Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 3 April 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

Present Day Masonry Two extracts from an American Masonic organ, cited by our contemporary America, are interesting and illuminating. The first furnishes an illustration of the present intentions and designs of the Continental brethren. The American Freemason of February, 1913 (says our contemporary), publishes a summary of a circular letter sent out by a number of very earnest Freemasons who participated in the recent International Peace Congress at Geneva. The editor calls attention to the fact that ‘ it is signed first by Brother Maghalaes Lima, Grand Master of Portuguese Masons, and one of the principals among those concerned in the deposition of royalty in his home country, and in establishment of the Lusitanian republic . The circular is at once a warning and an appeal. It sets forth what are alleged to be the designs of the Roman Churchto make itself the supreme, even the sole authority, not only in things spiritual, but also in purely temporal affairs. These efforts, says the circular, are adapted to meet every situation: sometimes made openly, defiantly, brutally ; at others proceeding by methods hidden or plausible and jesuitical. The unceasing efforts of clericalism, continues the circular, have but one —to rehabilitate the Vatican as seat of a world power; to elevate the papacy above all governments. After giving several recent illustrations of priestly intrigue, the framers of the circular call upon Freemasons of all countries to forget their differences that they may unitedly face the common danger. Craftsmen are urged to make such preparation that they may resist clericalism at every point. Only thus can the freedom of conscience, gained by past struggles and sacrifices, be preserved from the destroying hands of bigotry and intolerance.’

* The second throws an interesting light on the question of the connection or non-connection between British and Continental Masonry, and on the present day trend of English and American Freemasonry. In the same issue of the American Freemason (continues our contemporary) we are informed that the result of the meeting of the International Masonic Club, held in London on November 15, was the conclusion; ‘l. That the Grand Orient of France, with regard to religious tests, is much nearer to the original plan of Masonry, as set forth in the first Constitutions, than is the Grand Lodge of England. 2. That the French Masons are worthy men, doing a wonderful work for the cause of progress and enlightenment.’ ‘As a matter of fact, continues the writer, 1 French Freemasonry has ever since 1878 been steadily growing more intelligent and scholarly, more compact, more serene, more self-confident, more effective, and more elevated. At this day it is the model for all the world in respect to these qualities. There is no American jurisdiction that can compare with it.’

The N.S. Wales System and Teachers’ Consciences Apropos of the statement, repeatedly made by Bible League representatives, that where the Australian system is in vogue no case has occurred where a teacher has refused, on conscientious grounds, to give the general religious lessons which form part of the scheme, we V print the following letter addressed to the editor of the i N.Z. Herald , which appeared in that paper of date March 18:—‘ Sir, — the Rev. I. Jolly’s letter ; n your issue of 15th inst., he wrote: “The experiences of the four Australian States show that the religious difficulty in relation to teachers has never emerged, so that Dr. Cleary is only giving us stage thunder in his talk about the oppression of the teachers’ consciences.” In reference to that paragraph it is pertinent to say that a few years ago I called at the education office, Sydney, met there the Chief of Inspection and the Departmental Secretary, stated I desired employment, presented my testimonials, received the syllabus and regulations, and was requested to call next morning at ten o’clock. I

did so. The two chief officials offered .very ; flattering opinions on the testimonials, and produced a list .of eleven vacancies, and another of five impending ones. They also said that the making of the appointments was in their hands. Somewhat to their surprise, I said I could not accept service, as I should have to teach religion, and to divide my pupils into “ sheep and goats” through doing so, a division odious to make. That was surely an oppression, not only of the teacher’s sense of conscience, but also of his sense of propriety towards his pupils and who can tell how many similar instances have occurred and never been heard of? Nobody. The ugliest feature of the New South Wales education system is this, the ignoring of the fact that school teachers have consciences just as surely as have everybody else.' Is it not a shameful business, then, to coerce or force them by any means to palter with or stifle the voice of conscience ? That is precisely what has been done for many years under the New South Wales system, which we are now invited to imitate. ‘ D. O’Donoghue.’ *

We are not personally acquainted with Mr. O’Donoghue, and we give his story simply on its merits and as we find it in the columns of a leading secular daily. Mr. O’Donoghue is, we believe, a B.A. of N.Z. University, and holds a B 1 teachers’ certificate—almost the highest certificate which it is possible for a teacher to obtain in the Dominion. The point of the story is that it is probably one of many similar incidents and protests which have never , been recorded or* brought , to light. As Mr. O’Donoghue pertinently asks : ‘ Who can tell how many similar instances have occurred and never been heard of?’

That 4 General Religious Teaching’ Attempts have been made—-with what success our readers can judge for themselvesto diligently whittle down and explain away the ‘ general religious teaching ’ provided for in the N.S. Wales and Queensland education systems. In a recent issue we printed a letter containing several queries addressed by Mr. J. A. Scott, per medium of the Otago Daily Times, to the Very .Rev. Dean Fitchett, as a representative and local vicepresident of the Bible in State Schools League. The nature of Dean Fitchett’s answers will be gathered from Mr. Scott’s reply thereto, a first instalment of which appeared in the Otago Daily Times of Thursday last, and which we reproduce herewith.

■Jr ‘ Sir, —I have to thank Dean Fitchett for his extremely courteous reply to the three queries which you kindly allowed me to put to him. I entirely agree with him as to the desirableness of full discussion of this question. That there is urgent need for enlightenment, even amongst Bible Leaguers, as to the exact position of the League on certain vitally important matters is apparent from the conflicting answers that have, been given to a simple and practical question which I propounded. The questioif was, “Is it a fair proposition to compel a teacher, say of the Jewish faith, to administer such a lesson as that on ‘ The Crucifixion,’ given on page 123 of the Queensland manual No one has had the courage to come forward and say in plain English that that is a fair proposition, and no one who has the least regard for the conscientious beliefs of a body of citizens who, in New Zealand, have taken a high and honored place in the public life of the community, will or can do so. But attempts have been made to extenuate the proposition; Dean Fitchett was reported—but has since repudiated the report as incorrect — having said that the lessons were to be given “ only as literature.” Mr. Joseph Braithwa : te, another official of the League, made no such fine-spun distinction, but expressly calls them “ religious lessons,” and bluntly said that “ in New South Wales a State/teacher knows before he enters the profession what he is expected to teach, hence a teacher’s conscience clause is unnecessary.” Even this excuse for League tyranny cannot be advanced in the case of New Zealand, where the teachers have all taken up their calling when no

religious test was involved, but Mr Braithwaite’s callous statement is significant, as showing the amount of consideration which some, at least, of the League’s officials are prepared to extend to the members of the teaching profession in the Dominioin. .Mr. A. M. Barnett, too, made no attempt to whittle away the quality of the religious teaching to be given, but seems to think that the coercion of the Jewish conscience in New Zealand is somehow justified because England had, at one time, emancipated the Jews. If the ideas entertained by these two League representatives regarding the doctrine of liberty of conscience are at all widely prevalent amongst members of the League, truly there is much need for discussion and enlightenment. *

' Dean Fitchett has abandoned, or rather disclaimed, the "only as literature" theory in regard to the Bible lessons, and now tells us that the teacher would use the Bible lessons as a "text-book of morals." That is an ingenious theory to meet a difficulty, but in this matter we want, not the theory or speculation of individuals, but solid and authoritative facts. And the facts on this point are as follow:—(1) There is not a single word in the New South Wales or Queensland Education Acts (or their regulations) to say that the Scripture lesson book is to be used only as a "textbook of morals," or that, in the Bible lessons, religion is to be taught only as morals. (2) On the contrary, it has been authoritatively stated that the lessons, including the religious basis which they supply for the morality they inculcate, have to be understood by the children as intelligently as any other lesson, and the children are examined on the " contents " of the lesson, and not only on the moral element involved. (3) Both the New South Wales and the Queensland Education Acts contain express provisions for the teaching of mere morality, and these provisions are entirely distinct and apart from the provisions for Bible lessons, showing that when the framers of the system meant to provide for moral lessons only they were quite capable of saying so. The directions to the teacher for teaching morality are contained under the New South Wales Act in regulation 33, and under the Queensland Act in regulation 105, and in both cases they are independent of, and apart from; the provision for Bible lessons. The preface to the syllabus in the Queensland Act says regarding the provision for teaching morality that "it must be most clearly understood that in teaching morals the < instruction must be wholly secular "—plainly implying that the Bible lessons are not so limited (4) Both the New South Wales and the Queensland Education Acts in express words describe the Bible lessons as religious teaching or instruction. The New South Wales Act, as admitted by Dean Fitchett, speaks of them as "general religious teaching as distinguished from dogmatical or polemical theology," and this Dean Fitchett paraphrases into, "in short, it means the teaching of morals." The paraphrase cannot be accepted. First, because the terms of the Act do not warrant such a gloss. Secondly, because "religious teaching " is necessarily, from the very meaning of the term, something more than mere morals. Some of the readings in the New South Wales and Queensland Scripture manuals undoubtedly contain moral lessons but they < are moral lessons on a religious basis, and this religious basis is religious teaching in the ordinary proper, and accepted meaning of the term. It is not as Dean Fitchett suggests, a case of "teaching religion as morals, but of teaching religion and morals The Queensland Act agrees with that of New South Wales in describing the Bible lessons as "religious instruction,'' and Dean Fitchett is in error in thinking that that is not the case. The extract from the Act given by Dean Fitchett is part of section 22a, and the very passage cited by him is described in the official marginal summary as "provision for religious instruction in scnool hours." The first clause of this section makes provision for selected Bible lessons, and the second clause for instruction by ministers of religion. The third clause deals-with the matter of exemptions and provides that "any parent or guardian shall "be entitled to withdraw his child . . ... from all religious in-

struction," showing that both the Bible lessons and the ministerial teaching are regarded as, and intended to be, "religious instruction." Similarly, the form of certificate of exemption both from the Bible lessons and the denominational teaching, as it is given in schedule XVIII. of the Act, is entitled "Certificate of exemption of pupil from religious instruction."

* - ‘So much for the statutory provisions on this matter. Both in the New South Wales and in the Queensland Act the Bible lessons are referred to definitely as “religious teaching” or “ religious instruction and in such a case, as I have already insisted, we cannot accept the special pleading or private views of individuals, but must take our stand on the solid ground of the terms of the Act. I had hoped to complete my reply to Dean Fitchett’s contention by showing (5) on unimpeachable evidence that in point of fact the Bible lessons are not being given as moral lessons but on high religious lines; but this letter has already run to a sufficient length, and I will, with your permission, develop the point in my next letter, when 1 will also deal with Dean Fitchett’s reply to my other queries. I shall hope to close my case on this particular point in a further communication by (6) quoting from the lessons themselves, and allowing your readers to form theii own judgment as to whether these lessons do not constitute “religious teaching” of a very definite and unmistakable kind.— am, etc., ~, *J. A. Scott. ‘ March 23.’

Concerning Conscience Clauses Mr. Scott dealt with Dean Fitchett’s replies to his two other queries in the following communication, which appeared in the Otago Daily Times of Monday; - Sir, I asked Dean Fitchett whether, seeing that the teachers are necessarily themselves the best and final judges as to whether they can or can not conscientiously teach the proposed Bible lessons, the League would be willing to so modify the scheme as to provide for a conscience clause for the teachers, and so avoid the policy of coercion which is such a palpable blemish in their present proposals. Dean Fitchett’s reply is: “Needing no conscience clause now, the State school teacher will need none then, his position unchanged.” Canon Garland has also replied in the negative to the demand for a conscience clause for teachers, but he does not share Dean Fitchett’s hallucination that the position of the teachers will be unchanged when set religious lessons have been added to the curriculum. On the contrary, he recognises that a tremendous change will have been made in their position ; and more th<jn hints that some at least of the teachers, if left to their own free choice, would be unwilling to administer the lessons. The matter is dealt with in a leaflet, which I have before me, issued some time ago from the Dominion Executive office of the League, and I quote 'a few sentences“ To add a conscience clause for teachers would mean that each teacher would he a perpetually recurring storm centre on the subject. Mr. Smith, on going to Jonestown, would introduce the lessons, and thereby incur hostility from those who did not believe in them, because he would be acting of his own choice and on his own responsibility , and not on the responsibility of the people of the Dominion. Mr. Brown, on succeeding Mr. Smith, would discontinue the lessons on his own responsibility and of his own choice, and thereby give offence to those-.; people who valued the lessons.” Thus does one League! apologist contradict and destroy the other.

•Jr Regarding Dean Fitchett’s reply to my query, one naturally asks, Where is the evidence for this alleged absence of any need for a teachers’ conscience clause? Is it to be found in the fact that one teachers ’institute after another nas cieciareci against; me League’s proposals? Is it to be found in the fact that the New Zealand Educational Institute, representing 2800 State teachers, at the annual conference held last January, put it on official record by a six to one majority that both the judgment and the inclination of the teachers

are 'against the proposed Bible lessons scheme? Is the evidence for the statement that a teachers' conscience clause is unnecessary to be found in the fact that an eminent and universally respected Catholic Bishop has during, the last few months, through the newspaper press, declared to the League and to the general public of New Zealand that Catholic teachers must necessarily be conscientious objectors to this feature of the League's proposals? In this connection I may mention that in one education district alone with which I am specially familiar, more than 50 per cent, of the board's teaching staff profess the Catholic faith. Who are the rightful parties to say whether or not these teachers need a conscience clause —the teachers themselves and their recognised pastors, or the members of an organisation who can make no claim to any special knowledge of the teaching and discipline of the Church to which the teachers belong ? Is the evidence that a teachers' conscience clause is unnecessary to be found in the fact that in your issue of March 27 a secular teacher expressly declared that he for one has conscientious objection to giving the proposed lessons? A teachers' conscience clause is not unnecessary merely because a League representative says it is. In the meantime, I ask your readers to note that the net result of my query to Dean Pit'chett on this head has been to establish the fact that the League officially and flatly refuses to recognise the rights of conscience of the teachers, and that it is its declared and deliberate policy to force the profession, willy nilly, to take up this work against which the teachers have already officially protested.

I had asked Dean Fitchett why, if the Bible lessons were not religious teaching, it should have been necessary to provide a conscience clause—-of a kind—for the children. _ His answer is, in effect, that it is because there are in New Zealand 5529 people describing themselves in the census returns as “of no religion” and 111 as Atheists. I have only to say regarding this that, as an explanation, it does not explain, and as a statement of the reason for the conscience clause it is not true. It does not explain, because if the Scripture lessons are only literature or only morals, and contain no religious teaching, even the people “ of no religion ” are not entitled to a conscience clause. And the suggestion that the conscience clause is provided merely out of solicitude for the children of 111 Atheists is too much even for the most simple of your readers to swallow, and is contrary to well known fact. League orators have again and again assured us that the . clause is intended to safeguard the rights, amongst others, of the children of Catholics, which latter body forms in New Zealand one-seventh of the population. The Bishop of Waiapu, for example, one of the vice-presidents of the League, in a printed address which lies before me, and which I understand is issued as a League publication, says, We are well aware that the Roman Catholics would not sanction their children attending the Scripture readings under the supervision of the teachers,” and goes on to indicate that the conscience clause in the Australian system is intended to meet all such cases. I therefore repeat my unanswered question: If the Bible lessons are only literature, or, as Dean Fitchett now suggests, only morals, why is a conscience clause provided for anybody at all ? ‘ In my next letter I shall deal with the lessons as they are actually being given.— am, etc., ‘March 29.’ ‘J. A. Scott.