statements of your correspondent, whether by accident or design, create an impression ot unanimity of "opinion on this issue which has no firm basis in fact. Second: Is it fair to make the assumption that the conscientious objection of, say, an Agnostic, to the payment of taxes for religious instruction is of tne same kind as the conscientious objection of the Bible-in-Schools League to our, existing system of education? Your correspondent writes, "While there is such sensitiveness of conscience lest Jews, Manomj medans, Agnostics, etc., should be called upon to pay id support of a system that they cannot conscientiously approve, Protestants and Roman Catholics have been paying taxes in support of a system they cannot conscientiously approve, and have done for fifty years. The Agnostic objects on conscientious grounds to being compelled to pay such taxes. But is tne Protestant or Roman Catholic parent compelled to deprive his child of religious education? Is the State school the sole fount of education? Cannot the earnest parent see to it that the home and the Church make good the dafieiency? Surely there is a valid and crucial distinction between a conscientious objection to a compulsion from which there is no escape and an objection to a system which may hnwt the expression of conscience iiy one direction, but leaves it entirely free to seek fulfil* ment in others,—l am, etc., INERT MIND,