FREETHOUGHT CONFERENCE.

Freethought Review, Volume I, Issue 8, 1 May 1884, Page 3

FREETHOUGHT CONFERENCE.

In continuation of the proceedings of the Conference, we give Mr. Stout's address on "Freethinkers in Relation to the State," as reported in the * Otago Daily Times.' He understood the term "Freethought" to mean a person who could think freely on all religious subjects without starting first with a profession of belief. The Freethought Association had no creedal basis; members were admitted with differing views upon religious, political and social questions. There was no intention of founding a new religion, but the the object of the Association was to maintain individual liberty in the highest questions affecting the race. As members of the Association they are not Atheists, or Agnostics, or Christians, but simply men with different views met together to uphold the liberty to think as they pleased, and to express their opinions.—(Applause). The need of such an Association was shown in many ways. He needed not to allude to what was passing in other countries, and would simply draw attention to what was happening in this Colony as showing the need of such union as had been sketched being formed, if in New Zealand they were to maintain the religious liberty they had enjoyed in the past. The State might be looked upon as a kind of joint-stock company, based on what was termed contract—every person giving up a certain share of individual liberty and obtaining the benefits of law, authority, and peace, or as a growth, to obtain a correct idea of which it would be necessary to trace its history from the far-back Aryan family through all its developments to the present day. Whether the State was founded on the fanciful contract theory, or had come as a slow development, as the later and perhaps better writers maintained, at any rate it was recognised that the State had limited functions, and its sole object should be to promote the highest social and the highest individual life ; and if they found any State interfering with religious freedom and individual liberty more than was absolutely necessary to maintain good order and peace among its citizens, they at once denominated that State tyrannical. The fact must not be overlooked that the State, like the individual, has bias. Although in New Zealand there was no State religion, yet the Old Land was obtruding itself in all kinds of ways. For example, not 20 years ago in Otago public meetings were opened with prayer, and school committee meetings had to be opened with prayer before they could proceed with the ordinary school committee work. The same bias still existed in Parliament, where, before an Impounding Ordinance or a Goat Nuisance Bill was considered, proceedings must be opened with prayer, though Cabinet meetings were not opened with prayer, and it was not considered necessary to begin with prayer a sitting of the Supreme Court when a man was tried for murder. Then the State system of education was to be Secular, but the school-books inculcated many lessons concerning the Christian religion, so that Freethinkers had a right to complain on that ground. He mentioned these things to show that they had brought to this Colony a bias in these matters. For on all sides it was admitted that the State had nothing to do with religion, and, in fact, the State could have nothing to do with religion unless it selected one religion and made that the established religion in the Colony. If it was not the duty of the State to look after the religious training of adults, it could not be its duty to look after the religious education of the young. A State religion in this Colony was unnecessary and impracticable, and therefore he submitted that the duty of the State in relation to religion was not to interfere with opinions, but to allow each man in the State to hold what opinions he pleased so long as he did not defame or slander his neighbour, or create a breach of the peace or a riot—that was, that so long as good order and peace was maintained,

the State had no right to interfere with the religious beliefs of the citizens. That was all that Freethinkers asked for, and surely they had a right to obtain it. He had been led to make these remarks in consequence of something that had been done by the New Zealand Parliament at its last session. A criminal code had been prepared by the Statutes Revision Commission, and had been copied almost entirely from the English criminal code. This code, he might say, created two or three new crimes in New Zealand. Section 135 was headed " Crimes against Religion," and according to it anyone was liable to a year's imprisonment who published any blasphemous libel, and whether it was a blasphemous libel or not was to be a question of fact that was, that it would be left to be decided by the jury. Hitherto there had been no such thing as blasphemy in New Zealand, for the obvious reason that before there could be blasphemy there must be some religion recognised by the State. This was clear from the case of Regina v. Gathercole, in which Baron Alderson said : "The point is whether there is only a libel on the whole Roman Church generally, or on Stouton Nunnery. In the former case the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. ... A person may, without being liable to prosecution for it, attack Judaism or Mohammedanism, or even any sect of the Christian religion save the established religion of the country; and the only reason why the latter is in a different situation from the others is because it is the form established by law, and is therefore a part of the constitution of the country. In like manner, and for the same reasons, any general attack on Christianity is the subject of criminal prosecution because Christianity is the established religion of the country. It might be said that in New Zealand a person charged would have the benefit of a jury, but he would undertake to say that if a Freethinker were prosecuted for blasphemy, the prosecutor would take good care that none but orthodox people should be on the jury. The proposed criminal code would create for the first time in this Colony what were called crimes against religion, and this of itself showed the need of watchfulness on the part of all who valued individual liberty. If a man acted wrongly to his neighbour he could be punished, whatever his religious or irreligious opinions might be; so that as the State could deal with questions of conduct or morality, and provide for public peace and order, there was no need to import into their legislation this question of religious opinions. He did not think the code had been introduced with the idea of favoring any one sect; it had been, like a great many other things, slavishly copied from the English Act. But if Parliament meant to maintain in the Colony true religious liberty, it would not allow to stand on the Statute-book such a thing as a crime against religion. He would propose, in order that the meeting of Freethinkers in conference assembled might protest against the creation of a new crime—" That in the opinion of this meeting of Freethinkers it is unwise, unjust, and unconstitutional to create what are termed crimes against religion in New Zealand, and this meeting protests against the passing of the clauses in the proposed criminal code which purport to create such a crime."

Mr. R. Rutherford seconded and spoke in support of the resolution.

Mr. I. N. Watt also stated that he cordially agreed with the motion, which, on being put, was carried unanimously.