MR CAUGHLEY'S QUESTIONS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 146, 27 July 1914, Page 6

MR CAUGHLEY'S QUESTIONS.

To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir, —I propose to answer Mr Caughley 'a four catch questions. Please give the verdict "Habet" as I make good each point. Question 1: "Is it just that a form of religious instruction acceptable to som® people shall be given at State cost* while others who cannot conscientiously use this system would be refused any State-given equivalent, but would have to pay for one they could not use?"—lf you strike out the word "religious" you have exactly the position of tii® Roman Catholics at preftent under fre§ compulsory secular education. Bishop Cleary and Archbishop Vaughan HavcJ both stated that the Roman Catholic conscience demands Roman Catholic * schools, Roman Catholic teachers, and teaching saturated with Roman Catholic dictrine, i.e., absolute denominational education. In' 1877 Parliament decided between denominational and national education: Whether to endow denominational schools or make a general levy on the nation of all denominations, and establish national education. In deciding on national education, it taxed the Roman Catholics for what their conscience could not accept. National education versus denominational education is one' question; secular versus religious education is obviously quite another. The Roman Catholic grievance lay, and-lies still, in the choice of national,education; ii»*solution of the first and it. was, and is the Roman Catholic conscience that has to be satisfied. t ln choosing secular education as a solution of the entirely different second question, the Government satisfied the conscience of men like Jno. Caughley, T. A. Williams, J. J. Ramsay,-and Atkinson, but it was not the oligarchy but the Roman Catholic Churvh whose conseiencecried for,satisfaction; Here is one fallacy of- Mr Caughley's fable: all .contributed to the Food Bill and things went- *-« well." Interpreting food as education,Mr Caughley drew out while the Roman. Catholics put in. True all the birds. Contributed to national education,-but' not true that all went along well, for the Roman Catholic birds could not swallow the food. In Mr Caughley's language "it was not'acceptable,'' they could not "conscientiously use it." A' friend of mine describing the fights that took place twenty, years after the establishment of the secular system be-

tween his mates and the Roman Catholics whom they used to wait for at the school doors, declares "There was not a Roman Catholic in the school in my day.'' If Mr Caughley calls this just, he/* mußt forfeit the trust Of all Roman Catholics in-his gashing sympathy. Nowlet us restore the word ' 'religious'' to Mr Caughley's question—our scheme contains two clauses, one imperfect without the other. The Roman Catholics have an index of books that they are forbidden to read, and on this index is our Authorised Version 3>f the Bible. Surely this index is only binding on one Church, not on any nation. Mr Caughley cannot claim that justice demands that a book be excluded from a national school because it is. prohibited by a Church. National education includes literature and morals, and for Englishspeaking children the English Bible is indispensable. This alone .justifies the - first part of our system which makes children familiar with the text of the Bible by using it for reading lessons. The second clause permits the clergy? of all denominations to teaehu their own children the faith of their, fathers inl school hours. This is the nearest approach to denominational education that iS;.iodmpatible with national education, and so is the gi-eatest possible approach to satisfying the Roman Catholic conscience for the wound it received when national was preferred to denominational education. Bishop* Cleary• deelat&d-:• in Wellington last Friday that he would not object to the right of entry into schools. To use Mr Caughley's expression, our second- clause, the right of ' entry, is a form of religious instruction acceptable to Roman Catholics, Church of England, Presbyterians, Methodists, Salvationists, and many Baptists, Congregationalists, and others. Secularists only remain to be accounted for, and they will have what they consider substance (for. instance arithmetic) instead of what they consider shadow (religious teaching). So I answer that our system is more acceptable to those who pay for it than the secular system, and if this is Mr Caughley's test of its justice, it is more just than the secular system. Q.E.D.—f I am, etc., PARENT'S RIGHT.