RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12957, 26 April 1904, Page 6

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS.

The long and significant silenca of the Roman Catholic communion in regard to tho agitation for the introduction of religious instruction in schools has been broken, and the weighty pronouncement of the Bishops in conference at Wellington, which wo published on Saturday last, must command respectful attention 011 all sides. The position hitherto taken up by the Roman Catholics lent an element of uncertainty to the outcome of the movement, and it cannot now be argued by any strotcli of imagination that the position of the Bible-in-schoois party is improved, On the contrary, we think it has been materially weakened, and the case far the supporters of the present system has been strengthened on some of its main points by the manifesto of the Bishops. The position of the movement at the . present time is that the Bible-iu-sehools party, having partially compromised its sectarian differences and prepared a somewhat doubtful issue for submission to the public, is awaiting the decision of the Government in the matter of a referendum. Wo have on several occasions expressed the opinion that a referendum is probably the only way of a disposing of the question, and wo hope that the agitation by that means may.,, sooner or later be suppressed through the declaration of the will of the people. In the specific statement of the attitudo of the Roman Catholic Church, now presented for the first time, the Bishops mako it clear that, while they havo never asked for a grant for religion? education, they continue to urge then claim to a share of the public expenditure on education for tlio secular instruction which is given in the schools they have gone to the expenso of esfcablishing. The distinction is rather fine ;■ ' but unquestionably if tie State were to set up as a teacher of the Protestant religion it gives its Catholic subjects a clear title to State aid for the instruction of their children in the tenets ol their faith. And it is because the- present scheme of the Bible-in-scliools party is beset with such pitfalls as this would involve that we believe it will never commend itsolf to the people of the colony. The irony of a situation

created by a clerical party which endeavours to thrust upon State officials the duty of religion teaching is too patent to require elaboration, and the scanty extent to which representatives of the churches embrace their present opportunities for giving religious teaching to the children outside of school hours speaks for itself. It has been argued that to conduct Bible classes under the conditions of which ministers and others interested may now avail themselves is to bring religious truths into competition with the pastimes of the children, and thus to cheapen them; but the experience of a worthy and sincere worker like Mr Duncan Wright, who instructs hundreds of children after public school hours in this city, goes to show that the effort is worth making. We are quite in accord with tho Bishops in their dictum " that the religious education of youth is the fundamental duty of parents and of the Christian ministry," and that " that sacred duty the clergy can never abdicate, either wholly or in part, in favour of tho State"; and we agree that the State "has neither right nor competency to set up as a teacher of religion, nor to usurp the spiritual duties of any of its subjects." Tho supporters of the Bible-iu-schools platform will probably disclaim the suggestion that they are requiring the State to do anything of the kind, and they might possibly succeed in inducing a fairly large section of the public, which is entitled to vote on a question that it is frequently incapable of mastering, to accept their disclaimer. It is inevitable that in tho ranks of the teaching profession there must be a large proportion of men and women with a, strong denominational bias, and to expect that these officials can impart that curious kind of instruction henceforth to be known as " unsectarian religious teaching" is so absurd that it is difficult to understand how it can be soriously entertained at all. Tho proposals put forward by the Bible-in-Echools party now before the public have been freely discussed, and it is scarcely necessary to refer to them further at present, but the relation of the "conscience" clause to Catholic children is worthy of passing notice. The Bishops not unnaturally protest against it in its present form on the ground that Catholic children in order to avoid proselytism would be, compelled to go to school armed with a written protest against religious instruction. But a graver objection, to our mind, is lodged in the fact that for teachers a conscience clause would inevitably lead to the general imposition of a religious test in the matter of appointments to schools. In the event of the question going direct to the people it will probably do so in the shape of a clear issue on the question as to whether a secular system of education in the colony is to be maintained or not. If that is answered in the negative, then the Administration charged with the duty of providing " unsectarian religious teaching" for the youth of tho colony will indeed be called upon to tread a thorny path, and the ultimate result will be hard to foretell; but we are convinced that the change that is sought would not be in the Interests of our educational system.