RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13745, 9 May 1908, Page 7

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.

VIEWS OF CORRESPONDENTS, ' TO THE EDITOR. - . Sir, Mr. Scott-Moncrieff has evidently P not yet had time in his short stay in New ' Zealand to learn the principle and ideal of , our political institutions, of which the education system is one. The able and farseeing, men who were at the shaping of tiiis young nation's destinies, deliberately placed themselves in line with that movement of the modem spirit which is compelling all Governments to withdraw from ecclesiastical affairs, and removing mutters of religion more and more from political control to private* management. There is a profound difference between the corporate life of a nation and the functions which the nation assigns to its executive arm. We may be a Christian nation in a certain sense, considered as a people," hut the. Government of New Zealand cannot in any dogmatic sense be said to beeither Christian or Pagan. We -have here no established religion. The civil Government is subject to no ecclesiastical interference, and the Churches are subject to no civil authority in matters of belief. All religious institutions are absolutely eoual in-the eyes of our Government. Church I and State are separate. The State attempts no religious functions and possesses ] no religious dogma, ft stands apart 'from leligious matters in absolute neutrality. Religion is a department- of our national life from which -the civil Government re- j tires, not because it is unimportant, but because the experience* of age* has shown that it is better for the State that- politics should he free from .religious disputes, and better for the Churches that they should be. free from despotism and corruptions of political interferences "The secularisation of politics," said the late Mr. Lecky, "is the measure and condition of all .political prosperity," and we may add that the 'separation of religion from the State is the measure anil condition of all religious prosperity. The only way to make religion real and vital is to take it out of the reach of officialism, and, to locate it in the individual heart. The demand that there shall lie religious instruction in out public schools by '"allowing the Christian school-teacher and the Christian minister to have an integral, and not an accidental place in that system, is tantamount to demanding that the State shall establish a religion. Which shall we establish? Who is to decide which is the Christian teacher and which is the Christian minister? What shall be the test and who is to formulate the test? Who is to answer these questions, and how shall we give any ...affirmative • answer at all without violating the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, without, doing injustice to some of the community, without ceasing to maintain our present ideal of the States' protectorship overall Churches alike, and over those who arc of no chinch -—in other words the State's absolute neutrality—in matters of religion? Let us understand the real issue Mr. Scott-Moorieft's political ideal is not the present ideal of New Zealand, and-to discard our present system in favour of his would be to turn our backs upon the deepest movements and most patent lessons of modern history. That- which we are striving for, in the light of the past and present experience of other countries, .is a. State where politics shall be '-free from sectarian rancour, education from theological despotisms, and science from the yoke of tradition; where every man shall be secure in "the exercise of his oiyn religious or (so-called) irreligious convictions, and where no man shall be obliged to contribute to the support of a dogma which he disbelieves. Such an ideal is best for the State, and best for religion. Both thrive best in the { atmosphere of freedom. - Christianity itself thrives best when every man is given a chance to find and live the true, the beautiful, and the good in his own way, so long as lie does not trespass upon the rights of others. William Jellie. Unitarian Church. Sir,—-Referring to the learned and some* what lengthy "summing up" by Sir Robert Stout on Bishop Neligan's alleged criticism of our secular system of education, published in your supplement of Saturday last. I think it will strike many of your readers that, to ask Sir Robert Stout for his opinion as to. the value of religious teaching in the schools, would be about as satisfactory as to have asked Huxley and Spencerwhom he mentions —their opinions on the efficacy of prayer, from the Christian's standpoint. The opinions in both case would be a foregone conclusion. Therefore, it seems to me, that whoever asked Sir Robert for his views, did so knowing full well on which side they would lie. I think that the best-part of Sir Robert's paper is where he counsels caution and patience on the part of the public, as to what the Bishop really did say. As Chief Justice of the Dominion Sir Robert is in a better position than anybody else to know that " it is a fact that relatively to the population the Christian Churches that insist most on having Church schools have more persons in our prisons, and in our charitable institutions than those Churches which are content with non-denominational schools." Truly, this is a terrible indictment., for what does it mean? If it means anything it means, to put it tersely, that the less Christian religious teach we have, the better we are ; and that the whole of such teaching during the last 1900 years lias been not only so much time wasted, but has been a positive impediment to the betterment of mankind. Sir Robert says that New Zealand is, considering the population, less criminal to-day than it was 40 years ago; while our local magistrates have been reported several times lately as saying that juvenile crime is alarmingly on the' increase. Evidently our, magistrates are not as much impressed as the Chief Justice is with the admirable results of our secular system, in- further praise of which Sir Robert says: 'II know our children are better trained than they were under the denominational/system." It would be interesting to know what he means by better trained." If he means in purely secular knowledge, lie may be right, but V I doubt whether many will agree with him, that children generally have the same respect for the opinions and authority of their parents and elders, that they had, or are as courteous and gentle in their manners and mode of speech as they were, under the denominational system. There lias been a distinct weakening of authority all along the line. And how could it be otherwise, when the Highest Authority and ideals have been ignored? As one who believes that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" I am entirely opposed to the secular system, as, it seems to me, in a Christian country such a system is both" illogical and inconsistent. It obviously implies that the religious training of the child is subordinate to the secular training. The State must see that every child is taught a certain amount of secular knowledge, •but that which relates to its spiritual life', and that which the majority consider to be the source, mainspring, and guide, of good conduct and happiness, can, if taught at all, be taught by either its parents, its Church, or anybody else: but the State cannot undertake it. - Why? Because it is such an exceedingly difficult problem— I grant—that- the State prefers to run away from it. Well, to my mind this is a, most ignoble position for the State to take up, viz., to shirk its responsibility. But is it really such an insoluble - problem? And is not the " wrangling of the sects" much more of a bogey than a reality? I, for one, do not despair that when the people wake up from their extraordinary and, to me, inexplicable indifference in this and other matters connected with the State, systemised religious instruction will be brought back into the schools. And however strongly Bishop Neligan may have spoken against the effects of a purely secular education, I consider he was perfectly justified in doing so, and in doing his very utmost to combat such effects. Since writing this letter I have read the very able and trenchant one by the Rev. Scott-Moncrieff, and I feel sure that all Christians, of whatever denomination, will heartily appreciate his spirited appeal on behalf of Christianity as opposed to secularism. Sidney Weetman. Epsom.