CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLVI, Issue XLVI, 2 June 1914, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

RELIGIOUS TEACHING.

To the Editor. Sir,— l. In Thursday's Star Mr<£l»- <? mires asked me to say it my remarks ' ' SV 11? , aecilcation at i,he St. Patricks'* r fcohooi had been correctly reported, lix ■< Friday's, Star I informed him that th* \-< excellent report was not a verbatim, •' one, and to remove every possibility oi misunderstanding, I took a sentenoo , <'' which he considered to be "utterly,mis- ***» leading,' and without changing its es- ' ~'i sential meaning, gave it with its con- - ['•- text in the very words which I flad spoken. In Saturday's* Star he ignore \•/ these very words supplied by me at his. '^ own request, and bases a seoond letter -\> on the words which, himself confessing, y-' had originally mislead him. . I r^ret to "*.- have to say that this is a contribution ; «*" to what might be an interesting dis- " -* cussion^jvhich is neither fair nor just, ■ < £ and while it seems to suggest that1 my '< friend is not willing "to play- tha ■'• game,' it has the additional disadvant- i age of leaving himself and many of ■'!, his fellow Protestants under the mis- -i, taken idea that I was not willing ta -'v recognise and acknowledge the good v-, work that they were endeavoring to dq» for God and hiinian souls. ,T, % 2: In Friday's letter I wrote that certain churchmen held that the people> o"r, of New Zealand had the. right to say r what (in the matter of religion) should ' *' be taught in the people's schools. Mir •' ' % Blamires does not feel called upon to ' ', consider the morality or the immorality - •' of this, scandalous declaration on the -, part 4f churchmen; he contents himself - with saying that the words inserted ia. - ; brackets in my- quotation from the ' Bible-in-Schools manifesto are my own. ''handiwork, and are not found either "' m word or meaning in the manifesto." „■ /' lam here clearly charged with the *" crime of .falsifying an important docu-' '-■ ment issued by churchmen who claim to represent 74 per cent. ,of the population. But is the charge true? First let it be clearly understood that the ac-, tual words "in the matter of religion ,r -- 1 are not in the manifesto. Next let it be noticed that. I was careful to put them out of the direct quotation hy enclosing them in brackets, the usual' , literary way of showing that they were not a direct quotation, but my own personal summary or interpretation of the original writers' more extended de- y claration. After this all that ' J to ask is if my critic ie ignorant of this use of brackets and if his ignorance is sufficient warrant for making: such a deadly charge , against me. *> • But he goes further and says that the words are not found in the mani- * festo even "in meaning." This ©f course, involves a question of literary< judgment and interpretation.' In my' . judgment the fact that the authors oF the manifesto are expressing their dci. ," termination to have religion taught dn. the State schools, is written in every ' ' line of the manifesto, and is as clear a» the printedl characters upon the white page that contains them. Indeed, wo are not left to skill in interpretation: „ ' to discover thie fact; the manifested '. itself in black-leaded type, asks "WJby - should there be religious instruction- in State Schools?" And it answers: "Be- ' cause education is not complete which: does not make provision for the teach- ' inig of morality, and morality cannot, A he taught without a religious foundation."

To make even more clear the truth* .^ t of my contention that the manifesto i*, < ' treating of religion, let me ask of what* is it treating if not of religion. Surely the clerical promoters of the League do not claom the right to dictate howgeographyor,grammar, or spelling ia V to be taught in the State schools. Such ' right of, dictation Christ did not give

even to the Catholic Church; in these, matters the State is supreme. And yet it is in these matters that the churchman must he interfering if the statement of my critic is true. Let this Re-1 ' ductio ad Absurdum conclude my refutation of the charge levelled against me. To-morrow I ."'will deal with the ' -second part of Mr Blamires' letter in jv manner which, being lo&$ personal, will be more pleasant to «dl. ' , P. J. POWER. v

P.S.—Since my assertion has "heen. > categorically denied by Mr Blamires; - and his assertion categorically denied by me, your readers who may not know whom te believe, can test this" matter for themselves by '■■ referring to the manifesto published' in the Wanganui Chronicle of Wednesday, May 20, which ia filed in the public reading room.— P. J. P.