DEAN FITCHETT'S 'REPLY' TO BISHOP CLEARY

New Zealand Tablet, 24 July 1913, Page 23

DEAN FITCHETT'S 'REPLY' TO BISHOP CLEARY

c The following letter from his Lordship Bishop Cleary appeared in the (Jtago Daily Times of July 16: - ; - ;' ■ ; '-; '"-•■■ ■■-.-■ .":V" ; : ■•.•"<■':: ; .: j ; ' Sir,The Bible-in-Schools League officially demands "the system of religious instruction" in operation in '-Mew South Wales and certain other States of Australia. Under that system the Government sets up, in law and in fact, as a teacher of religion. Among Anglicans, Presbyterians, and other Reformed denominations, as well as outside them— especially among the State teachers—there is a deep and widespread objection to the Government thus usurping, in part, sacred duties which the Almighty, •in clear Scripture terms, imposes only on parents and-the Church. Herein some Leaguers, and even some League publications, have two voices in clamorous variance with each other. Some of them try to disarm this dangerous objection by alleging that, under the "Australian" system demanded by the League, the Government (through the teachers) treats the Government Scripture Wessons merely as "literature," utterly excluding any-re-ligious instruction or application. This is the position taken up by Dean Fitchett in his alleged'"reply" to Bishop Cleary. What, in this connection, are the facts of the "Australian" system demanded by the League ?

' 1. On the question of fact, the learned Dean's most obvious reply would have been this: Accept the oft-published challenge and quote the texts of the laws of Mew South Wales, Queensland, etc., which declare that the Government Biblical lessons shall on no account be imparted as "religious instruction," but purely and solely as "literature." This has not been done, for the simplest of all reasons: there are no such laws to quote. '2. It is Dean Fitchett's awkward duty to reconcile his "literature" statementif he can—with 1 the following facts of the "Australian" system, which were set forth summarily or in detail in the lecture to which he professed to "reply":

'(a) Section 7 of the New South. Wales Education Act expressly provides that Government officials (teachers) shall impart "general religious teaching" to the pupils as a Government subject in the Government schools. Section 20 of the West Australian Act (57 Vict., No. 16) contains the very same provision. Section 22a of the Queensland Act of 1910 requires the teacher to impart "religious instruction" as a Government subject in the Government schools. On October 6, 1910, Mr. Kidston, formerly Premier of Queensland (who placed this Act upon the Queensland Statute Book), declared in Parliament that the Government teacher "should give a lesson on a religious subject." A statement similar in import was made by the leader of the Queensland Legislative Council (Hon. Mr. Barlow, and ardent Leaguer) on November 10, 1910. Is all this treating the Government Scripture lessons purely as "literature," to the utter exclusion of all religious instruction or application?

' (b) The report of the Minister of Public Instruction of New South Wales for 1909 (p. 38) expressly states that "general religion" forms part of the course of instruction; that it is "a good foundation" for "further religious instruction," and that "to many children" the State school teacher is "the only guide" to "religious knowledge." No. 152 of the departmental regulations of Western Australia (p. 78) describes the State teacher's work as "general religious instruction" and "religious teaching." Another Western Australian regulation refers to schools where (on account of the non-attendance of the clergy) "all the religious teaching is left to the regular teacher"— is, to the State school teacher. Is this treating the Government Scripture lessons merely as "literature," devoid of all religious instruction or application? And would it not be a degradation of the Sacred Text to treat it with no more religious respect that one would ; show to 'Robinson Crusoe or Ali Baba and the Forty 'Thieves.

.;; (c) Religion ? has been well described as a body of truths or doctrines relating to God, and, arising out of these, a collection of duties having God as their - primary object. Religion may also be treated as a virtue— virtue of justice to Godgiving to God that worship, etc., winch is His due. In my Dunedin lecture I showed that the Government Scripture manuals of New Souoh Wales and Queensland have been "made as sectarian as they well* can be" by being -■; taken . mainly from a sectarian version of the Bible, by being explained or interpreted on the sect-arian-principle of " private judgment," and by the omission of large bodies of specified texts and incidents to which Catholics notoriously appeal in support of doctrines and practices of their faith." But, mutilated though they be for a sectarian purpose, they abound in religious doctrines, in religious incidents (such as miracles, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, e-JD.), in statements of religious obligation grounded on religious doctrine (such as the Ten Commandments, etc.), and in praise, prayer, and worship in sectarian including the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer, which teachers are bound to teach (W.A. Education Circular, January, 1913, p. 275). The object of the Government Scripture lessons of New South Wales is stated in the preface to be to fix moral and "'religious instruction" on the hearts of the children. In dictionary phrase, he truly teaches who "guides" another in the acquisition of knowledge. A teacher would be truly teaching this mass of Government religious doctrine, incident, duty, and devotion, even if he listened in silence to the reading of an appointed lesson therein—just as he would be teaching the multiplication table oven if he listened, without note or comment, to its appointed recitation. But as a matter of fact, the teacher is required so.to explain the Government Scripture lessons that the children shall understand them as they would any other lesson. In the official League pamphlet Opinions of Experts (p. 2) the New South Wales Under-Secretary of Education cites approvingly the action of teachers who dwell "with judicious force and impressiveness" on "points of religion" and morals in the Government Biblical lessons. The Western Australian Educational Circular is "published under the authority of the Hon. Minister of Education." In its "January issue, 1913 (p. 314), the literary and historical value of the Bible, for "senior pupils," is briefly mentioned; but the teacher is cautioned against treating it merely as literature, when he is told that " in all Scripture lessons there should be an atmosphere of quiet subdued reverence that the sacred nature of the subject demands," and that " the children should feel that the Scripture, lesson is different from other lessons in this respect." The same Ministerial circular requires the Government teacher to impart, as a Government subject, a large body of specified religious doctrines relating to God (p. 314). Is all this treating the Government Scripture lessons purely as "literature," quite devoid of religious instruction or reference? (d). An official League pamphlet, Opinions of Experts, contains some 50 declarations by State Ministers, high-placed education officials, inspectors, and teachers that, under the. "Australian" system • demanded by the League, the Government (through the teachers) imparts "religious instruction," '"religious teaching," " teaching of the general truths of Christianity," and so on. I have before me, in several other official League publications, declarations similar in purport and effect. I will here merely refer to one of them,. Notes on the Australian System, by the Rev. A. Don. It contains a series of sample Scripture lessons as given by State teachers in the author's presence. It proves overwhelmingly that, in the actual operation of the system in New South Wales, formal religious instruction of the Sunday-school type is given by State teachers — a curious medley of sectarian doctrine, a theological definition of prayer (p. 6), theological and dogmatic "proofs" of the divine mission of St. faul (p. 13), the recitation of sectarian forms of prayer, the singing of sectarian hymns (pp. 12-13). In fact, we are enthusiastically told in this official

League pamphlet that, a teacher did this work ''in the. manner of a first-class Bible-class teacher" (p. 14). Such, in its actual operation, is the "Australian" system as described in the League's own official literature. It is obviously as "religious," in a sectarian way, as it well 'can be. It now rests with the worthy Bean Fitchett either to reconcile these four bodies of facts with his literature statement, or to carry out his promise of abandoning a League which demands a system under which the Government sets up as a teacher of religion.— am, etc., ' ' * Henry W. Cleary, D.D., ' Bishop of Auckland. 'July 12.' : ; r