BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12609, 25 June 1904, Page 6

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

ROMAN. CATHOLIC OBJECTIONS.

> STATEMENT BY NEW ZEALAND BISHOPS. ; Tint Roman Catholic Bishops of New Zea--1 land hunt issued a lengthy rejoinder to the manifesto of the Bible in Schools Conference (which was published in the New Zealand Herald. of May 25). The following are the . salient paints of the pronouncement: By way of rejoinder to a recent manifesto, we submit to the consideration of our fellow eolonistii of every creed the following further criticisms of proposals to introduce into the State schools, as "part of the school curriculum under the inspectors," a scheme of lessons and prayers from the Protestant authorised veifßion of the Bible, " with simple explanationii of a literary, historical, and ethical character," and with a conscience clause for pupils and teachers. This scheme, as presented to the public by its official advocates, involves (1) a complete subversion of one of tfie three fundamental principles of the Education Act; (2) an entire! changed attitude on the part of tho Civil Government towards religion, and religious denominations; (ii) the conversion of State school teachers into religious instructors: (44 the compuliorj' payment of taxes by Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, and sther recusants for the teaching of a form of religion to which, on grounds of conscience, they object; and (5) a resort to a referendum (or rather to a plebiscite) to decide questions affecting rights Oil conscience. Upon the official advocates of a scheme of such far-reaching import naturally falls the burden of justifying it, if they can, by clear and cogent reasons of publio necessity or (convenience. Thus far, however, they have failed to do so. Our recent criticism of their manifesto has, on the contrary, been met with the amazing contention that it devolves upon objectors l» show cause why the new project should not receive legislative effect. The remainder of the document is made un of a series of unsupported statements and false assumptions, which may be set forth in the following propositions:— (l) That the Civil Government has the right to teach religion in the public schools; (2) that the proposed scheme oil Scriptural instruction is " unsectarian;' (3) that a conscience clause is ample protection for objectors; (*) that this question of conscience may be fairly decided by a referendum. STATE RIGHTS. •• It is asserted that the Civil Government has the right to teach religion in the public schools. Even if our Government possessed such a right, it could not, without grave injustice to large bodies of citizens, adopt the scheme of religious instruction which is now before the public. But Christian philosophy. Catholic and Protestant alike, denies the existence of any such right. The function of the Civil Administration is the protection of the rights and the promotion of the material well-being of the people. It is a secular organisation for secular purposes. The duty of religious instruction devolves upon parents and the Christian Church (we are speaking here of a Christian country). The relation of parent to child is earlier than that of the State to the citizen. And the duty of the physical, intellectual, moral, and religious growth and development of the child falls primarily and by right upon those who were the immediate cause of its —namely, upon its parents. These rights of parents and the Christian Church are not a civil grant. They are rights of the Creator, against which no man and no human organisation has any rights. They are rights of the spiritual order, which is anterior and superior to the State or secular order. They can neither be surrendered nor taken away, and every Government is bound to respect them by the very law which justifies its own existence. Parents can nevfer entirely free themselves from the natural obligation outlined above. They mav, however, in part delegate that duty—as. for instance, to paid tutors or teachers. We by no means deny that the Civil Government may, through its proper officers, act as a teacher to those who ar«i willing to accept such instruction as its limitations allow it to impart. But the'right to instruct does not, by itself, imply the right to educate—the right to teach arithmetic does not necessarily include the right to teach religion. Moreover, the right of teaching is not inherent to the civil power. Its right, like that of the private tutor, is secondary and delegated. The parents always remain the "principals. They, with the Christian Church, are in a special and exclusive manner responsible to God for all that pertains to the moral and religious training of children. That.is a duty of the higher and purely spiritual order. But even if the Civil Government had the right—and it emphatically has not—U impart religious instruction in schools, it would, in countries situated as New Zealand, is, be /debarred from the exercise of that right by its inability to determine what quantity and kind of religion it would teach. Our Government could only determine this matter in on© of two ways: by its own authority, or by reference to some authority outside itself. Now, if it has the right to decide for itself what shall' be the religion of the public schools, 'no individual and no religious organisation would have any right as against this (supposed) right of the State. For it isi an axiom that rights cannot clash. The Protestant statesmen of to-day might direct Protestant, teaching in the schools. But the agnostic or infidel statesmen of to-morrow might direct infidel teaching as " part of the school curriculum;" and (in the hypothesis) nobody would have any right of protest or disobedience. But let us suppose that the* Government allows a religious denomination or a group out of the odd scores of religious denominations in the country— decide the kind of religion it shall have taught in the public schools. ; This (as an eminent American writei has remarked) would be 11 an official recognition of such religious denomination or group as the State creed— as the only true exponent of revealed truth, and as: the guardian of the State in faith and morals." And this , grave public wrong would. lie still further . aggravated by compelling dissentients of every creed to pay taxes, from which they could derive no benefit, in order to defray the cost of teaching a State religion to which, on jTOunds of i conscience, they object. I

11.--A SECTARIAN SCHEME. It is asserted (with, as usual, no attempt ; at proof) that the scheme <of Scripture instruction and prayers is " unsectarian." But this is a mere campaign watchword. But there in no such thing as unsectarian religious instruction. That is sectarian which pertains! to a particular sect or denomination or school of religious thought. An .unsectairian religion would, in its fast analysis, be a religion which takes no particular view of, or attitude towards, religion. Which is an absurdity. Take the simplest form of religion— in the existence of God. Thisis sectarian to the atheist, the agnostic, and the. non-religionist generally, just as their views on religionwhich are usually as clearly defined, so far as they go, as those of Jew or Christian to the Theist, sectarian. "The Victorian text'-book" is a sectarian production, drawn up by a sectarian body on sectarian lines. Its scheme of "religious instruction" consists of a series of lessons taken from a sectarian version of the Scriptures, namely,* the Authorised Version, with oral explanations, repetitions, and " moral instructions," for the purpose of " impressing the truths advanced" upon the minds of the pupils. From that incorrect and sectarian version of the Bible those .sectarian commissioners selected a great many passages to servi- as lesson books. But in the process (as we are prepared to amply demonstrate) they, with apparently elaborate care, (a) weeded out every passage that tells in favour of Catholic doctrine; (b) they flung aside everything— the story of the virgin birth of the Saviour of the world— that might seem to contradict their respective conflicting beliefs or disbeliefs; and (c) —as wb,3 previously stated by us and in no way denied—they contrived, by this shameful garbling and mutilation of God's Written Word, bo make the lessons appear " as Protesten'; as they could well be made in the circumstances." It is proposed to introduce this scheme of sectarian religious instruction," with only "somj slight verbal alterations," into the public schools of New Zealand.

-THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE. It is asserted that a conscience clause would afford ample protection for objectors. In our previous pronouncement we pointed out that, by the provisions of the very conscience clause that is suggested for use in New Zealand, all children of objectors would be subjected to compulsory proselytism unless they go to school armed with formal written protests against religious instruction. This is not denied. Jt would also be inevitable that a great number of teachers would, at leasi. unconsciously, tinge their explanations with their own particular beliefs of lack of religious belief. We are told that the Government, in its (Treat clemency, does not " force" Catholics to send their children to the schools for which they are taxed. The taunt i.; as untrue as it is ungenerous and unfair. Over vast areas of the colony the State has a complete monopoly of primary Instruction. There is ho alternative system. Catholic parents are forced by the compulsory clauses of the Education Act to send

their children to those schools. Moreover, one-roomed schools ! are a feature of the farspreading districts to which we refer. In such schools the conscience clause would obviously be a mockery and a sham if the proposed scheme of" religious instruction" were to form "part 'of the curriculum." The Education Act in Victoria does not permit religious instruction till school has been actually dismissed, and then (according to the regulations) " all pupils whose parents do not object may remain" {i.e., are permitted, but not compelled, to remain) " for that purpose.'" But evidence in abundance wail given by non-Catholic witnesses before the Victorian Royal Commission which clearly proved that not alone the quoted conscience clause framed by the Department, but also the provision of the Education Act referred to above, was openly, consciously, habitually and flagrantly violated, and to the detriment of Catholic and Jewish children. A conscience clause is no protection for Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or other objectors. Religious tests for teachers and for members of school boards and school committees are tho natural and inevitable corollary to the scheme that is at present before the country. iv.— REFERENDUM. " The advocates of the scheme for capturing the public schools for sectarian purposes wish to submit this question of conscience to what they call a "referendum" of the people of New Zealand. But what they, in reality, propose is a mere plebiscite. It has not even the essential condition of an " initiative." Much less is it a referendum; for a true referendum is a popular vote for the purpose of ratifying or vetoing a, Legislative Act already passed by Parliament. Might and moral right are not convertible terms. The rights of conscience of a minority, however small, aro as sacred and inviolable as these of a majority, however great. God gave them. Man cannot lawfully take them away. The proposed plebiscite is, in its last analysis, an undemocratic attempt, by a group of clergymen, to secure legislative sanction for the principle that a majority may deprive a minority of its rights of conscience and pick its pockets to meet the expenses of tho process. And our protests are met with the heartless reminder that we are free to turn ourselves into a majority—if we can! V.—CONCLUSION. We have endeavoured to treat this grave public question from the national rather than from the denominational standpoint. Our position is not. dictated by ulterior motives or mere expediency. It rests on the rock basis of principles of right rule which are applicable to Catholics, and to non-Catholics alike. 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 of its faith, so long as this can be done without detriment or danger to the faith and the religious sentiments of the children of other creeds. But we , will strenuously resist the introduction into our country of principles of government which would violate or menace those Codgiven rights which wo can never abdicate, and which no power on earth can lawfully take away. W. J. Lewis. S.M. (Administrator of the Archdiocese of Wellington), J. J. Grimes, S.M. (Bishop of Christchurch). Ml. Tkrdon* (Bishop of Dunedin), Geo. M. Lenihan (Bishop of Auckland).