THE GODLESS SYSTEM OF EDUCATION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXI, Issue 10, 7 July 1893, Page 16

THE GODLESS SYSTEM OF EDUCATION.

)ME people are offended because we continue to call the New Zealand system of education godless ; but why, we are at a loss to discover. In designating our system of education established in this Colony godless, we only do that which the Act of Parliament which established it did when it passed the Act. According to this Act, the education given in the public schools must be entirely secular, and anyone who attempts to introduce into it an element of religion violates the law. Hence it is that he breaks the law who dares to teach the existence of one God, Creator and Sovereign Lotd and Master of tlie Universe, or the existence of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Saviour of Mankind. And is not such a system as this godless and essentially so ? It is godless in conception, inception, and actual working, and no amount of denial or protest can render it anything else than essentially godless. But we go further than this, and proclaim it a system for the purpose of teaching that belief in God and his ChRiST is of infinitely less importance than the addition table. For whilst the country at large is compelled to pay smartly for the teaching of a little arithmetic, no care is taken by a professedly Christian community to impress on school children their dependence on and their obligations to the Creator and Lord of the World. — 'He that is not with Me is against Me, ' and the nation that in its public schools does not inculcate the existence of God, and the Christian nation that ignores, and consequently iosults, Christ are the enemies of both, and the teachers in effect of the noo-exis-tence of both. No amount of denial and no amount of sophistry can persuade anyone not an idiot or axe-grinder that our system of public education is anything else than intensely and offensively godless. Again, there are others who sustain this offensive system on the ground that, whilst it is purely secular, it teaches morality, and their reason for so saying is the fact that since its introduction the percentage of convictions in our law courts is less than it had been previously. There is a strange delusion about this argument which is at once insane and comical. According to this argument the State takes cognisance of all immorality, and outside of the immorality punished by the State there is no other kind of immorality — that is, that the law of the State is to be the all of morality. It is not worth while to delay in examining such an argument as this. It is simply ludicrous, and such being the case, the argument from the statistics is utterly worthless and can only be used by either a man of no mind or a man who, in blind self-seeking, is utterly reckless. Why, as is well known, some of the worst kinds of immorality, immorality most injurious to the State itself, never do and never can come under the cognisance of the State tribunals. All this is recognised by vast numbers of our fellow-citizens, who are profoundly dissatisfied with the present system, and would gladly see it reformed by the introduction of a religious element. In fact, we are thoroughly persuaded that, with the exception a handful ot secularists, the entire population of this country disapproves of the present system of public gchools. If such is the fact, and it is the fact, why, then, it may be asked, is not the system at once reformed ? The answer is plain, and it is because bigotry is unwilling to do

a simple act of justice to Catholics. On this account, and for this shameful consideration, the people of this country are willing to subject their children to the greatest possible evil — a godless system of education — and lay themselves open to the charge of inflicting a crushing \i.nd. cruel injustice in the shape of double taxation on their Catholic fellow-subjects. If the people of this country would consent to return to Catholics for their own schools the money they contribute for educational purposes, and introduce a proper conscience clause, it appears to us that the disreputable charge of godlessness against public schools might be effaced. "We say this not because it is in accordance with our own principles, but on account of the demand which has been so generally made by non-Catholic sects. For our firm conviction is that nothing short of a denominational system can ever give satisfaction. And we •re strengthened in this conviction by what is at present transpiring at the London School Board. But as nearly all non-Catholics here seem to rest satisfied with Bible reading in schools, we see no objection to their making the experiment, provided we Catholics obtain our own money or an equivalent for the support of our own schools, and that no child shall be permitted to be present at Bible-reading except such as have permission from their parents to be present. Here, then, is a simple way of testing the sincerity of the people who are dissatisfied with the present system, and would seem to be satisfied with Bible reading in schools. But we Catholics are deadly ia earnest, and that we shall never accept the present system is as certain as anything can be certain. And we ask nothing that is not our own. We do not ask a shilling of non-Catholic money. We say give us the money we contribute for school purposes and we shall educate our own children. To be sure there are a few newspaper writers who pretend to believe that the Catholic laity, if left to themselves, would all turn godless secularists in an hour, and that their failure to do so is entirely owing to the bishops and priests. What nonsense this is ! Is it not the business, the duty of bishops and priests to teach what their Church teaches, and nothing else ? What other kind of teaching do the Catholic laity expect from their bishops and priests, and what other kind would they tolerate ? There may be a few renegade Catholics here and there who, forgetful of what they owe to God, themselves, and their children, send their children to Government schools, passing by Catholic schools, but how many, yes, how many ? Ihere ar« districts in this country where not one Catholic child frequents public schools, and this very generally happens where there are Catholic schools, fc^o much, therefore, for this precious argument. Then we are told that American Catholics are disposed to give up their own parochial schools and instead, accept public schools. It is not so. This is a calumny, and, therefore, no more need be said on this subject. We hope, therefore, that our fellow-subjects will cease to persecute us, and will consent to let us have our own money for the support of our own Catholic schools.