A RIGHTEOUS REFERENDUM

Evening Star, Issue 15539, 8 July 1914, Page 5

A RIGHTEOUS REFERENDUM

[By the Rev, Ron but Wood.]

Mr John Cau|Wey has v«r serious cb- ■ lections to the people eepresring their mind on the ovestion of toe Bible in (schools. In Wellington tbe other week a speaker at a public meeting asked; “.To whom do the n*hoole belong! Who stm*p.ivts them, and 'or what purpose? Who js to decide whether the Bible and religions instruction are to be given in them or not!" That is the qwsrtnm before the renders of the • Star.’ and the answer of dun average mu is as plain as ARC. In the words of l)s' Rev. i. Heed Glnsgon, une of the most prominent Congregational % nvininters in New Zealand : The answer is jdatn. The- schools belong ‘o the people, arc supported by the people, and the people must, in the last ref-ort, routed h*m> ‘ Government ..{ the people by the people fur the people ’ is a sound democratic principle. The right of the jieopi-e to govern themselves and to control their own institutions has been won at tremendous cost, and any movement that tends to undermine or curtail this right should be.arefu’ly scrutinised ami strenuously resisted, lest'this dearly-bought right be lost again. Mr John C'aughley comes on the scene to irv to rob the people of their freedom, and hi’> methods of controversy arc somewhat peculiar. He makes a statement that 1 c asks his readers to accept as an axiom--something as settled as is the law of cravitation, and by a question-begging method rules out a proposed reform as titterlv impossible and alvurd. For example, he has gone up and down the country saying that it is not the function of the State t-> have anything to do with religion, and tiiorefore to have the Bible in the schools

> unreasonable and absurd. Mr Gaughlev has on the- luuk of his mind some absuid ii.nioii what the function oi the ht-ate is. and because the Bible-Ut-schools pro|K>sal tines not- jump with Mr John Gaughley s preconceived notions the proposal must '■ e rejected. At tins time •-.y oay a man is simply an intelligent- fossil who rules out any reform by tire application of an a priori theory about tin? function of the State. The late Principal Rainy, of Scotland. a man with a statesman-like grasp of tilings, had to f:t,e in 1872 in Scotlanu these qae*t ion-begging met bids ol opp'xdtknr to the Bible in sciiocl-. urged by some extreme voluntaries, and he had to point out that it was only lads under 21 rears of age or men who stopped growing .it 21 years of age who settled great pra, - tical questions such as the Bible in sohoo.s by the application cf any a priori theory about the function of lire State. _ In this Dominion of cut s tire Government is simply the Executive of the people, and the wnl of the people must rule. Another favorite method of trying to block the Bible-in-schools refo: tn* adopted by Mr John CaughIcv is found in an abstract notion of justile that he has at tire back of his head. He expounds in his cwn i-evuliav way tins abstract doctrine of justice, and shows cont!u>; i t-Iv that the Bible and religion should be banned in our public schools'. Life is too short to waste time on such sophistical trilling with a great and grave question. The practical question is: "To whom d.» the scno-.ls belong, and who are lontrouing them 1” Do our schools existlor the schoolmasters or do the schoolmasters exist for the school! Does our postal svstem exist for the people or for tin- poet office officials! Do our railways exist for the j-eople or do our railways exist for the railway officials? The answers to these quest ions are clearly and emphatically that these great institutions •x-At for'the people, and the people should have ultimately the control of them. With regard to religious instruction in ■ Litcois, the wishes of The jieoplo must be .v.nied out. and Mr Gaughleys theories must not be allowed to block a- necessary ,-erorm. What is asked for with regard to Mir educational system in New Zealand by the Bible in State Schools League is a change tiiat would strengthen tbe system, and make it- more truly national. By the vote of the Democracy in the council schools in England Bible lessons have their place nigh universally? In the hoard schools of Scotland, by the votes iif the Democracy, the Bible has its place in the common schools. In most, of the States m the Australian Commonwealth the same, condition of tlungs obtains, and now when Parliament 16 asked to give the iit-oph? the mover at the ballox-box -of Faying that ti.-y wish our national schools of New Zoaic’.Ki brought into lino with the national s heels generally of our Kmphe. Mr l : a mi Kiev comes on the scone, and s, y> - This !ca--"na!ilo, and righteous pro- . p.!sa! a-, an altogether iniquitous thing." Mr i.bingiday's sophistical objections arc simply aiisind. The request for a Referendum is. I submit. oi e of the sanest and most ivasonable icijin-ii s that was ever made to Parliamentbv a- i--dy -of intelligent electors. It is simple a. .’act in the educational history of New Zeala-lid that the Pubic was fired out ».f the schools in siii',.- of the wishes of t>ir I’, t.. Bo ,\ei.. then Minister of Education, by a \ote n. the House of Representatives, •u i> the ;■> p.e ever having been consul ud. 'J he Gtugo Education .Board. the hoc;; :.i ir.d and fhe school committees _•* :.vr;T, jv throughout Otago and Southland pn-f.-si-.-J when the i>y.-.tcm was set up again-r :lir- nx-lusi-.ii .■! the Bible. ti-ci,- and again, e-snei -ally ;u Otago-, and tin cc-ioe oi vast •-■rili-.-s have always Vi.lol lor !-h- re.-toi at-.ou ,-i the Bible. ? J he Pr-t.-lo :<; into in UUigc- parted with the income of in, ir edui-.-.i;--:.:.! inheritance in. -.in interest -l in,- Otago University at a time viieii the Bii..],- was ir. the schools of O,ago. anil the lunging of the Bible out jf the public schools amounted to a. Ih--lroyal of the confidence that, the ITesbytenai.s of Oiag.- had placed in a-n andcr.oniioalionai system - f education where the Bible was recognised. Had tho Ptesb\ tc. :uns foreseen that -nir educational svstem would be- rc,laced to such a er-udi-t:i •!i as would jrotily Dr Chary saying that the “‘1 he flag of Christ, was tireii d iwn in our schools.” and that "God and His law were made as contraband as pipe opium," they would never have parted with oile penny of their education inheritance. While I quote Dr Oleary's statement, I do not- accept it as a true description of our national educational system, l.ut the Presbyterians of Otag-» have a sin-cial grievance, and their special grievance has been clearly and distinctly pointed out to the Premier, and the special grievance and the special injustice meted oat. to lire Pres by t-f* rains all go to show th»- righteousness of the Referendum asked lor at tills stage. M. John Gaughley’s polemic against the Bible in schools is chiefly directed to the fiisi plank of the platform of the league. He has hltlo to say against tho second id.ink of the league's platform, for the ic-ason that lie favors tho entry into theschools just now on the Basis of our present Education Act, which no more legalists ministers entering the schools to give religious instruction than it legalises the entrance of a Punch anil Judy showmen. Fnder the so-called Nelson system flic <i >or is opened for proselytiem. but I-..-ter the league's system this evil is utieily impossible I Under Mr John Gauiihley's non-legal or illegal entry of mi Listens into the schools a religious teacher who has actually no children or huidiv any children in tho school count-, led with, his -own denomination, may enter the school and teach children in -cores. This is a sectarianism that tho league's tight or entry makes utterly impmsibk-. The league’s right of entry was not devised by ecclesiastics for sectarian and fur proselytising ends,, but it- was a compromise on the religion framed by statesmen—a compromise that in New bouth Wales ir. ISBO -onded denominationalistn. and this compromise on religious teaching works without friction wherever it has been set up, and . Ives satisfaction to all religious denominations, save the Roman Catholics, who in New Zealand spend their time in denouncing our secular system M a “ Godless ” system, and who want our national system snaked up and their denominational schools supported out of the national funds. The league’s platform removes the tt-proach of “Godless” fixed on our national system by Roman Catholics, and ends Bibie-in-sehcols agitation on the part of religious bodie* that represent 75 2*er cent, of the population. Consideration of theoe facts all go to wove that the ca»e for the RefennenduKt is k» '-don a at rong a nd u mihakable foundatian.