MORAL TRAINING AND THE BIBLE IX THE SCHOOL

Otago Witness, Issue 2572, 1 July 1903, Page 87

MORAL TRAINING AND THE BIBLE IX THE SCHOOL

By J. MacGeegob, M.A.

" The harper ia not made otherwise than by harping, nor the just man otherwise than by the doing of just deect3."— Aristotle.

I propose in this article — my final— to summarise and apply the main conclusions arrived at in the series. Of such conclusions two of tho most important arc— (l) That the teaching of religion is not a function of the State as constituted in New Zealand, and (2) that the proposed scheme of Bible lessons is a. scheme of religious instruction. Now, the former of these propositions has not been Questioned in all the discussion that has taken place, and it may therefore be treated as axiomatic. We have it on the authority of the Eev. William Saunders that the Council of Churches admitted the correctness of it. It therefore became incumbent upon them to show that their scheme does not involve the teaching of religion by the State. What, then, is the proposal? It is that Bible lessons shall form part of the curriculum of the State schools. I claim to have shown conclusively that this would necessarily mean tho teaching of religion by the State: and it is the duty of every voter, before deciding in favour of tße proposed change, to form a deliberate opinion on the question whether the State should make a new departure by undertaking the teaching of religion. On this point I refer readers to the first, second, and eighth articles. Now, I a^k rcadc-rs to note carefully the attitude of those who are agitating for this change, and especially of the Council of Churches. On the appearance of the first article the R?v. W. Saunders, a member of the council, undertook the task of defining the platform of that body. This be did in two letters in the Otago Daily Times, in the first of which he said {professing to speak for the council) : "We are not asking for religious instruction ; indeed, we heartily yubject to it for the reasons co cogently set fortk by Mr MacGregor " ; aud he admitted that my arguments against the teaehiug of religion in the public -schools are utterly conclusive. He then proceeded to tiy to convince himself and his readers that the scheme, as then formulated, did not involve the teaching of religion. Tk^ scheme having been altered by the " historical" conference held in Wellington, in what seemed to Mr Saunders a material particular, he considered it his duty to withdraw his support from the schema as altered. In a l&tl-er stating Lis reasons Mr Saunders Fay«: "I take it as an axiom that it is not the du*y of the State, but of the eHirch.es, to teach religion To the old .platform lam loyal : but if it becomes a. question of religious teaching or nothing, I hope the opponents of the Bible in schools will prove to l>e the great majority of the people." So that Mr Saunders is now in active opposition to the scheme, on the ground that il necessarily involves ttie teaching of religion by the State. Now, it should be noted thai the definition given by Mr Sauuden of the first " platform" of the Council of the Churches has never _ been called in question ; and in a letter justifying his change of attitude Mr Sauncers explains that Dr Gibb liad said of Mr Saunders's statement of the position of tho council that "he would not wish to have one word altered." As soon as Mr Saundeis became convinced that tho scheme means the teaching of religion, ho felt bound to withdraw lib allegiance and go into op<position ; it has bean clearly shown by the Rev. J. T. Hinton that Dr Gibb, the corypheus of the movement, advocated a scheme of religious instruction pure and simple ; and yet he lias shown himself fully prepared to take the benefit of Mr Saunders's presentation of the cc^e. To characterise bueh o&nduet as disingenuous is to put it very mildly, and I was fully justified in describing the scheme as a conspiracy to foist upon the country a scheme of religious instruction by palming it off as something different. Dr Gibb is just as determined to carry bhe now scheme as he was to carry the old one, and this is just what might be expected of the man who declared himself prepared to carry Bible-reading' even at the risk of bursting up the education pystem.

Now. I ■wish it to be noted that in all he has written Dr Gil»b 'has not e\en attempted to show that the E^b-eme as altered in Wellinjfton. does net involve the toothing of reJigion by the State; but fcho^e who give the subject that attention which it deserves cannot fail to observe that, in the circular just »susd to membera of Parliament, a difcreet silence ii? observed as to the plank of the platform to which Mr -Saundets objected— ivimsly, "oth'cai teaoinug with a KKLIGIOtTS B\NCTIOX."

It will be remembered that the irmin reason for making our education system purely feculnr was ifcat anything in th» rature of religious instruction at the publio expense would involve injustice to a large proportion of the taxpayers, including Cathol'eu, Jews, Rationalist 1 !, etc. As I explained in my first article, the Catholic Church cannot agree to any system that does not place Hie teaching of her children under Uor own oontrol. H-er people have proved the sincerity of their convictions by waking provision for suoli teaohing at their own expense, whilst at the same time they are compelled, a-, taxpayer*, to contribute to Ihe oojt of maintaining our secular eyetem. It is no doubt a hardship that they should be compelled to contribute to the cost of a sooular sy=+!?m of which they can pot avail themseheo, but I cannot (for reasons already Ftalei) admit that there is any injustice. But I ffi"!i my readers to realise the differonce b?twe n u being compelled to support our present Reeular system and being oomppj'.ed to contribnto to the support of a seheudP proposed Uy ■*<>© otWr ehurcbe* for llio lvligious education of their own children.

Ha\f tb<"- Rfjitnl'ivs dev'srx! anr method of ohvis<in£ this difficulty and injustice' Yes; a method that .ndds insult to hiiury and injustioe — n cori'c r-nco clause ! They propose mfurnn'umoHs'y to alow CatJrolir, Jewish, ami olh*T taxtaawn t-o ke&p iheir children nut-ice 'Ti ih" rain and cold whilst the children of the elect are being taught religion partly at their exoon?©. Even now the Catholics are demanding a praut for their school* as a remedy or 6ola(ium for the (alleged) inju>tice they suffer, and it i= rot unlikely tVat they may vote for tip Bible ir> school* with the object of <.irenßtkenm<z thf.r claim, and there is reason to believe that Dr G:bb and liip party are relvir.c; ui>nn their a*«i-.tar.pe : I am informed that Dr Gibb declared fiom tho

pulpit that be and hia party are prepared to join hands with' the Catholics to attain their end ! The covert enemies of the system are prepared to ally themselves with its avowed enemies ! Was I not justified in calling the scheme a conspiracy? An infamous conspiracy !

It is quite likely that the agitators have never tried to realise what a grant to Catholic and Anglican schools would mean — for the Anglicans would certainly join the Catholics in their demand. It would mean that in many parts of the country where there is now one large and efficient pchcol there would be two relatively small and inefficient schools ;«tbat, in short, we should be deliberately creating the very state of things which British statesmen are doing their utmost to get rid of !

And all for what? For the sake of a merely perfunctory religious service with little moaning, and no moralising influence upon the minds of the children. For I claim to have shown in the seventh artiole that formal lessons of this sort are almost valueless. An Ameiican professor, referring to the effects of a somewhat similar system in parts of the States, writes thus : "All the distinctive religious teaohing of the past has been gradually discarded until there is left nothing but Bible-reading and short devotional exercises, which in nine cases out of ton are a sham, or else have no more influence on pupils than counting one's beads. . . The exercises are of the formal character, which makes them a merely mechanical appendage of the day", work, a concession to the prejudices of patrons, and a. means of avoiding friction with those who seem to think the Bible has the virtues of a talisman." And it is for the sake of a mer& sham of this sort that people are prepared to vote fox a change thai would revolutionise the policy of the State as to the teaching of religion, and risk the breaking up of our education system. Are the people of New Zealand prepared, for the sake of what would bo a mere piece of formalism like the reading of prayers in Parliament, to pkoe conscientious peop'e in tho position of having to avail themselves of a conscience clause, and to submit to the indignity of having thc-ir children treated as 'ittle pariahs? Are they prepared to vote for such a change as this at the dictation of ministers who have in the past neglected tli*-ir most important duty, and are now doing their best to shelve a troublesome 'question by shifting this duty upon the already overburdened shoulders of the teachers? Do they realise that this would mean tho subtraction of two and a-half of the best hours of the day from each Aveek of 25 school hours? Are they awar9 that the large sums spent on manual and technical instruction are largely wasted because of the impossibility of finding room in the overcrowded timetable for such instruction? Have they taken the trouble to think what a conEcieuee clause for teaehir o implies? — the introduction of one of the most detestable instruments of theological tyranny— religious tests. Is it not obvious that this would have the effect of giving an advantage to the hypocrite, who is prepared to teach what he does not believe, over the teacher who is too conscientious to occupy such a fabe position? The agitators care for none of those things if only they -can get their own way, by setting up a mere simulacrum of religious instruction— another mere makebelieve and sham !

To punish the man who has dared to speak thus plainly to them, and at the same time to divert attention from the real question, they have set tho drum ecclesiastic nbeatiug, and raised the cry that the Bible has been insulted; they have used all the old devices for rousing religious prejudice, and have just stopped short of applying to this bold, bad man the old nicknames, "Infidel," "Atheist," etc., that have so often bean applied to infinitely better men than either Dr Gibb or myself.

What, then, have I said regarding the Old T*stament, and with what object? I have merely stated a few of the generally accepted conclusions of the Higher Criticism — conclusions accepted by conforming divines and professors of the Anglican Church, the United Freo Church of Scotlaud, and others; conclusions, too,' many of which are accepted by ministers of the various churches in New Zealand. I do not profess to bo an expert in Biblical criticism (either Higher or Lower), and a minister for whom I have great regard has described my articles ns " critical lectures with tho criticism left out." As » description this may yass, but as a criticism it is beside the mark, inasmuch as I do not profess to do more than state some of the results, and that, too, with a particular purpose. That purpose is twofr»l<J — (II To show how undesirable it is that children should be taught to regard as historical records of fact or 83 supernatural revelation parts of the Old Testament which scientific modern criticism treats as unhistorical and me-rely human— a conclusion which in a few years may be us generally accepted as, say, the doctrine of evolution is now; (2) to show how undesirable it is that teachers should be placed in the false ■position of having to teach a3 records of fact or Divine revelation that which they may regard as myth or legend.

I know it was inevitable that I should be necuEed of disparaging the Bible, and I deliberately ran that risk, but I was not prepared to find the leader of this movement so reckless as to arcusa me of " reviling tho Word of God," when I had expressly said that the Old Testament contains « great mass of noble and inspiring literature nf which it is desirable that our children should have some knowledge."

It has not been my object to criticise the Bible, still leas to revile it, and I have disclaimed any intention to deny the educa tional value of tho Bible if properly used. My object has been to show that the reading of the Bible under such conditions, instead of inculcating religion or morality, would inculcate falsehood, insincerity, and formalism — " vle&s which freeze out the life of moral instruction, and paralyse all efforts to achieve any salvation worth the name." Mr Picton, referring to the effect of religious in.»t ruction in the English schools, says, "Aft.r 30 years of daily text-grinding in the p-rople's schools, the question of Browning's Pcpe seems very pertinent.

'Well, is the thing we «reo salvation?' Is the language in our own streets much purer or I©»3 profane and coarse than it was in 1870? More tli&n one local council, in disgust at tho coarse, foul, and disgusting words constantly used m its streets, has desired the law to be strengthened. All those foulmouthed people have passed through tome elementary school in which the Bible, or even the Catechism, ha* been taught, and 1 explanations have been given therefrom in tho principles of the Christian religion paid morality," and yet they ha\e not been sa\ed

from coarseness, profanity, and indecency in speech." It will be remem.bered that rome years ago the Bishop of Dun-edin, wiUi a vfew of showing ths> necessity for religious instruction, rcad-o certain grave charges as to the jsrevTJtraeo of foul and profane language amongst the pupils of cux public schools — chajges which were promptly and conclusively refuted by the evidence of the head masters.

In the interests of the same contention — " fio morality without religion " — a Presbyterian minister some years ago preached a sermon designed to prove a great increase in criminality in the cclciay. But the nefarious attempt was a pitiful failure, and served only to show how far bigotry and misguided zeal can carry a man. Nothing oould be easier than to refute by means of official statistics tho rc-ckkss charges of such o!erio?l calumniators of their country ; but even if the statement wero correct, the infe-renoe- a? to the cause is a mere assumption ; comparing New South Wales and >7cw Zealand, we find that in 1898 the propcrt-ion,? of convictions per 10,000 persons for New Zealand was 25.92, whilst for New South Wales it was 66.00, or considerably moro than doable. Now, it co happens that New South Wales is the only on-i of the Australasian colcr.:es that inch'des religious instruction in its syllabus for publio schools: v.o reasonable man would follow the example of eueh clerical slanderers and attribute this cunnious state of matters to the fact that r-ehgous instruction is given ia the State schools of that colony ; but the ono cono'usion would be- as rational as the other. On the other hand, the existence of greater criminality in spite of such instruction goes far towards confirmation of my position as to the inadequacy of such instruction for the purpose of moral training. The truth is thai the dogma exj-ics^-etl in the words "no morality without religion " is based upon a superstition as gross, and more misahievous t^an that other supejptition — that mere intellectual instruction is sufficient without moral training. If we take the comparative Ptatirfics of illegitimacy we- arrive at parallel results, for the rate in New Zealand is the lowest of the Australasian colonies with the exception of &outh Australia. For the year 1900 we find tbat the rate for evecy 100 of population was: New Zealand, 4 63; New Souih Wales, 7.01. Comparing two countries in which there exists religions instruction in tho schools, Scotland and New South Wales, over a. period of five years we find that the former is 6.88, and the latter 6.97— both muoh higher than New Zealand

i expect to be met with the- question — put in a triumphant tone as if the mere putting of it were a sufficient answer to mp— '" Have you prepared a toxt-bcok of morality for our schools?" The pen-son who meets me with such a question •shows (hat he lips not Ukrn the trouble to look at the question fiom my point of \iew, and, therefore, to arguo w'lh him wou'd be wa.=te of time. I can only refer such people to my seventh article. I have there- shewn that the end and aim of moral training is the formation of an ethical character— to so train the pupil that he will guide himself, c^chewirg the evil and pursuing the good. This end is not to be a'tained by the .mere rending of a text-book, Biblical or other: to camert the Bible into a mere text-hook of ir.orals is to apply it to a purpose for which it is quite unruitable, and to degrade ie in the process. The true method oi moral training is indicated in tho«e words of ArUtotle which I have placed at tie top of this arti-e'e. Morality is not a master of mere, instruction, but a matter of training; it is no doubl a matter of education, more especially in the sen.so of a moral apprenticeship ; but education is a comparatively simple and easy matter, whilst apprenticeship is a very difficult matter ; and I have sought to indicate the difference by the uso of the word " training " in preference to " education." I could enlarge upon this theme, but I must stop aid submit to the familiar platitudes as to the " poverty and Lanality"" "of any system of moral training not based upon religious instruction with religious sanctions. 1 intended to deal with the remarkable fact that in Xtw Zealand it ha« come to bf> regarded as eji axiom thai tt'e numerical majority has a right to dictate to the minority even in matters of conscience ; and the stiU more remf.rkaK? fact that the very poople who are s-o profuse in expressions of sympatih)' with the Nonconformists in England, in their resistance to what they describe as " the tyranny of a brutaJ majority," see nothing wiong in the exercise of such tyranny when they believe themselves to bo in the majority ! Even people who are not fervid for t^e RWe in fohook are ready to shout with the majority. I am content to bo in bhe right with the minor, ty, even with two cr three, or alone fcr that mati-er. Victnx causa dns placuit, seel victa Caioni.

A Mrs Judg-e, a widow, T?;th her boy, aged throe, went for a dnv,i> in tho Ingham district (Queensland) on Saturday, Juno 13. Her failure to return home caused a search to bo made, and the horse was found in a creek at Gairloch bridge. It is supposed that the horse backed over the kerbing of tho l>r.dge, which eince a flood had been in a dangerous state, and that Mrs Judge and the boy were drowned

A trial of a new steam heating system was recently given in Port Chalmcr.-. The main feature of the invention i=. the "-team generator, which is ?^ designed that " dry steam " is obtained in three miuulc* and it generates steam <so fast t ! iat on trial, in 12 minutes from lighting ih>> fire, fcteam was issuing t!>rough 250 ft of 14-inoh piping. The genera.tor is quite simple There is no pressure or water gauge*, ai.d no va!ve« of any description e?:copt a small water tap and a thermometer, and no attention i 3 required beyond keeping the firo up. The cost of firing is very low, as the cheap brown coal suite desirably. On Tlmroday la*t. wlien the snowstorm was on, two rooms 50ft by 21ft and 35ft by 21ft, with 18ft ceilings, were kept at a temperature of 54- degrees at a cost for coal of one penny per hour The apparatus is suitable for tcboo's, clmrriies, and private houses, and can be fitted to a gas «fcovc in the drawing room to heat the bedrooms. Tlie inventor is Mr J. Snaaill, the engineer of tho freezing works.

A Cough is Not a Disevse, but i symptom. It iudicaies that the lungs and bronchial tubes are inflammed. This inflammation often leads to pneumonia. Tho surest way to ward off pneumonia is to u^e Chamberlain's Cough Remedy on the first appearance of the cough or cod. It always cures, and cures quickly. All dealcrc cell it.