BIBLE IN SCHOOL

Evening Post, Volume 32, Issue 32, 6 August 1931, Page 6

BIBLE IN SCHOOL

(To the Editor.) Sit,— Yout leading article of 2Sth July would probably be considerably, altered if jou had ( seen tb6 official couespondence which has passed between hi Giacc lieu b'shop O'Shea and mjself. I think jou \wU lecngmse that individual opposition on the pait of raembeis of air oiganisation does not invalidate in any way the omcial pronouncements o£ thq orginisa tion. Aichbishop O'Shea is the oflicial repiesentative of the Roman Catholic Church, m the conduct of the ncgotia* tions with the Bible in Schopls League, and all the couespondence has passed through my hands to the Bible in Schools League executive. Hence, bet-vecn us, we should know,better than anyone else who has no intimate knowledge of proceedings, exactly what has resulted. s There aie some salient points that need io be clearly explained by anjone who ventures to cOntiadict the agieement be ioie much notice nped be taken. Kindly note the- following — 1." The conference between the ofhcials •i of the Hieiaichy and the Bible m Schools e^ecgiive (which was' acting foi the Protestant Churches Conteience) considered proposals contained iv i lettei ot Uth April, 3930, forwarded by the- league, and the decision of the Bfieraichj was that they would reply in writing 2. Archbishop O'&bea, who had acted for the Hieraichy in arranging the conference, and who, by the acknowledgment ot s Bishop Brodie, was the official to leply for the Hierarchy, accordingly iviote on 12th May, 1930, definitely accepting the proposals on behalf of the Hieiarchv. 3 On 25th J«ly, 1930,' the official statements of the agreement were published in; your paper and in the Press throughout New Zealand. That by Aichbishop Redwood was.on behalf of "the Catholic Bishops." The points I should like cleaied up bj those who contradict the agreement aie these"— 1. If Aichbjshop O'Shca's letter of 12th May/ 1930, is not the official reply oE the Hjpraichi, when is the llici itchy going to repb to the league's lettei o£ 14th A-pul, • 1930? No other leply lia been iecei\cd to that letter. ' 2. Seeing a reply wan to be sent m wnt» ing, and as the Archbishop's letter of 12th Stay, 1930, was the only reply received, ana it announcod the acceptance of our psoposals, and Atchbishop Redwood's, prononncement shortly afterwards _was published throughout New Zealand, how is it that' eleven months passed before any Question of the agreement was made by any member of the Hierarchy to the olr £dal;of the league through v;hoin all the , correspondence has been earned on? These questions would require to be answered before the league executive1 will feel it to question the validity, of the letters which Archbishop O'Shea has forwarded, as the official representing the Koman Catholic Church. ~ * Then, Sir, jour article when dealing with the relationship of the taxpayer to ' the gcHeme proposed in 6ur Bill, d6e» not apparently notice the simple fact that secular instruction"is t to be given as an alternative to all exempted pupils, and the bearing this, has on the question. The two clauses of the Bill cKefij con-

eeincd with questions, of iiuauce aie as follows — (Clause 10): Dining the time given to such lehgious observances and religions instruction all teacheis and childicn exempted under set tions six, seven, and eight of' this Act shall be engaged in other ;'educational noik (Clave 13) (1) No additional eipendituie occision cd by the said ie!igiou» obseivances and the said leligious mstiuction, 01 by cithei, shall be paid out of the public funds, or out of the general fund of the boaid fund oi out of anj special fund of the boaid fund 01 out of the school, fund, 01 otherwise than out of moneys voluntarily contubuted foi the puipose. (2) For the puiposes of this section additional expendituie shall mean expendituie beyond that which would have been incuried 01 payable had this Act not been passed. These indicate quite cleaily that no additional expenditure involved by Bible m schools can be paid out of public funds The only waj then in which the taxpiyer is involved is by a \oluntaiy substitution oi religious lessons (only ior those desuing them) in place of the seculai le^ tons foi a penud pel week that nuv imouut to two homo Not j. penny of idditioujj cipenditmo is at btake, aud as fai as the Roman Catholic igieehient is dffected, it is that ''additional expends tme" winch is named m the official coilespondence. Quite apart from Roman Catholics, tow-ever—-there are others than Roman Catholics Concerned—Hie position can bo analysed as followb:— No taxpayers will piy a pennj moie taxes because of Bible in schools Taxation, such as at piesent levied, will be affected m this way.— Tnstead of the piesent system which involves all ta\pajers, whether they conscientiously approve of the secular system 01 not, being forced to maintain the seculai -system, a nevr- system will be initiated wheiebv alternatives are provided; those who piefer religious lessons will, m the great majority of «ases, be piovided with such, and those who piefoi in entiielv necumi. cuuiculum aic gianted this piefei once , At pic«ent a gie<it number ot taxpajets pay foi maintaining a s>stem that<to.then. consciences is abhorrent. To them it it ntehgious education. The new sjstein will lPmove this di& abihtj. It will not involve anj taxpijer's support of & sjstem thai does not provide at least the opportunities for secul-r education at present available. AH who conscientiously support a secular system will know that all the children of parents who think as they do will be pio•vidcd with wliafc they want, an entirely •seculai sjstein. All who conscientiously disapprove a secular system will know that the great majowty who can find unity in a general scheme of religious lessons will be provided with such, while the mmonty who cannot join in (Roman Catholics, Jews, etc ), are left in the position they weie m before, ie , they continue with, a secular sjstem, a hardship which we alLiegiet, but concerning which it can be said-— 1. They are no worse off than under the piesent seculai sjstem 2, As those who believe that,religious is pieferablc to nrcligious education, the*

cm appiecnte tbu indiicct benefit tint comes to then childicn in au itmospheic wheie God md icligion aic lccogmscd iv stead of being neglected AU toleiant, bicidminded uluen will Mew this change horn an cntueh beculiu fejstem to an iltei native one, is miich le""> piovocatne ot compuNion ot consueiKtf thiu at pie mt, and will smch ippioxc i <-vs'ehi whn.li leivcs them cutnc ticcdem to setuie 101 then childicn the sccul n educilion thp\ dcsiic, md gi\c- cqu il lice dom to then fellow citizens., who<-e <.onsuences cntnelj disappio\e a stcul v t,\s tern, the opportunity in the gieat ma jonty of cases, to ha\c the ilteimtivc lejigious lessons they w jnt This nlteina tive is pecuicd without involving the tax payei jn au additional penny-piece of e\pendituic Tuithcr, because the altema tnes iio piovided, the opponent ot i<> ligion will not pay tastes for the leligious elements m the cuinculum.—l am, etc , ...... E O BLAMIRIfc 31st July LThat Humplj dumpty has had j. qioat fall is patent to e\eiybodv, but if 4he Bible m Schools Leslie e\ccutnc think that he has not, ol thit he is none the worse loi it, this id i hco countn, md there is no icifou whj they should not do so We yen tin o to lequest, howevoi, that it this touching expitsoion of new fnith la t o -iiu to tind a place in these column it nnv be jt Ic^, length rlhe same icmuk applies to the astonishing contention that a taxpijci who is com pelled to pay foi lcligious in=.titiction of which he disappioves suffeia no miiistieo because no child will be compelled to take it A sufficient answer is that the payment is to remain compulsory, though attendance is not—Ed]