CORRESPONDENCE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume IX, Issue 1659, 4 July 1882, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

[We do not hold ourselves responsible for ophiions expressed by correspondents. J

OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM.

[To the Editor oftlie Herald.] Sir, — With your permission I will make a few remarks on two letters which appeared in your issue of the 22nd ult , signed respectively " Subscriber" and " Ande," commenting on my letter of the 13th June. With all deference to "Subscriber," I must repeat that I am sorry that I should have b«en again misunderstood, as I do not suppose that my words have been wil 7 fully perverted. v Subscriber " asks, " Where is freedom of opinion if he makes religious teaching and the reading of the Bible in. school hours compulsory ?" and says that I i( seem to coin-

cide with the Canadian view of the subject." " Sapere Ande " pronounces mo " unreasonable in my dermunis," charges mo -with "grumbling because the State does not undertake the religions as well as the secular instruction of my children," and talks of c * forcing into the service of religion teachers and schools designed for another branch of education." Now, I have not propounded in your columns any plan of my own, nor have I directly advocated the introduction into this country of the Canadian or any other scheme for providing facilities for the religious instruction of our children ; and certainly I have nowhere proposed that religious teaching or Bible reading should be made compulsory in school hours. Indeed I have directly admitted " that the School Boards cannot undertake that their teachers shall give such religious instruction and training " as a large number of the community desire for their children. What I have dune is this : I have called in question the justice and expediency of our present system, and have stated what appears to me a sufficient ground for ao doing. I have also adduced facts which show that facilities may be afforded by the State for the religious instruction of childrer without " inflicting a grievous injustice on a very considerable proportion of the community." The question is not merely a religious one. It has a most important political aspect, and it is as a political question that I have endeavored to view it. The State in this country practically claims a monopoly of education, excludes religious instruction from its schools and make 3it almost impossible for the large number of people who desire it to obtain efficient religious instruction for their children. Ido not expect " Subscriber " or " Sapere Aude " to agree with me ; but they may allow me to say that 1 think these people have a real grievance ; that they j are quite justified in trying to obtain a ! remedy ; and that, if a remedy can be provided without injury or oppression to their fellow citizens, they are fully entitled to demand it. It is easy to write such people down as " crochet ty " and " bigotted," and to talk of "warped minds and mental obliquity of vision ;" but such language is better avoided in discussion, for it may be used on either side ; it is not argument and no one will be con\inced by it. "Subscriber" is offended at my using the word "insinuation." The passage in his letter which I so characterised is this : — "Surely, in the name of liberty, he would not offer insult to any of them ; or he would surely not force any religion on people who differed from him in opinion ?" lam sorry to hurt his feelings ; but any other word I could use must be one of similar import, and therefore, I suppose, to him equally objectionable. — I am, &c. , Paterfamilias. Ist July, 1882.