THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS CONTROVERSY.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 5312, 25 June 1904, Page 4

THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS CONTROVERSY.

-A, rejoinder b.y the Catholic Bishops to th« manifesto of the Bible-in-Schools Conference has been prepared and is published in another part of this i'ssue. This was perhaps hardly required, for the original manifesto of the Bishops was clear, logical and complete, and was in no particular shaken b.y the counterdocument issued by the Bible-in-Schools party. The merit of the rejoinder, which is longer-than the original tuanifesto, lies in the emphatic support it gives to former contentions, by means of amplification, iteration and illustration. It is therefore a pronouncement of value, and ought to exert a powerful influence in shaping public opinion, or more correctly, in confirming what we believe to be the view of the large majority of the people, in favour of the continuance of the free, compulsory and unsectarian system of pubho instruction that has for so many years yielded such excellent results in this country. The document which we publish today states in concrete form the arguments of the Bible-in-Schools party and advances powerful and lucid reasoning in reply to them. The first assertion—that the State has the right to teach religion in the public schools—is met by a direct negative. The functions of the State, it is pointed out, are purely secular. It is argued, also, that the State’s duty in the matter of education is merely a delegated one; tho primary duty rests upon parents. This contention rather obscures tho main issue, by opening the door to tho obvious retort that if parents may delegate one part of their duty to tho.seculivr government

they may delegate every part of it, including religions education. Tho reply to this will ho that tho State is incompetent to teach religion; but as tha State includes tiro Church, with its Bisnops. priests and clerics of all orders, the reply is nob altogether convincing. This branch of the argument is not, however, vital. ■ Tho main contention is that tha State, or Caesar, has no right to undertake work pertaining to th® moral and spiritual side of human nature. Conversely, we are pleased bo observe, tho Bishops admit that tho Church has no right to interfere in tho administration of tha temporal affairs of tho State. It is further argued that, even if tho State had the right to teach religion, it would bo unable to determine tha kind of religion that should bo taught in a country like this, whore thcro are so many diverse soots. Th® reasoning under this head is unanswerable. The endowment of every form of religions teaching being impracticable, it follows that tho only safe course for tho Slate to pursue is to confine itself to secular instruction. The second contention of tho Bible-in-Schools Conference—that tho proposed schema of Scriptural instruction is unsectarian—is handled in very trenchant fashion. Tho keynote of the rejoinder is that “thero is no such tiling as unsoctariau religious instruction.” and this thesis is ably maintained, while it is shown that tho proposed Scripture toxt-book is a sectarian production, drawn up by a sectarian- body, on sectarian linos, from a sectarian version of tho Scriptures. There is great cogency, too, in the statement made as to tho proportions of Protestant and Catholic clergymen who avail themselves of the facilities afforded for giving religious instruction in tha public schools “outsida of school hours.” Tha hollowness of tha “conscience clause” is exposed most effectively, and extracts from tha utterances of Biblo-iu-Schools advocates in Victoria aro given to provo that the ■Scripture lessons were expected to have the effect of converting Catholics to Protestantism, and that teachers who took advantage of the conscience clausa would be “removed elsewhere.”

Tho proposal for a so-called roferen> dum is last of all dealt with, briefly, but effectively. It is unnecessary to repeat tho arguments against this unconstitutional proposition. In this connection wo note that Archbishop Can-, in the course of a recent address in Melbourne, said that while Catholics wero not desirous of a referendum or plebiscite on the Bible-in-fichools question, they wero not afraid of it. They rely, as tho Bishops of Now Zealand do, upon the good sense of tho majority of tho people and upon the support of the secular press. If the question of Scripture teaching in schools were one of Roman Catholics versus Protestants, wo might soon seo a text-book introduced that would herald the break-up of our education system. Happily, however, the people of this country recognise that the principles of justice are superior to the claims of contending sects, and that tho policy of keeping secular and religious matters apart and independent is best calculated to promote the harmonious development of our national life.