DEANIFITCHETT AND THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15823, 23 July 1913, Page 3

DEANIFITCHETT AND THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE.

TO THK EDITOR. Sir,--After 10 months of Catholic and Frotcstant denunciation ol the ka.£ue's Irish conscience clause, Ueun iJitcneit now alleges ttet the league lias "adopwU uo conscience clause."

The league dtc.arts its conscience clause to bo "the kevbtoiie" of its propositi. Lt had a workir.g choice between a "positive " conscience or.iUbij and the " negativo" or li'.sii proselytising conscience clause. It chose the latter. U) 'in®

"positive" conscience clause admits to Government " religious ;i ruction " and " general religious teacfuia only those children whose parcnw, m some "positive ' . way (oral or written) request it. (a) This " pc3.tivc "'conscience clause is not ;mri of the "Australian" system demandtd dv the league, (b) There is not a hint of it in the league's official literature, or (c) in the hundreds of league officials' pronouncements in my possession. We therefore dismiss it. 2. Tiio only other practical •alternative is the "negative" conscience clause. It requires all children to attend Government ''religious instruction" and "general religious teaching" unless specially exempt; aiid it allows "exemption" or " withdrawal " therefrom only 1 to children who come armed with objections or protests by their parents against it. This (with an aggravation meiitiGiit<l hereunder) is the' ""Australian " and league conscience clause. As often shown by me, it was devised and us'.d by astute Irish iirosleytisers for prose- ' .ytismg purposes. 1. (a) in its membership card the league officially demands the conscience clause ai.der •' the system of rehg.cus instruction .a titate schools prevailing in Australia.." j.hat is the "negative" or Irish proselycis,.i.g conscience clause. (b)s This clause, and ' tins alone, is referred to over 2U times 111 the league's official pamphlet, " Opinions of Experts on tho Working of the Australian System," (b) 20 times in seven other official publications of the league, and (d) in hundreds of pronouncements by the league organiser and other league officials. I atn prepared to give detailed quotations on demand. ... . 2. Two league publications state that tne conscience claudo under the " Australian system gives to parents " liberty" and '"complete control" in the matter of religious instruction in the public schools. Thus is mere illusory inference. (a) Let us tako the Government " religious instruction," as it is styled in law and is in fact. Under the league's l< Australian " system tho Government (not the parent) determines the type of Government "religious instruction" and Government "general religious teaching," by Government officials, as part of the Government programme, in Government schools, at. the public expense, (b) As shown in a previous letter, this State " religious instruction " was devised to suit Bible-in-Schools parents only. No provision is made for Government "religious instruction,' at public cost, suited to Jewish, Unitarian, Catholic, Adventist, Lutheran, _ Baptist, and other conscientiously objecting parents. They have, herein, no "liberty," no "control," much less "complete control." They must either accept the league's Endowed State Religion, or £fo without any " religious instruction," or give it themselves at their own cost. Thoyhave likewise no "liberty" or " control" in regard to paying for Government " religious instruction," which they cannot in conscience accept. They MUST pay for it. (c) With only one saving clause (mentioned hereunder) the Government requires all children to attend the Government "religious instruction." (d) The only " liberty " the Government allows dissenting parents is the liberty to " withdraw " their children —after protest. But the exercise of even this naltry " liberty " is hampered by two shameful and humiliating conditions; the objection or protect is valueless unices the diese.nting parent goes to the trouble of formally setting it down in writing, and seeing that it reaches the right official quarter. Otherwise, his children are, by law, proselytised into at least external conformity with the Sectarian Established State School Religion. Heartless, as the Irish proselytisers were, they did not demand from dissenters written protests against such legalised pro6elytism. Even in tho midst of a smallpox scare, our Government does not thus treat objectors to vaccination.

3. Worse still: Under the "Australian" system demanded by the league the children of parents who fail to object in writing are required to attend Government "religious instruction" and "general religious tcach:ng" under the lollowing shameful circunistajices: (a) In no.case docs the Government ask the sanction of parents. (i>) Yet loyal, instructed Catholics necussarily object to such Government " religious instruction" on olt-specilied grounds ot religious taiih and eocles.asticald'cc.plme ; numerous Protestants and others also object thereto on grounds of oonscicjicc; and lading cogent, positive evidence to the contrary, parents must be presumed NOT to desire tor their 'children " religious teaching" at variance with the doctrine and discipline of their own faiths, (c) The Government, nevertheless, acts upon tne following flagrantly untrue assumption: tnat parents, by failing to protest in whiting against Government "religious instiuction," theheuy demand that "religious Instruction" for their children (cf. "The Year Hook for Australia," 1903, p. 50B). (d) In llagrant violation of rignts of conscience Government thus forces dissenting families either to set up domestic vigilance committees or to surrender the souls of their children to legalised iiroielvtian to the Sine Religion.

4. But, as shown in my Dunedin Iceuire, (-i) parental protests are no real safeguard lor objcctors children; (b) the terms ot the league's conscience ciaticc ar-j cleany meant to "capture tor sectarian purpose.,'

six oit-speciliui classes ot dios tlent eiudrui; \e/ official, league, and outer i'roualuin, Kotimoiiy was quutcil to snow mat it lias neeii used in lru.anu, utago, ana a it..- anna to proselyi.isc cnuiren 110111 iJy«ny to uie luitn ol tneir baptism uito u„ outward conlormny w.tn iho Ho'tao.isiietl b'i.it<; tcnooi KoligiOli; and ,<ij 1 can aoundanny snow tnav l hits, suUutaiiciaily, is a standing league argument tor exi.enu.ng tnat system 10 New /.eaiand, lie wno tielmuidß the means of this btaie proselys.sm eilictivcly ueni.uids State proseiyiism aiso. ilie pfesiinipiioii against the Itague hereon .-an be set aside only by it frankly ananuoning :u "negative' or Irish pioselytismg eonsciejice e.ause.

jjct tiia league now morally justify—if it win -(1) Uovtrnmeui _" rcl.gious toacning"; (K) iw tricky conscience clause, ivuli its sututory untruth; (i) r.s proposed forcing of teachcra to violate tlgir ccnscitnce una, thereby, thu moral jaw; and (4j the deo.diujr uf (jUL'Siioji'3 ot r( ligioii and conscience, as Pontius Pilate (lid, by a count of heads, riot by Hod's moral law. 'J'hn worthy Dean assumes that ilie league executive would not, consciously or unconsciously, advocate proposals ai variance w.tii ilie moral lawaim that, therefore, the league's proposal* are morally right. Topsy-turvy logic! As a demonstrated fact, the league does make several oft-staid proposal?: mid, according to -Anglican, Presbyterian,, and general Christian principles specifically quoted by me, these proposals are contrary to the moral law. The league denominations are condemned cut of their own mouths. Even so gifted a league leader as Dean Fitcheti dares not face iheje practical moral issues. —I am, etc., Henry W. Cleary, D.D., July 18. Bishop of Auckland.