Untitled

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3308, 21 September 1871, Page 3

TO TIIE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT. Sir, — YouV issue of to-day contains tho expressed views upon fcho " education question" of Bishop Moran, and of the Rev. Meßsrs Haivey and Patereon, who may be regarded as representing fcho views of fche Boman Catholic, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian denominations respectively. Bishop Moran contends consistently for puro undefiled sectarian schools ; Mr Harvey advocates (except in his own district) a purely secular eystem of teaching, with a right reserved for ministers of religion to givo separate religious instruction to tbeir own members within the Bchool walls and during school hours. Whilst Mr Paterson prefers a mild denominationalism, with Bible reading and psalmody, bufc no catechism and no proselytising. Now, sir, I am an ardent advocate of secular teachiug in any national education scheme, and am perhaps one of those "intolerant secularists," of whom you tell U3 Mr John Hall stands in fear. As a proof therefore of my intolerance, I shall now venture to suggest that tho wishes of the three gentlemen above mentioned, be one and 'all acceded to. That the Homan Catholics, whose scruples have unquestionably a oonscientiou9 color, receivo a capitation allowance for all scholars well taughfcfirr secular subjects. That Bible readins^Js desired by Mr Paterson, be allowed — jlo\^ompelled — in all schools under Govern-

meiwjnspection. For I agree that the exclusion of that book by law, would be equivalent to removing it from tho code of literature, and would compel an ignorance of historico-theological facts which is already too general among the youths of the Colony. And lastly, that provision be made for enabling the several pastors, as urged by Mr Harvey, to give religious instruction on fixed days, afc fixed houre, in a scparato room, to fcheir own members, as was provided under Mr Forster's Bill in Greafc Britain, and which plan is worthy of more consideration in this colony than it appears to have received from our Legislature at present. By these concessions I should hope all denominational hostilities to fche bill would be removed ; and I can assure my brother secularists, that they need nofc fear leaf; the inevitable divorce between religious and secular teaching in our public school system, wliich lameniaUle dictu ! our diverse religious creeds, coupled with the march of intellect, already demand, will be long retarded by them. Suis et ipsa Roma virions ruit. But whilst prepared to concede so much, we may fairly claim that fche character of secular teaching shall not be mis-represenfced, cor spoken of as identical with infidelity, as Bishop Moran appears to consider ifc. I can conceive no reason why any denomination ehould regard intellectual and moral training as dangerous, unless they fear their own creed, whatever it may be, will nofc bear the scrutiny of intellectuality. And with reference, Mr Editor, to your own dictum, that secular teaching is an impossibility and a delusion, I shall venture, on the strength of twenty-five years' practical experience as a teacher, to give you the " retort courteous," and to affirm that ifc is neither a delusion, nor impossible, nor undesirable under existing circumstances. Neither does ifc involve, as you seem to think, irreligion on the parfc of the teacher nor on exclusion of all reference to subjects connected with religious creeds, which can surely be handled with that reßpect which goodness and wisdom may claim wheresoever found, without any dishonest effort to bias the mind of the learner. I reudily grant that an earnest teacher would prefer a different state of things, where he might either inculcate in others those views which may be precious to himself, or relegate them entirely to their more able and proper expounder, the recognised religious minister. But to state that such a course is impracticable is an assumption of a general for a particular. Confine your statement, Mr Editor, to your own ability in the ars docendi, and I will not quarrel with you. I will nofc repeat here whafc I have already said with respect to " secular books," and the common intrusion into them of semi- theological topics. Bufc I remark that it is a strange charge for the denominationalists to bring against the secularists, that thoy do not make their elementary books sufficiently secular. It at any rate appears to contradict that other charge of intolerance. Do nofc let them then be too eager to gain a victory upon this point. I, indeed, by no means think that all reference to religious subjects should be omitted from secular works any more than from secular teaching. Nor do I think that the Biblo should be interdicted from the code of school literature, though, as in the case of several of the classics, I should prefer a seleciion of lessons fco fcLe entire -volume. A.ncl, further, I will gladly advocate the introduction of those common elementary principles of religion, to which Mr Patereon refers, so soon as ever the whole body of religious teachers in the colony have agreed in defining in what those elementary principles consist. — I am, ke, Educationist. Wellington, 20th September.