THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS QUESTION

Southland Times, Issue 17347, 19 May 1913, Page 7

THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS QUESTION

BISHOF CLEARY'S SPEECH. TREAT’HAN'T AND INCISIVE CRITICISM. At Dunedin on Friday night the Garrison Hall was crowded to the doors ■when Bishop Cleary, of Auckland, delivered an address on the Bible-in-Sehools question, from which the following extracts have been made:— The total cost of public instruction in curriculum subjects was last year £980,000. The league's mutilated Scripture lessons would occupy one-eighth of the four hours compulsorily devoted to public instruction. They would, therefore, involve one-eighth of the total expenditure, or £122,500 a year.—(Applause.; The league thus demanded a State endowment for the State teaching of a kind of "religious instruction” admittedly suited for only a section of four denominations.— (Applause.) It told the remaining 40 to 50 denominations that If they wanted their view of religion taught in the public schools, they must teach it themselves at their own expense.—(Applause.) The league's proposals involved highly practical issues of moral right or moral wrong. The Scriptures threw the duty of the religious instruction of children upon parents and the Church, not upon the Government. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith, and Christianity at large, denied to the Government the right of the “administration of the Word." Whom should the voter obey. God or the league? The conscientious voter would see his hand wither rather than enable unknown men to "caricature" and mutilate the Bible for sectarian purposes as the Bibie-In-Schools party did in 1904. —(Applause.) If the league had the right to have Us view of religion taught by public officials at the public-expense. had not Congregationalists. ' Baptists, Jews, Adventists. Catholics, and 40 other denominations precisely the same right?— (Applause.) To refuse this would be a •violation of justice, of a square deal, of equal rights, and therefore morally wrong. Jewish taxpayers naturally objected in conscience to paying for the cost of compiling and teaching New Testament incidents and doctrines which they regarded as blasphemies against the Most High God. Others objected on other oft-speclflcd grounds of conscience. Clear Scripture principles and all Christianity held it to be morally wrong to lure or force others to do what their conscience forbade on grounds of religion as morally wrong.— (Applause). There were also the clear Scripture principles that evil must not be done that good might come, and l that we must do to. others as we should wish them to do to us. The voter’s choice lay between the moral law or the league. In order to get its scheme into operation the league would have to secure the co-operation of the State teachers. By a six-to-one majority the league's proposals wore condemned by delegates representing 2SOO teachers in January.—(Applause.) Evidence from that conference and other sources was quoted to show that objection was taken by numbers of teachers to the league's proposals on grounds of religion and conscience.—(Applause.) Were not teachers as morally entitled to a conscience clause in 1919 as in 1904? (Applause.) Were not the conscientious scruples of teachers as sacred and as' much entitled to a conscience clause as those of parents and pupils? How could the league morally justify compelling a teacher-parent to teach other people's children what he could not in conscience teach to his own? The lecturer quoted league literature and declarations of members of the league that conscientiously objecting teachers would be dismissed from the public service. The league "trusted the teachers” by depriving them of certain elementary rights of conscience enjoyed by the worst criminals in our prisons; the league's "trust" was “a declaration of •war against (he Slate teaching profession in New Zealand." The Presbyterian Confession of Faith declared that “God alone Is Lord of the conscience.” The league wanted votes to enable it to make a Minister of Education lord of the conscience. to bribe or force Jewish and other objecting teachers to do what they believed to be morally wrong, to do evil that good might come, to do to taxpayers and teachers what the league would not like to have done unto themselves.. Whom should the voter obey.' God or the league? No Anglican or Presbyterian could support such proposals without betraying the principles of his Faith. The league's pulpit principles and its platform principles were like the Kilkenny, oats that ate each other up.—(Laughter.) Evidence was given from the Queensland Parliament, from Dr Youngmnu (described as "an ardent leaguer"). Bishop Gallagher, and others that numbers of tdachers in New South Wal«« and Queensland objected to the State “religious instruction." Was it not persecution that no man or woman could hold a State teachership in this dominion except on religious tests devised by the the league? Was it not immoral and scandalous that public funds should be used to bribe Jews. Catholics and the large body of objecting Protestants into disloyalty to their various faiths? Was it not an outrage that Jewish. Catholic, and Protestant taxpayers should thus be forced to contribute to undermine their own several faiths? And was it not a melancholy thing that Christian men should thus impress upon youth the idea that consciences may bo rightfully sold In. a,h open State market, and religious scruples bartered for a wage?—(Applause.) • - THE REFERENDUM. As regarded the referendum: the principle of deciding questions of religion and conscience lay at the root of all religious persecution. Christianity taught thf> sovereignty of conscience; that Gq«3L and not electoral majorities, was the Lord of conscierices. The league had flung aside this Biblical and Christian principle and Imitated the example of Pontius Pilate, whose referendum on a question of religion and conscience resulted in the liberation of the criminal Barrabbas and the crucifixion of Christ. (Applause.) The Jerusalem clergy in Pilate’s day had played upon the voters ■with an anti-Christ cry; the league clergy were playing upon voters with an antipopery cry.—(Applause.) Matters of conscience were intimate personal matters between the individual soul and his Creator; neither majorities nor Parliaments had any right of interference there; It was sacred ground. It was an Immoral proposal to transfer God’s overlordship of conscience to others: to ferce the Jews to eat pork, or worse still, to teach what they considered blasphemy: to force taxpayers and teachers to do what they held to be morally wrong; or to invite a majority to revise or flout God’s moral law. Which side should the voter take—that of God or that of the league? The Hon. J. E. Cnllan moved, and Mr J. J. Marlow seconded:—"That, as citizens and taxpayers of this dominion, we pledge ourselves to oppose the scheme of the Bible-in-Rtate Schools League, as an Invasion of the rights of conscience and Inimical to the real interest of religion and religious peace." The motion was carried, only one dissentient voice being heard.