EDUCATION SYSTEM

New Zealand Tablet, 13 April 1911, Page 663

EDUCATION SYSTEM

CATHOLICS’ POSITION. The following letter from the Right Rev. Dr. Cleary, Bishop of Auckland, appeared in the Wellington Evening Fast of April o : Sir, —The present discussion is concerned with the most radical and revolutionary change made in educational principles in all Christian history-—namely, the banishment of religion, by Act of Parliament, from the school-training of children. We call this for short,’ the secular system,’ or ‘the purely secular system.’ The burden of justifying this comparatively recent and localised system naturally falls upon its promoters and supporters. It is an evil legacy of the anti-Christian phase of the French Revolution. The Continental and other enemies of revealed religion have ever since then supported the exclusion of religion from the school because of their view- of life —because they do not believe in God, or in religion, or in duties connected with or arising out of religion, or in an immortal human soul and a life beyond the grave. Now, a view of life, of its origin, of its duties and destiny, constitutes what is, for convenience, termed a ‘philosophy of life.’ This term is one of the commonplaces of educationists all the world over. It is known to every tyro in pedagogy, or the art of teaching. And I naturally (though, as now appears, mistakenly) gave you the credit of supposing that the term was quite familiar to you as a journalistic authority on education and educational systems, and as a creator or moulder of public opinion thereupon. The atheists and other unbelievers’ plea for the banishment of religion from the school, though wrong-headed, is perfectly consistent and intelligible. But we have yet to learn on what principles professing and believing Christians join with unbelievers in demanding and defending this revolutionary departure from immemorial Christian ideals _ and sentiments. In this discussion you stand forth as their champion and expert. On you, therefore, devolves the duty of defending our secular system, and all that it necessarily involves, by an appeal to Christian truths and principles. Thus far, you have not even made a serious pretence of doing so. You have thus compelled me to state and restate, over and over again, and keep full square before the public eye, the true issues of the discussion, and all that is involved in your duty of justifying our secular system. You complain, in your issue of March 29, that 1 ‘ignore’ your arguments. This supposes that there are arguments of your which (a) I was bound to notice, but which (b) I wrongfully ignored—that is, passed over or disregarded. Either they were, or they were not, arguments which you advanced for the radical justification, on Christian principles, of the legalised expulsion of religion from the school—which is the whole and sole issue between us. If you advanced arguments along this line, I have quite failed to discover any- trace of them. If they were not, I was, by the rules of right discussion, quite entitled to ignore them. Now, the justification of the secular system, on Christian principles, plainly involves the following and other points, which I propose to keep full and clear in the public view: 1. We all know the views and ideals of life on which atheists, and unbelievers generally, uphold .the legalised proscription of religion from the child’s school-preparation for life. But on what particular Christian truths and principles, on what view of life, of its origin, of its duties, of . its destiny— on what philosophy of life—do you support the divorce of religion, by law, from its olden place in the schools? You have declined to argue this grand fundamental issue. I, therefore, fail to see, how I can have ignored your arguments in this connection. You have not even tried to show just how you can put up a defence of the secular system, on Christian lines, without dealing with this fundamental issue. . 2. I invite you once more to show—if you can—just where and how any groundwork principles, on which yon can logically defend our secular system differ (if at all) from the groundwork principles on which unbelievers base their demand for the banishment of religion by law, from the schools. I have not ignored your arguments in this connection, for the simple reason that you have not advanced any. 3. Once again:. By what particular moral right, recognised by believing Christians, did our legislators expel religion, by Act of Parliament, from the place which it occupied in the training of children for the duties of life? Either such a moral right is claimed by you, or it is not

claimed. If it is not claimed, your case for the secular system, on Christian lines, collapses; If such a moral right is claimed, it is surely high time to state it clearly and establish it fully. .I cannot find that you have done this. I fail, therefore, to see how I can have ignored your arguments in this vital connection. . 4. Yet : again: On what Christian or educational principle do you demand the exclusion of religion from the school-training of. children for the duties of life, and at the, same time retain religion in the home-training of children for the duties of life? I can find, in your writings, no argument in this connection either to deal with or to ignore. Nor have you shown how you can justify the secular system without solving this clamorous riddle. 5. Can you show how a body of legislators can kick religion out of > the. place it occupied in the schools, without at least implicitly professing the following (among other) sectarian religious'dogmas: (a) that religion has no necessary or rightful place in school-training; (b) that all Christian history, teaching and tradition, demanding the essential union of religion, and education, are a vast blunder, a scholastic heresy; (c) that a majority of lawmakers has a moral right to banish religion "from the schools by Act of Parliament ? Or can you show by what particular moral right, acknowledged by believing Christians, a professedly ‘ neutral ’ State can impose the abovementioned implied sectarian dogmas with enforced taxation of dissidents, on the public : schools? Till 1 find that you have argued out this matter, 1 must deny the soft impeachment of having, ignored your arguments in this connection. 6. It is your duty to prove, not to assume, that our secular system—or. indeed, any school system—can possibly be ‘ neutral ’in regard to religion. I deny it, and refer you to my letter of March 16. And when von have advanced facts or arguments in this or any other fundamental connection, you may be quite sure that I will gladly deal with them. j I have been waiting for them all along. The burden of proof is upon you. And these are onlv a tew of the riddles which you have to read, if you are to justify, on Christian truths and principles, the banishment of religion from the schools. I have already (in - ? m ', lssue °f March 22)) dealt with a preliminary bundle or the unsupported assertions and undue assumptions which, I greatly fear, you have been mistaking for arguments. The same remark applies to your expressions, the same old catechism,’ ‘logic-chopping, ‘logical subtlety, and so on. Those are known as ‘questionbegging epithets,’ and, in works on logic, are mostly associated with lack of argument and an indefensible case.—Yours, etc., * HENRY W. CLEARY, D.D., i\r 1 01 non Bishop of Auckland. March 31, 1911.