BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Evening Star, Issue 15537, 6 July 1914, Page 10

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln common, as I should suppose, with a, good many of the readers of the Dunedin dailies. I "have long ceased to take at all seriously the controversial contributions of the local secretary of the Bible-in-Schools League; but his references to, myself in your isue%f June 29 were of such. a directly personal nature that they seem to call for a word or two of reply. (1) The Bible-in-schools scheme of 1902, to which my quoted utterances refer, differed, toto c'Elo, from the proposals submitted by the.. present . Bible : in-Schools League. To begin with, the scheme included the promise- of a conscience clause for the teachers—the abandonment of which by the promoters'of the present movement seems to me a shameful and utterly indefensible, blot upon their scheme. There was no " right of entry." The electors were not to bo asked, as they are under the present scheme, to vote upon a "pig in a. poke" proposal. There was a distinct promise that both the lessons and the. "simple verbal explanations" by which they were to be accompanied would be .produced before the Government were asked to submit 'the question to the . people, These lessons, moreover, were to be prepared, not by the Government, but by the churches." Tt will thus bo seen that the Bible-in-schools scheme of 1902 was free from many of the most objectionable features of the present proposals. (2) The general sentiments to which I gave expression as to the importance of religious education and the value and desirableness of Bible knowledge for the lis: ing generation are a commonplace amongst Catholics. " Valuing,■ as we do." wrote the Catholic bishops of New Zealand, in their published manifesto of 1904, "the written Word of God, and teaching it in our schools,' we would gladly. see it brought home to the mind of every child, Catholic and Protestant, in New Zealand." And, again, they' write: "We value God's sacred Word. We use it in our schools. We would gladly welcome any change in the Education "Act which would enable every child in the colony to be well grounded in the doctrines ofits faith, so long a© this can l;e done without detriment or danger to the faith and the religious sentiment* of the children of other creeds." In my attitude to the particular scheme proposed in 1902 I made it perfectly clear that Catholics could not, on principle, accept the scheme for themselves. In the course of a discussion which took places shortly after the election in the columns of your morning contemporary, after quoting -.-..;> portion of the utterance which lias, been reproduced in your columns, [ -wrote : '.'.Q{ course, what 1 have eaid. 1* very lav suott of saying or suggesting that Catholics could accept or make ttso of the proposed seberflf) for themselves. As Father 01c*ry j.«t-~ clearly shown, they could not conscientiously or consistently do.-that. _ Wh'ik.l have said amounts simply to this : -,'f ha-t----even though Catholias. cannot get -wju>.t they want, yet for tlua sake of the children and of the' future of the country, I, for my part, so long as the rights of Catholic children were effectively safeguarded, would willingly see other religious' b«4i« get the opportunity of giving-.whatever measure of religious instruction they might desire." It is the very gravamen-of-jour charges against the present proposals- ihat the rights of Catholic children are pot-effec-tively safeguarded;, and that the. rights .©f the unhappy teachers are to be ruthlessly ignored. "Regarding the proffered conscience clause for the teachers, which formed a part of the earlier proposals,, the Bible-in-Schools Conference, m a, published manifesto dated May 24, -,1904, wrote : "A great deal is made of tlie teachers' difficulty. We have done oiit* best to safeguard them in every \v,?,y. A oq.uscience clause means that we are unanimously and determinedly opposed- to anything in the nature of religious tests-being applied to them.'' That was in 1904. In 1914 the Bible-in-schools <ompaigners are " unanimouslv and determinedly opposed " to "safeguarding" the teachers, and are now prepared to be party to the imposition of those religious tests which ten years ago thev repudiated and condemned, ■ (3) Prior to 1902 the merits and demerits of the referendum had not been subjected to the keen and illuminating examination and public discussion which thev have since received; and, in common with many other political candidates, I failed to advert to the fact that there are limits to its application, a.nd that there are questions and issues in regard to which ite adoption would open wide the door to injustice and persecution. As you truly say in your leader of Tuesday : ' ; There are some questions and problems that no majority has a right to claim to settle " ; and the moment the mind if directed to that aspect of the question it becomes obvious at once tba-t matters of religion and conscience belong emphatically to this category. The rights of conscience of minorities remain forever sacred and inviolable. Not electoral majorities, .mi<l not Parliament itself, but "God alone,"' as the Presbyterian ' Confession of Faith' save, "is lord of the conscience." *(4) Extreme pressure of other work _prevents me for the present from participating in the current controversy, but -while I have pen in hand. I would like to say that personally I am strongly convinced that the ghost of this vexed question will never be permanently laid until a solution is found along the lines of " settlement: by consent" of all parties. The "get-to-gether " principle will have to be extended beyond the circle of three or four select denominations. Let there be a round-table conference,-representative of all bodies.interested ; let all "proposals which violate rights of -conscience be rigorously -uled out; and there is reason to believe that a system could be evolved which would -leave the schools secular for those who desired it, and religious (on fair conditions) for the rest. I shall be told that this suggestion Is uterly Utopian—a mere idle dream. In reply. 1 point to Protectant Holland, where this very thing has been accomplished. Thirty years ago Catholics and Calvinists—the" la'tter represented by the Christian National Association —came to an understanding, with the result that a. fair all-round system was established. After a quarter of a century's trial,- jt is still in successful operation, and, judcing by the continued and increasing popularity of the political party which introduced it, is giving complete satisfaction. That which Old Zealand has so successfully accomplished is surelv not beyond the capabilities of New Zealand.—l am, etc.. J. A. Score. ■July 3