ON RELIGION IN SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4483, 27 March 1876, Page 3

ON RELIGION IN SCHOOLS.

To the Editor of tho Hekau). Sir, —The question of teaching religion in Government schools is strangely still up, and is a disturbing element in the politics of Sydney and Melbourne. Also, it was very recently re-submitted in all seriousness to the educational authorities here. It is truly surprisirg that in this our day any intelligent person can suppose it morally possible fov any general secular government to support any particular spiritual religion. Most manifestly it is morally impossible; and I do think that the whole thing ought to have been for a good while past regarded as, and reckoned up, a settler. The confuted arguments of a section of educationists are being repeated; and through the columns of the Southern Gross newspaper (possibly with the dissent of tho conductor) we have lately had letter after letter, backed by a passage of Mr. James Wallis's printed lecture, advocating the stale, stolid dogma, exposed and exploded some years ago, that we ought to compel, by force of law, the Jews and Pajiists and all others, friends and foes, to support our grand old Bible, especially in common day schools. The repetition is annoying, because it was thought that enough had afore been said on it in opposition. Now it is iterated and reiterated, persistently asserted and publicly set forth, ay, and sometimes with a twang of the martyr spirit, that all of us who hold, if secular governments do provide schooling, it must be purely, only, and solely secular,—that we are so thereby proved and even demonstrated to be hostile to the Bible, and advocates in effect of atheism. This is really monstrous, and scarcely worthy of further notice. The pertinant question is this : as secular governments cannot legitimately provide any possible sort or kind of religion, should they be permitted to appoint, or to pay for, or to meddle with any description of public schooling? That is a fair question; and it allows of honorable difference in belief. I happen to believe that secular governments can properly, aud should surely and fully provide the secular elements of education., or the simple instruments of knowledge, as reading, writing, and ciphering. Notwithstanding, be it observed, it is perfectly open to any honorable man who believes that religion (perhaps las religion) should be taught in week-day schools to carry out his opinion, start the schools and himself pay for them. There is no proscription ; none whatever; either formal or in effect; not any; although some seem to assume there is a positively imposed legal obstacle ; nothing of the kind; and unless it can be shewn that reading, writing, and ciphering, are per se bad (it is a stupidly absurd contradiction to say any educationalists can deem them bad), the talk about exemption from the common taxation must appear idle, if not foolish. All are agreed that they are really good instruments, and such universal agreement should settle that urged x>oint about taxation, for by common consent, the teaching of reading, writing, and ciphering, for which all alike must pay, is good, as fr.- as it goes. Assuredly, Government cannot, must not, will not compel, by force of law, our neighbours the Jews and Papists, for instance, to support the Protestant Christians' New Testament. Well, the political distinction thus X>laiuly put should surely suffice. The economic deprrtmeut of the question, or the. incidence of any tax, I do not now touch..—l am, &c, W. E. Sadleh. March 23, IS7G. P. S. (25th).— -J. Wood is uncivil. His " grotesque" incivility is grounded in literary error. —S.