THE NEW CONCORDAT

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 47, 23 August 1930, Page 13

THE NEW CONCORDAT

CONSCIENCES AND POCKETS

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —How true the words o£ Bacon: "Keading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man"! l ret Professor Hunter supplies thu exception that proves the rule, in that exactitude in writing has 3iot yet been won by him. 'Twas interesting to read his accusation against me of leaving unanswered a specific question: then immediately below his letter to read the answer supplied by me to that part o£ the question that was pertinent. Did liberty pluck justice by the nose that time? ' "Thank God! mac is not to be judged by man, Or, man by man, the world would damn itself." Now, about tbat question: .it contains Professor Hunter's direct assertion that other groups of citizens, not Roman Catholics, who also object to the (Bible in Schools League) proposals are not to obtain similar consideration with respect to consciences and pockets. I am asked wiry. I wish to know the ground of the assertion. Not knowing this, I should like to know what leads him to make it. Is it another inexactitude? Another point arising from his last letter. He speaks of a city of refuge. In our primary schools the boys and girls are encouraged to read, the newspaper, but are vnot allowed to read the Bible. They may quite naturally have read tiis letter with its reference to a city of refuge. Suppose a teacher was asked by them,.. What is a city of refuge? would he be breaking the law, abusing his position as a teacher, riding roughshod over the tender consciences of little Agnostics who -might be in the class, if he took up the Bible and read the account of the cities of refuge? It is a question that Professor Hunter would favour by answering.—l am, etc., E. 0. BLAMIRES. Masterton, 21sfc August. (To the Editor.) Sir, —For the most part one is prepared to leave it to others to decide how far the Rev. Mr. Blamires' contribution of 20th August is a satisfactory reply to the questions .raised. But 1., wish, with your permission, to make a few comments. In his reference to the 86 per cent, of parents who voted for Bible in Schools, Mr. Blamires wrote not "most," but "many of these parents have strong conscientious convictions." I misread the passage and regret my mistake. As requested, I restate the argument. If "many" does mean "most," then, as previously shown, some three-fifths of those whose consciences aro supposed to bo clamouring so insistently for religious instruction in State schools are too apathetic about their own religious well-being to attend church themselves. But "many" may, as Mr. Blamires points out so acutely, mean half or less than half. Now in his first letter Mr. Blamires urged tbat "to the Protestant conscience . . . the secular system is directly opposed." To one unversed in dialectic subtleties it seems that to be "directly opposed" to something on grounds of conscience is just the same as having "6trong conscientious convictions" about it. If, then, the majority of the 86 per cent, do not possess "strong conscientious convictions" they must, one would think, be excluded from the collective "Protestant conscience." So that if Mr. Blamires objects to "many" being interpreted as "most" the "Protestant conscience," on his own showing, comprises some 40 per cent, of the community. I must in my turn protest against misrepresentation. My sentence does not read, "Dr. Findlay ha« been nurtured m a tradition," but "Dr. Findlay has been nurtured in a tradition very different from our own." The- deletion of the final phrase destroys the meaning of the sentence and can only indicate that tho whole point was missed. It was also urged—although lir. Blamires overlooks the contention—that Findlay's position as a whole is not unequivocal. Since what Mr. Blamires sets down as my own reply contains an inaccurate (statement of one argument and neglects another altogether, 1 feel I can claim to be one up on the score of misrepresentation. While I am not unwilling, if pressed, to answer the questions put to hie, _ they seem to be so irrelevant to the real issues under discussion that one feels that they do not call for a reply.—l am, etc., A. E. CAMPBELL.