THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS: THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15933, 28 November 1913, Page 5

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS: THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOB,

Sib,—ls it a consciousness of the weakness of his caw, or is it some mental peculiarity, that makes Mr Caughley so trioky 1? t r K uni( -' n ' a tion? Permit me to cay that I have neither time nor heart—tho (jucstion is tco serious and I am too deeply impressed witli ite scriouencss—for an exhibition of chicanery. I am only too willin? to give Mr Caughloy tho benefit of every possible doubt, and to conclude that l o wa J' looking at things is in such contrast to my own that there is little .hope of orur ever quite understanding cno another. He gets lost in all 60rta of iittlo details; I find solid ground on broad principles

After he had declared that I had missed his special point, and I lad taken special ■pains to detect this point and bring it into clear light, so. as the more effectually to expose its fallaciousness, but had refrained irom. expatiating -unduly upon its fallacious ness, Mr Canghley thought it reasonable to interpret this restraint in criticism aa an avoidance of criticism, due, of course to an inability to criticise! My words were, "I oannot wait to show how utterly' fallacious it is. Of course, what I meant was that i did not wish to encroach unduly upon your space, and was content to sav much les6 in the way of exposing the fallacy than I might nave eaad. I waited only long enough to expose it, and no more. Mr Quighloy's must be strangely contracted and prejudiced to havo missed this obvious interpretation of my position. Then, as another evidence of narrowness °u-' 0U uk' Ashley will admit no more than that I have got "fairly near the mark in detecting his point, because I have recognised that in order to deal with it conclusively I must consider tho State's whole relation to religious teaching and not merely to Bible teaching. I meet his point by meeting all its implications. On what principle does Mr Gstughley confine his consideration to Bible teaching, when there are citizens in the State who do not believe in any form of Biblo teaching, When there aro agitators at tile Fountain denouncing the Biblo as the source of all our social miseries, when there are thinkers among us who prefer other sacred books? Why should Christian denominations, on Mr Caughley's scculari6tic principles, have auy preference? And if all that has to boecttled is a course of Biblo lessons accqptablc to all who believe in the Bihle, why that is just what the Bible-in-St-atosohools League is proposing to provide in New Zealand, as it has already been provided in Australia, Cape Province, and elsewhere. In the Biblo lessons contemplated as to be given by the teachers in tfie regular curriculum, the Bible is left to speak for itself, and no Christum —Protestant or Roman Catholic—has any real occasion to take exception to tuem.

And til 16 brings me to iVir Oaughley's new question: '' Oouid the State provido at Statu cost a iorm of Brbie .teaching acceptable to the Anglican and the Koman Catholic ohurches, and justly roloso to provido at State'cost lor a form of Bible teaching acceptable to the Presbyterian Church, even if tho former had a decided majority'/" Here it is evident tlhat Mr Caughley credits, or rather discredits, me with a sectarian 'bias which will enable him to iscorc against me when he pute my own church in too position of tho (apparently) aggrieved party. Let mo then assure Mr Laugiiley that lie haa mistaken his man. I am no sectarian, Presbyterian or otherwise, but, I trust, a catholic-minded and national-minded Christian. As I have said already, were I a member of a small community in a nation of predominantly different religious convictions from my own, I would not bo so presumptuous as to espect the nation on my account, or on account of the minority who might agree with me, to refrain from giving expression to ite conscientious convictions. My answer to Mr Oaughley's question is, therefore, Yes, if tl'.e majority truly represented the conscience of tho nation. As belonging to a minority out of sympathy with the national convictions, I could not expect more than toleration (or my views and permission to dissent. And were I so forfunato as to be in a conntry -where the broad principles of the Bible-in-State-Schools LoagTJe were in operation, I should have reason to thank the State for permitting the clcrgy or other accredited representatives of my church to enter the State schools and instruct the ohildren of my church in their own faith. Thus I should receive not only justice but generosity.. Bat Mr Caughley must know that his supposed caso is an impossible one. Tho exclusivoneas of the Roman communion would forbid any such understanding with tho Anglican Church. And were such an under standing possible, it could hardly fail to be, fundamentally at least, acceptable to tie Presbyterian Church as well. So his supposition is altogether out of tho question. Would that Mr Oaughley would entertain facts instead of entertaining himself yvith fancies.—l am, etc., W. Grat Dixon. Roslyn Manae, Dunedin, November 27.