THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15955, 24 December 1913, Page 8

THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION

TO THE EDITOR.

SIK,--Extreme pressure of work has prevented my replying- to tlie Rev. Gray Dixon's lust attempt to answer the fundamontul questior in your issue of December 6. 1 suppose lie \v:il be again annoyed when I point out tlmt he lias only repeated the majority argument which lie emphatically discarded. Further, his answer deals only with what he claims should be conceded to the majority, and hc_ docs not attempt to disprove the injustice to the minority, 'which is the whole point of the question. To my question, "Can the State provide acceptable B.ble teaching to four denominations and justly refuse to provide acceptable Bible teaching to any other denomination?" Mr Gray Dixon at last gives a direct reply. '' Yes," and adds that "it all depends what the denominations are." He 'claims that if a denomination, is a majority of the people, or forms part of a combined majority, they have a r:ght to claim acceptable "Bible teaching. But this claim of the majority was regarded as effected in the first part of my question, and the troublo is, what about the denominations who cannot- accept the league's form of Bible teaching, but desire State aid for the kind they can accept? Mr Gray Dixon'6 answer 6imply means:_ Denominations forming part of a majority combination should receive State aid, and denominations in the minority section should not be provided for. But why? Should not a State that undertakes religious instruction provide for one Christian denomination as well a 6 for others?

Mr Gray Dixon 'settles it all by "majority and minority," and the referendum would leave it' to this favoured majority to settle that thc-y are to bo provided for and the others not. In the name of justice, not of majorities, why? Let us clear the air of the desired advantages to the four denominations. These so fill" the vision of Mr Gray Dixon- that he cannot even see tho need of discussing the injustice to the minority denominations. Let ns suppose the league h«6 attained its object. Then Mr Gray Dixon will no longer need to discuss the value of the Bible, the relation of education, law, morality, and religion, the need to put the Bible in tho hands of the children, the State's duty to give to the majority the religious instruction they desire, and so on. These, which have filled Mr Gray Dixon's letters, would, on the adoption of the league's system, have been settled to suit the denominations forming the majority. Mr Gray Dixon would no longer need to trouble about these ques'tions. But" then he would have to face the one I have tried in vain to get him to face. When the system is adopted, can the State justly'refuse to provide acceptable Bible teaching for any of the minority denominations that cannot accept the league's system? On what grounds of justice (not of majorities) could the State justly refuse? Will Mr Gray Dixon leave the majority denominations' now and face the above question of justice to tho minority denominations?—l am, etc. John Caughley.