THE SECULAR PHASE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXVII, Issue 19, 13 May 1909, Page 731

THE SECULAR PHASE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

A DISCUSSION

(By the Editor of the Ncio Zealand Tablet.) XIII.— A REPLY TO CRITICISMS. The following article on secular versus religious education appeared in last Saturday's issue of an esteemed contemporary, the Otago Daily Times (Dunedin) : — • The Otago Daily Times has been courteous enough to permit me to reply to criticisms of the series of articles in which, through its generosity, I was able to place its readers what I conceive to be the Catholic position in regard to education. Ample time for criticism has elapsed, but thus far none has appeared deserving of more than passing notice except that which was contained in an editorial article in the Otago Daily Times — an article which represents everything that a discussion should" be in dignity of tone and in kindliness of feeling. At this stage it will be well to recall to mind the state of the discussion. The matter out of which it arose was an assertion of the Catholic position in regard to the necessity of religion in education. To this«was united its sequel or corollary, an assertion of the Catholic claim in education {Otago Daily Times, December 22, 1908). The reply (December 23, 1908) asserted sundry objections to the Catholic claim, and (by implication) to the principles on which it is grounded. Next (December 31, 1908, and January 4, 1909), another subsidiary question ,was drawn into the vortex of discussion — namely, the argument ivjam results, so far as the results of State and Catholic education may be deemed to be disclosed by sundry vices ana by,-' statistical returns of legal crime. When the columns of the Otago Daily Times were chivalrously opened to my contributions I followed on the lines traced by my prryl'.jcessors in the discussion. I dealt with (I.) the secular versus the religious system in education — with the question of religion or no-religion in the school; (II.) with the question of results ; and (III.) with the facts of the Catholic demand and the principle upon which it is based. 1. The Secular versus the Religious System in Education. — From the first it was clear that this was a discussion between Christian men. And both sides ' argued it out as sich.' With non-believers a different line of treatment would have been followed. On practically all hands — both among believers and unbelievers — education is looked upon as a preparation for life. But, obviously, the nature, purpose, and processes of this educational preparation for life cannot be determined until we have first decided what is the aim and purpose (or the chief aim and purpose) of life itself — what is the real life-object and destiny of the, little budding men and maids whom the law forces into our schools. Christians — and many besides — stand on common ground in their common belief that the one great thing -that matters in life — its chief end and aim — is to know and leve and serve God here; that the crown of life and the completion of our being is the Beatific Vision of God hereafter; that all earthly life is intended as a training for this; that education is merely one (a juvenile) phase of that training; that the path to the attainment of our sublime destiny is that of duty fulfilled (which means virtue) ; and that the first and chief est of our duties are those which we owe to our Creator — namely, the duties of religion. Religion is the thing that matters above all others in the life of the child as in the life of the adult, in the school as in the home. To -quote Robert Browning's fine lines : ' Religion's all or nothing ; it's no more smile O' contentment, sigh or aspiration, sir — No quality o' the finelier tempered clay Like its whiteness or its lightness; rather, stuff O' the very stuff; life of life, and self of self.' Christian history — and much of history as well which is 'not Christian — knows no kind of education but that which assigns the place of prime importance to religion and religious training. • That system of education is geographically, as it is historically, in possession. And it must be deemed to be rightly in possession until the contrary is shown. The secular system excludes religion from education. It is comparatively new, localised, experimental; it comes to us as a legacy from the anti-Christian philosophy and the anti-Christian revolution of the eighteenth century. As a new and rival claimant for the possession of, the world's schools, the burden of proof is upon it : it must show its title deeds, it must seek its justification in the only plea that has any force or relevancy here — namely, by an appeal to a philosophy of life, to the lifeaim and destiny of the children whom it proposes to prepare

for the serious business of life. In one of his cleverest works, G. K. Chesterton illustrates a similar point by the following charmingly appropriate parable : ' Suppose that a great commotion arises in a street about, let us say, a lamp-post, which many influential^ people desire to pull down. A monk, Avho is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say in the arid manner of the Schoolmen: "Let ub first of all, my brethren, consider the value of Light. If Light be in itself good . . ." At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people mako a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in len minutes,, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediseval practicability. But, as things go on,they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light ;• some because they wanted old iron ; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it was not enough of a lamp-post; some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of light. Only, what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we , must now discuss in the dark.' ' The monk was right after all.' We, too, have had our ' commotion ' of lawmakers and others over the light" of religion in the schools. Those who exhorted them to ' consider the value ' of that light wer%, (figujgatively) knocked down. In a brief space legisla|jsrs hs§& extinguished the light — some for one reason,- sonlk foig^iother. And the conviction is getting back, and. sfiowingpuiself in the action of school committees and in varipus otnpirways, ' that the monk was right after all, and that all on what is the philosophy of light ' — what (in the present connection) is the philosophy of life, what is the true aim and destiny of the child, what is the rightful place which the guiding ray of religion should fill in the school, as in the home and in every phase of his earthly probation. It would have been interesting to have perused a defence of the exclusion of religion from the school life of the child, on this plea of Christian philosophy and revealed religion — the only plea on which a Christian defence of it can be set up. But it has not been attempted. Such contentions ns have been advanced in its favor were based upon considerations quite apart from these. The problem of life and childhood was not faced as it is presented to us; eyes were shut to the most outstanding facts of the question ; and wide ' conclusions were drawn upon a false and partial view. Hereunder are stated in summary terms the prin- " cipal pleas advanced for the banishment of religion from the schools : *• 1. ' The civil Government is not competent to teach religion.' — Granted. But it does not follow that religion must therefore be excluded from the schools. This argument wrongly assumes : (a) That the Government has sole, supreme, and exclusive control of the whole course of education; (b) that the Government is morally entitled to exclude from the course of education everything which it is not competent to teach ; (c) that the exclusion of religion from the school is a means of educating — that is, of promoting the true life-aim and supernatural destiny of the child. But these contentions are to be proved, not to be assumed. Christian principles of education, which have been in immemorial possession, stamp such an interference by the Government as beyond its true rights, and a grievous wrong upon the child. This whole question was treated in detail in the sixth article of this series. 2. The different denominations (we are told) have not agreed among themselves as to the kind and quantity <>f religion . to be imparted in the school. Religion had, therefore, to be excluded by the Government from tho schools, in the interests of educational peace .—This argument wrongly assumes (a) the moral right of any Government to exclude religion from the process of education. But this is the very thing which is denied, and which the supporters of the secular system have to prove. (b)- It assumes likewise that such exclusion 'of religion from the school promotes the true life-aim and sublime destiny of the child. (c) It assumes that no-religion is the only feasible ' solution ' of a difference of opinion among religious people as to the quantity and kind of religion that should be taught in the schools. In a speech delivered at Liverpool on April 5, 1872, the late Marquis of Salisbury smote those "who tell parents ' that, because there is a difference amongst those who desire to be their teachers as to what form of religion they shall be taught, they shall be taught *no religion at all.' That (added he) ' seems to be the most grotesque form of tyranny that can be devised. It is just as bad as if a starving man were to apply to

two gentlemen for relief, and they, quarrelling whether they should give him beef or mutton, decided not to give him anything at all.' The so-called ' secular solution 'of the religious difficulty in education is not a solution, but ah evasion, of it. Experts have widely conflicting views on arithmetic. Does the Government ' solve ' these differences by banishing arithmetic, as it does religion, from the schools ? There is ' educational peace ' in at least some countries that support the denominational system. When, for even one year, was there ' educational peace ' in any State or country that has adopted the ' secular solution ' ? 3. The secular system is (it is claimed) undenominational, unsectarian, and neutral. — (a) Even if it were, it would not follow that it is a true and proper system of education, a true and proper preparation of the child for its duties in life and for the noble destiny that awaits him after death. (b) In the sixth article of this series it has been abundantly shown/ by reference to its underlying principles and to the methods by which, it is pressed upon the consciences of dissidents, that the secular system is oppressive to objectors, and that it is sectarian and denominational in the only sense in which these terms have any relevancy here. It creates a monopoly of State-aided free instruction ; it takes advantage of the poverty or comparative poverty of large bodies of parents by compelling them (in the absence of other free educational systems) to send their children to these schools; and then it deprives these parents of the power to determine what view of religion shall there be placed before their little ones. 4. The plea of political and social expediency has been dealt with in the second article of this series. Let it be added, (a) that it can never be expedient to inflict a wrong upon the soul of a nation or to violate ' the Crown rights "of Christ ' ; and (b) that education is a matter of sacred principle — the training of the Christian youth of a Christian land to live as good and true men and women here, in preparation for the wider and greater life hereafter. And so high a principle, so sacred a duty, can never be justifiably made subservient to mere worldly expediency, or to the passing interests of political factions, or to the clamors of a biassed or uninstructed local feeling. 11. The Question of Results. — Before you can determine the respective merits or "demerits of the results of two systems of education, you must (a) first clearly ascertain the guiding principles and aims and processes by which each produces its results. In no other way can you with any degree of certainty trace educational results back to their educational causes. Here again we are forced back upon the philosophy of life that lies at the root of each system, (b) Next you must ascertain what are the results which, in point of fact, the system or systems under review have produced; and (c) by what criteria these results, when ascertained, are adjudged to be good or evil. (2) Here again we get back, and ever more back, to the fundamental consideration dealt with in the first section of this article. And here again the secular system has upon its shoulders the burden of proof, and against it well-grounded a-priori suspicion, as has been pointed out at length in the fourbh article of this series. (3) No attempt has been made to grapple with this subject of comparative results upon the only lines on which it can be reasonably and logically discussed — namely, upon those set forth in the fourth and fifth articles of this series. (4) A fallacy does not become sound reasoning, nor an error a fact, by merely passing through the mind of Chief Justice Sir Robert Stout. His personal deductions from the misleading # returns of crime by denominations in New Zealand do not add to their statistical value so much as the weight of a speck of grey fluff from a hawk-moth's wing. In . every part of Australasia malefactors are permitted, with complete impunity, to misdescribe (partly for purposes of statistical comparison) their denominational allegiance, while non-criminaJs are made to feel ' the butt end iv the law ' if they give misleading information in the census-paper or in the income-tax returns. As already intimated, there is ample evidence, ready at any moment for the inspection of the statistical authorities, to show that the returns, of ' Roman Catholics ' in our prison-cells are seriously misleading for purposes of accurate and scientific information and comparison. I fully agree with the Otago Daily Times that this ' allegation is • one which the authorities cannot disregard.' 111. The Catholic Claim. — The facts and principles .of the Catholic claim were set- forth in the last previous articles of this series. That claim is based upon the groundwork principles of Christian education referred to in the .first section of this article. It is unnecessary to repeat these here. They are in possession. And the Catholic claim can be hit only through them. We are thus ever and evermore getting back to the bedrock of fundamental" principles in this discussion. Here again the burden of » proof falls upon the critic of the Catholic claim. To upset it, he must demonstrate one or other of the following proposi-

tions: (1) That the principles upon which- the Catholic claim is based are false or untenable; or (2) that the Catholic claim does not follow from these principles; or (3) that the Catholic claim is inconsistent with these principles. Not one of "these lines of demonstration has been even attempted. The only pleas advanced against it were based upon considerations quite apart from the justice of the claim or " the merits of the principles upon which it is grounded. The principal adverse contentions usually advanced are summarised hereiinder : 1. The granting of the Catholic claim would, we are told, result in educational chaos. (a) This plea carefully avoids criticism of the facts and principles upon which the Catholic claim is based. And it is from these, rather than upon* more or less scared guesswork, that the merits of the claim itself are to be determined, (b) The plea of 'chaos' is, moreover, merely a prophecy. And prophecy of this kind is, proverbially, poor argument. George Eliot describes it as ' one of the .most gratuitous forms of human error.' This prediction would merit serious attention if some country could be pointed out as a melancholy example of educational chaos resulting from handing over to Catholic schools ah equivalent of the taxes contributed by Catholics to public education. But this has not been done. On the contrary, we find that among State-aided denomi-national-school countries are the only ones in which educational peace prevails; moreover, that among them are nations which (like Germany and the Scandinavian lands) lead the van of educational progress. And must not justice be 'done, even if the heavens should fail ? 2. The majority, we are reminded, are opposed to the Catholic claim — it is outside the range of practical politics. — (a) This is the argument of the Big Stick. It has been dealt with in the third article of tihs series. (b)' This plea, too, avoids contact with the facts and principles upon which the Catholic claim is based, (c) It makes a count of noses and an uninstructed local feeling the final arbiter in a matter of the deepest and most tremendous import to the individual, the family, and the nation. And, finally^ this plea by no means impresses those who have read history and know how people are given to dance and sing .around their golden calves to-day and to crush them beneath their heels to-morrow. 3. 'Minorities must suffer.' — So we are sometimes told. But (a) what has this plea to do with the merits of the Catholic claim as disclosed by the facts and principles on which it is based? (b) Let me quote from an English educationist: '"Minorities must suffer " is the old, discarded cry of utilitarianism. It is hopelessly out of date. Democracy, and especially Liberalism, raises the counter cry: "Minorities must be safeguarded 1" Politics is fast learning from commerce and from science the human, necessary art of specialisation. There are now several hundred processes in the making of a shoe. Secularists would decree that there shall be but one process for the making of a citizen. There are ten thousand ways of building up the kingdom of science, but secularists decree that there shall be one way — the way of suppression— for building up the kingdom of politics.' Educational methods are rapidly becoming specialised— even in the interests of minorities, such as deaf-and-dumb and defective children. Our legislation is packed with provision for minorities, from the oldage pensioners to the habitual drunkards on Pakatoa Island, for whose education in habits of self-control the Salvation Army receives a well-merited capitation grant — the thing which Catholics request for the training of children of a smaller growth in secular knowledge. And why should minorities suffer, or conscientious convictions be disregarded in education, more in Australia and New Zealand than in less .democratic countries, such as Germany Holland, Canada, and the rest? .4. 'No return to denomationalism !'— (a) ' Great is Diana of the Ephesians!' This is the Big Stick again, with a fresh knob, (b) But are serious questions to be settled by clamor? And what has this war-cry to do with the merits of the Catholic claim, as disclosed by the facts and principles on, which it is grounded? Unfortunately, Berners words are. to an extent true— that shibboleths and catch-words too often serve where arguments fail, and that many people are swayed more by question-begging epithets and sounding fallacies than by fact and reason. Some Rabelaisians tickled themselves in order to laugh. A great many more build scarecrows to scare themselves withal. One of the shibboleth-scarecrows is the term ' denominationalism.' Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen 'pinked' it with gentle raillery in a pamphlet published in London ia 1872. ' Now,' said he, ' do not let us be frightened at that word! I have often noticed that when people in this country want to get up a cry against something or other they give it a long name. It is astonishing how far a long name goes with some people. I have known measures condemned before they were half understood, because grandiloquent orators had declared that they were akin to " centralwa-

tion," which is a terrible word ; and "denominational" is another instance of the same kind of thing. --But-'-'deno-mination," you very well know, is only a longer word, meaning the same thing as "name" or "title."* A denominational school is, therefore, really only a school called by a particular name, or a school founded by people who are called by a' particular name; therefore a secularist school, from which religion is excluded, is just as much a denominational school as any other ; and the more correct name for other schools would be "anti-secularist" or "religious-teaching" schools.' I may close with a further quotation from the speech of the late Marquis of Salisbury, already referred to in the course of this article : ' I cannot imagine a greater evil to the country than setting up in every parish a man whose duty- it is to press upon the parishioners and the young the superior importance of secular to religious knowledge.' To sundry earnest and kindly writers I may once more state at the close, as I did at the beginning, that this is a discussion on religion as against no-religion in education, and not a discussion on the merits or demerits of past or present schemes of Biblical reading or instruction in the public schools. I have, furthermore, to repeat that, throughout ' these articles, I have at no time occupied a representative capacity ; I have merely stated in my own way my personal view of the Catholic position in regard to education. And, finally, I have to tender~~the Otagn Daily Times my deep and abiding sense, not alone of the conspicuous fairness, but of the chivalrous generosity, with which it has enabled an opposing view on this great public question to be placed before its" readers, with a -fulness that has never yet been permitted by any secular organ of public opinion in Australasia.