MR DAVIS AND THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6149, 24 October 1881, Page 4

MR DAVIS AND THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—Mr Davis' reasons for opposing the rointroduction of. Bible-reading in the public schools are peculiar, and merit the attention of the electors of Dunediii Eass—by way of caution. His first reason is that as the last House of Keprcsentatkes refused the courtesy of a first reading: to Dr 3fenzies' bill after it passed the Upper House, he thought it " hopeless to expect the House would now reconsider the question." . Mr Davis assumes that he or others likeminded will unquestionably form tho" majority of tbo new Parliament. Even if this were certain to be the case, it says little for the courtesy ol Mr Davia that ho should appear to approve of such gross disregard or contempt; for the opinions of the thousands of electors throughout the Colony who desire to have the Bible read in the schools. The very least that should bs accorded would bo a patient hearing of what they had to urge in support of their proposals. That, however, according to.Mr Davis, it is hopclesa to expect, and therefore he holds that the proposal should be condemned. A solitary traveller passing a road infested by highwaymen is certain to be robbed and maltreated in spite of his piteous appeals; therefore, according to Mr Davis' logic, " serve him right." Mr Davis may discover that the electors do not approve of such discourtesy, nor yet ot tho lop-sided logic founded upon it. His second reason for being a Secularist is that ho considers the present secular system just. His notion of justice is evidently peculiar. If he means by justice equality, in the sense of giving to all that which they approve of, and nothing to which they object, the present secular system is not Just. It allows books of history to be used which Roman Catholics, do not approve of, and books professing to deal with science which present doctrines that are opposed to tho conscientious convictions of many. But even it were equal, it would not therefore be just. The fox that lost its tail argued that all the other foxes in tho Colony should be deprived of theirs," otherwise), there would be inequality, and therefore injustice. Tho other foxes, however, did not see it in that ligrht. If Homan Catholics choose to leave the Bible in tho hands of their priests, and Freethoughtt6t3 find theirs in the saltatory movements of their physical understandings, it is no requirement of justice that, the overwhelming majority of the colonists should be prevented from receiving the educational benefits which in their judgment nothing else but tho Bible can supply. But where does tho injustice arise to either Roman Catholic, Jew, or nondescript Lyceum supporter ? If he objects to tho half-hour's Bible-rending'ho Is not obliged to take it. If he claims his full pound of ilesh ho may take it out in writing, arithmetic,. or gymnastic exercise in an adjoining room. Perhaps it is alleged that Biblaroading would bo unjust to tho schoolmaster if he happened to belongto any of these sects. If he were forced to subscribe to it it might be so, but tho more reading or hearing it read is an act so harmless that it would never havebeen complained of, except by those who wero determined to object and could find no solid reason for doinir so. A prominent Lyceum supporfco was recently so forgetful of all justice(of this visionary kind) that Bitting on the Bench ho adminstcred to & witness the solemn Scotch oath which declares that doctrine of the Biblo, " I shall answer to God at the great day of judgment." Some men can strain at gnats and swallow camels, llr Davis will not find tho electors moved by his second reason any more than by his first.. They know too well that the 6ecular system satisfies only the motley band of Freothoughtists. All else arc. either opposed to it, or submit to it under the mistaken and disagreeable feeling that it is a necessity in order to avoid something worse-as tho rat caught in the trap gnaws off its tail to save its bacon. Mr Davis' third reason does not help him much. He says "that the Pounder of Christianity taught that the responsibility for religion should be on the Church, and the family, and tho individual, and not on tho State." True; but did Tj e ever teach that the responsibility for tho education of children rested not-on families, not on individuals, but on the State? Did He ever teach that tho education of the. j'oung was to be carried out without any regard to religion or the law of God 1 Moat certainly lie never taughtr'either tho one thing - or the other. If then, tho education of the young must be carried out in connection with religion aud with the knowledge of God's law, and if the State takes to itself the responsibility of the parent m educating tko young, It can only fulfil this duty by acquainting them with, ths Word of God. Mr Dana holds very limited views, of the function of a politician when ho says, " he haslo do with education and philanthropic measures simply with an cyo to that ulterior purpose -viz., how far the spread of intelligencevould conserve its material interests"; but even' m that low ground it requires little demonstration ;o convince those who are open to reason that a. generation trained m the knowledge of God's Word is. irobably much morc| likely to'promoto the matoriall ntcrests of tho country than one trained only in the> ihree R's and their usual concomitants, but who' ;now and own no authority to which they are responriblo oxcept the "schoolmaster or parents within, loors, and tho policeman without. I would suggest -o Mr Davis that when noxt he givos his views on the 3ibl«.in-schoqls question ho should for his own sate rlvc them without renaons, or else borrow some, i£ hoy can be found, that aro loss absurd.—l am* kc, A Parext. Dunedin, October 21st.

A bund of 50 brigands reaontly attacked ;ho mall courii-r near Bliek, in Herzegovina. Pha marauders killed ivtn of the soldiers of too escort, and carried off the money cosainod in the niail-u gs.