GOD OR NO-GOD IN THE SCHOOLS ?

New Zealand Tablet, 7 September 1911, Page 1729

GOD OR NO-GOD IN THE SCHOOLS ?

By The Rt. Rev. Henry W. Cleary, D.D.

THE DISCUSSION : A CRITICAL SUMMARY! - - o

PART 111. ‘THOSE THAT FLY MAY FIGHT AGAIN.’ lI.—THE ‘ EVENING POST’S ’ ‘ DEFENCE * OF THE SECULAR SYSTEM (Continued from last issue.) lII.—MISQUOTATIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS. As Bishop and Ar chib shop. As Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Temple preferred Gladstone’s Education Bill of 1870 ‘in its original form that is, in its more distinctively religious and denominational form. And in a speech at Exeter Hall in April, 1870, he thought for himself that the thing that was most worth fighting for was that religious instruction should be given by the teachers —that was in reality the distinction between a religious and a secular school.’ When Bishop Temple ‘left Exeter the Anglican religious schools in the diocese ‘ were stronger and more numerous than when he came to it ’; and ‘ the force of his utterances ’ and his ‘ dogged pertinacity ’ in this matter brought home to clergy and laity the conviction ‘ that in maintaining Church schools they were not contending for a sectional cause, but were supporting religion 1 itself.’ In later years he came to ‘ modify his policy,’ to ‘change his. details ’; and this chiefly because of the difficulties of ‘ a religious settlement under the conditions of party. Government; he protested indeed against the party handling of the education question from the very first, but the system was too strong for him, and he has been heard to • sigh in old age because some of his earlier visions could not practically be realised. But he did not change in principle. If he seemed to change, it was because the position of the combatants had been reversed, . . To the very last he held to the essentials of his early faith. Still to the very last he was true to the purpose which he had set before his own Grammar School at Exeter. . . “We are bound to aim high. We are bound to think of the school, not as the place where the understanding is to be cultivated, but as a place where the principles on which the life shall be hereafter regulated are to be stamped upon the soul.” ’ All of which is sound Catholic doctrine. But neither as Education Office employee, nor as headmaster of Rugby, nor as Bishop of Exeter, nor as Bishop of London, nor as Archbishop of Canterbury, can Dr. Temple be cited as an ‘ authority ’ to ‘fortify’ the Evening Post in its advocacy of the absolute exclusion of religion from its immemorial and prescriptive place in the school-time preparation of children for the duties and responsibilities of life. A specific charge of misrepresentation is never to be passed over lightly.’ So says the Evening Post of March 29, 1911 (p. 38 of this publication). Many, besides the present writer, will be curious to see how the Evening Post will deal with this proven and ‘ specific charge of misrepresentation ’ —which will be duly brought under its notice. But (as pointed out on p. 32) even if ‘ Archbishop’ Temple were proved to be the foe—as he was ever the friend—of religion in the schools, such a circumstance would not in the smallest degree affect the real issues of the present controversy. And these have been stated and re-stated with what the Post calls ‘wearisome reiteration.’ The Post has had no excuse for shirking them as it did.

lII.DR. PARKER MISQUOTED. Tty Uo I’ocnm 1 C IHI 1 i-1, ~ T? -• Ti .X * A , iuo xoouu \jx xix. cix XjLI ±\j y iui.JLy cut; J'J ’Wlllliy Z USO bciiu. . Dr. Parker was not an atheist.’ And then it professed to quote from him the extract which appears on

* Bishop Cleary’s latest work, of which the above is an instalment, is procurable at all Catholic booksellers.

page 28 of this publication, and which will be found hereunder, with sundry garbled portions restored. Here, once more, we have the ; two familiar and most regrettable controversial resorts of the Evening Post. (1) It plainly suggests to its readers that, somehow, I have made out Dr. Parker to be an atheist. Such an idea, of- course, never entered into so much as a solitary cell of my brain. (2) The Post makes a great show of denying what was never asserted by me—defending the honor of a clergyman whose honor I never dreamt of impeaching, of setting me wrong in order to reap the momentary controversial advantage of setting me right. 3. The Post cites Dr Parker as an ‘authority’ whose quoted words furnish a ‘ philosophy of life ’ which fundamentally justifies the utter exclusion of. religion from the schools, by legislative enactment, in New Zealand (pp. 28-29, 52). The true, plain, and obvious surface meaning of the words actually quoted (at second-hand) from the noted Nonconformist minister of the City Temple (London) is set forth on page 49; and this has not been, at any point, met or set aside by the Post. Having now the full text of Dr." Parker’s statement before me, it will be worth while to fill in some of the matter which was suppressed therefrom, for the controversial purpose of making him appear to be the foe of religion in the school-training of the * little ones ’ of Christ. The Post, as usual, gave (p. 28) no reference to enable the present writer to test the textual and contextual accuracy of its alleged quotation from Dr. Parker. In the last sentences of its last —when further comment in its columns was precluded admitted that it did not really quote from Dr. Parker, but (as I had already suspected) from its usual argumentative magazine, the ‘ valuable pamphlet ’ of Professor. Mackenzie. In the pamphlet, the Parker extract is credited to the (London) Times of October 18, 1894. The Rev. Doctor’s pronouncement (a letter to the Editor) really appeared in the Times of October 11, 1894. Dr. Parker said that his letter was written ‘in view of the impending election ’ of members of the London School Board, which took place on November 22, 1894. A fierce whirl of excitement eddied around that election, on account of what was termed the ‘ School Board compromise.’ Dr. Parker’s view of the compromise is sufficiently expressed in the letter quoted hereunder. It likewise found a voice at a ‘ crowded meeting of Nonconformists ’ presided over by him in the City Temple in the previous June. He then declared that ‘he objected to its (the Bible’s) being read, let alone interpreted, at the •public expensed A resolution passed on the occasion protested * against the sectarian and pernicious policy of the majority of the Loudon School Board, who, under the guise of economy and religious education, have sought to destroy the compromise of 1871, to defeat the purpose of the Education Acts, and to discredit the School Board system in the interests of sacerdotal teaching.’ But the compromise of 1871 did not include the utter legislative ejection of religion from the schools, as in the New Zealand system. Dr. Parker’s letter of October 11, 1894 —quoted in a small fragment (at second-hand) by the Evening Post — headed ‘Board Schools and Religion.’ It is too long for full insertion here. Let it, therefore, suffice to reproduce a number of important passages (comprising by far the greater part of the letter) that were suppressed in the garbled extract published by the Evening Post (the underlinings throughout are mine): ‘ • . . As a Nonconformist, I believe that no education can be complete which does not include thorough religious training; but I am a citizen as well as a Nonconformist, and, as a citizen, I deny that it is the business of the State to furnish a complete education. That is a distinction which I hold to be vital. ... In such a matter as education it should be the business of the State not to see how far it can go, but how soon it can stop, and for one I venture to think that the State might very well stop when it has paid for a thorough knowledge of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Thus, I would not exclude religion ; I simply would not include it, Why ? • " f

'My reason for not including religion in ratesupported schools is simply the old N onconformist reason that religion is personal, sacred, varying in its aspects and claims according to varying convictions, and that to support it by rates and taxes, and thus by possible penalties, is to vex and offend its characteristic and essential spirit. The present condition of Biblical criticism brings its own difficulties into this controversy. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is no Bible upon which all Christian parties are agreed. . . To some the Bible is historical; to others it is ideal. Which Bible, then, or which view of the Bible, is to be recognised in schools sustained by the compulsory contributions of all classes of the community? Then are Board School children to grow .up without a knowledge of religion ? Certainly not. . . Every branch of education belongs to every other branch. . . One would suppose from some representations that the children were at school seven days a week, that they had no other home, that they were dependent upon the teacher for everything, and that if they did not hear of religion there they would positively never hear of it at all. I have said that I would not exclude religion. I would simply not include it IN MARKING OUT THE LINES OF BOARD SCHOOL TEACHING. To my own view the distinction is palpable. . . But ought not the Bible to be read daily? Not compulpulsorily, not by tax or fine, not at the expense of unbelievers or disbelievers. I would rather the Bible were not included than that it was put in a false position. A Bible compulsorily read is not likely to be read or received in its own spirit.

' It appears to me that the straight-forward and consistent course for Nonconformists to adopt is to insist that literary education may be given by the State and that religious education must be given by the Churches. That would be an intelligible distribution of functions. . . One of your correspondents anticipates the inquiry by the assurance that neither parsons nor Sunday _ School teachers can teach reliigon efficiently to children. How was the schoolmaster trained to teach it What is the degree and quality of the religion which he teaches? Is it to teach religion to inform children of the exact distance in miles and furlongs from Dan to Beersheba? I hold that religion has to do with the mind, the conscience, the will, and all the elements that go to the formation and inspiration of character, and that only deeply spiritual teachers can convey to any scholar a right conception of its purpose and influence.

' Then why not compromise?'

' / cannot compromise, simply because I cannot consent to dishonor the Bible. I cannot accept the doctrine that the Bible might be regarded and read as a great Hebrew classic, without admitting that many other sacred books might be usefully read in the same way. . It is possible to compromise an opinion; it is disgraceful to compromise a conviction. ' The fact is, men are being tempted on every hand in the direction of compromise. This School Board compromise is only one aspect of a deadly truce. Cardinal Vaughan has,set us all a useful example in this matter. He will not compromise with Anglicans or with Protestants. ....... He does not invite us to the Alps to talk matters over, and to see how far we can help one another to stitch the shroud in which we all can bury our distinctions and convictions: . . ". Are we to compel such a man to pay taxes in support of our view of religion? Is he likely to compromise with us by regarding the Bible simply as a Hebrew classic? The School Board circular proposes a distinct and positive policy. Are the Nonconformists to be content with opposing to it a maimed and impotent negation ? They are face to face with a great opportunity.' Thus far Dr. Parker. The following are the chief Pj._ s of his P olic y> as disclosed by his letter to the j. IttvCS : m 1. Religion is a necessary part of a complete education. ■■; " 2. The State should not furnish the religious part of a complete education (' rate-aided school' are under discussion here).

3. 'Every branch of education belongs,' says Dr. Parker in this letter, 'to every other branch.' Religion should not be 'included' as part of the State 'programme of instruction in ' rate-aided schools.' But neither should religion be on any account ' excluded from such schools (it is, of course, excluded by law in New Zealand). In these ' rate-aided schools there should be the following intelligible distribution of functions the State to furnish the ' literary education;' the Churches to supply the 'religious education'—but by voluntary effort, and not at the charge of public funds. Part of that ' religious education■-' to consist of Bible-reading (under volunteer direction, as abov^ —the Bible not to be read compulsorily, nor as mere literature, nor at public cost. No religious instruction to be imparted in ' rate-aided schools' unless it is furnished by Church sources. Where they fail, the children in such schools are to depend, for religious education, on sources outside the —including the home, the Church, the Sunday school, the 'clergymen,' the 'Nonconformist ministers,' the 'Sunday school teachers, visitors, and lay preachers.'

Such is Dr. Parker’s idea of 4 so-called secular education ’ (as he terms it in his letter); and he describes as 4 hardly worth notice ’ the 4 cry ’ that it is 4 atheistic.’ Th e Evening Post must search elsewhere for evidence that Dr. Parker would approve complete exclusion of religion, by Act of Parliament, from the public schools of New Zealand. There was not the slightest need for the Post to pick its quotations, at second hand, from Professor Mackenzie’s 4 valuable pamphlet.’ Morley’s Gladstone and Temple’s Memoirs are to be found in every decently stocked private library and these, and the files of the London Times , could have been consulted by the Post , at any time, within a few minutes’ walk of its front door. In all the circumstances it must be deemed a serious thing indeed for so prominent and reputable a journal as the Post to have misled its readers into the belief that the late Mr. Gladstone, 4 Archbishop ’ Temple, and Dr. Parker were its 4 authorities ’ and fellow-workers in deChristianising the school-lives of Christian children.

But (as pointed out on page 32) even if these three noted English Protestants had really shared (and they did not) the educational views of the Post, such a circumstance would not in the smallest degree aid it in solving the heart-breaking riddles of our purely secular system, and all that it necessarily implies and involves. To these nagging riddles, Christian disputants on this theme must ever and evermore get back. All the other issues raised (for lack of better argument) by the Post constitute what Kipling happily terms mere ' by-lane warfare.' Much to the annoyance of the Post, I have kept the whole strategic territory of discussion occupied throughout. I have, nevertheless, not hesitated, on occasion, to follow up my coy and reluctant guerrillero opponent into his favorite shelters in the outlands and caves and hedgerows of discussion. Another time, perhaps, he may give battle along the Torres Vedras lines of the issues that really matter. And then (as the French say) we shall see —what we shall see.

(To be continued.)