BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Waikato Times, Volume 103, Issue 17413, 28 May 1928, Page 9

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

FARMER

(To the Editor.) Cin 1 o rr» ir»r»c? ic? HlfYlPlllf tfl

Sir, —Mr Blamires is very diilicult to understand. He took me up on two points; the first in regard to the proposed manual, the second in regard to the position of the Roman Catholics. In my reply I pointed out that the issue in the first case was simple. After all these years what is the league proposing to put into the schools? Mr Blamires now says that the “Cambridge” manual "is the one the league has in mind as a general basis.” If this faeans anything it means that the league has not yet made up its mind. It indicates also, though I may he wrong in this, the league is not trusting everything to the Education Department. The only thing on this head which remains between us is the reason why the Bible-in-Schools League has not made up its mind. Obviously the league has had some reason for non-disclosure. Obviously again the reason is that disclosure would not help the cause. Why? Obviously because a new issue w T ould be raised. That is obviously what the league did not want. It is a very fair inference that the league was afraid. Let Mr Blamires give some other explanation if any other is possible. In regard to the Roman Catholic position, it is again very difficult to understand Mr Blamires. Mr Blamires says he does not know what the Roman Catholic position is. It would have been greatly to the point if Mr Blamires had taken my statement of that position and explained exactly where it was wrong. Mr Blamires prefers to refer to the alleged inconsistency in the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church in New South Wales. I am not prepared to argue New’ South Wales with Mr Blamires, because I am not sure enough of the facts; nor is it necessary for the purposes of our controversy. Protestant Ncw r Zealand, as I think, quite rightly, has refused to subsidise the Roman Catholic schools. She lias done it on certain principles, which I stated, and Mr Blamires has not attacked my statement of those principles. The argument depends upon our own honesty and does not depend upon the honesty of the enemy. It is, of course, a matter of opinion as to whether the principle of ttn Education Act 1877 was right or wrong. If we think it wrong we must be prepared to pay the just price for our faith. ,

Mr Blamires asks whether the secularlty of the national schools lias already driven the Roman Catholics out of our schools. The answer the State has always given to this question, as Mr Blamires very well knows, is in the negative. My own opinion as to that matters not at all. This negative is the State’s only possible answer to the demand of the Roman Catholic for subsidy. It is, I do not doubt, Mr Blamires’ own answer. I look forward to any denial Mr Blamires may give, to this statement. I venture to say that Mr Blamires dare not answer that question is the affirmative although he asks me lo believe that it is true. If the Roman Catholic is in fact, by reason or religion, actually driven out of the schools, we must in justice subsidise him. Where there is no religion taught in the schools, however, it is a fair inference that the Roman Catholics merely prefer to have their own schools for their own purposes. That, 1 take it, is the present position and, if that is so, I sec no reason why they'should not pay for their preference. Roman Catholic citizens at present receive the same treatment as other citizens.

In regard to the secondary schools, Mr Blamires knows us well as 1 do that there is no legislative sanction for the position, of secondary schools. That position has existed for many years, possibly because of analogy with the English Grammar School on which our system was modelled. My opinion is that the practice is highly undesirable. Mr Blamires says that my statement that the Biblc-in-Schools League does not propose to read the Bible as literature is a half-truth. It. is the whole truth in this controversy. If it were the fact, that the Bible was to be treated as literature, without fear and without favour, 1 for one would have not the least objection. I need not discuss the rival' claims of Sir H. Rcichel and his opponents. 1 could quote Sir John

Adams, in my opinion a much greater educationist, in direct approval of my views in' this controversy, but I see no good purpose to be served. —I am, etc., F. A. de la MARE. Hamilton, May 26, 1928.