The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1913. SOME BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS PRONOUNCEMENTS

New Zealand Tablet, 23 October 1913, Page 33

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1913. SOME BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS PRONOUNCEMENTS

— ~- •--• IBLE-IN-SCHOOLS propagandists are still r IBBJ- holding forth on the subject of the rf IjfiSft League's demands, to the weariness rather \J}S££y}J than to the edification or enlightenment of o||gg|> the public. During the past few days two |©jftp>. Anglican bishopsthe' Bishop of Waiapu and the Bishop of Christchurch—have de- -*"%) livered lengthy charges on the question; and'though the utterances appear to have aroused little interest, it, might, perhaps, be regarded as lack of courtesy if they were allowed to pass entirely without notice on our. part. Both speakers dealt largely in repetition; and their deliverances are for the most part a mere re-hash of earlier utterances on this well-worn and now almost thread-bare subject. Our comments will b« confined to such fresh matter—• small in quantity and not at all impressive in quality

as we have been able to unearth- in the pronouncements, and to one or two points which have been raised before but which may be regarded as deserving of somewhat fuller treatment than they have yet received. ; > i ' ■■ ■ ; : ■ * Under this latter heading may, perhaps, be placed the episcopal references to . the . question of conscience. Are the consciences of the majority,' asks the Bishop of Waiapu, 'to have no redress and no consideration?' And the Bishop of Christchurch echoes the same cry : ' The Roman Catholic conscience is not the only conscience in New Zealand. The conscience of that far larger body of which I have spoken is also to be considered. It is impossible 4 to satisfy both parties. Is it therefore reasonable or wise to satisfy neither ?' One can only say that, for gentlemen who are supposed to be more or less experts on questions of religion and morals, these two ecclesiastics exhibit a surprising haziness as to the meaning and scope and exact significance of rights of conscience in their relation to the State. Bible Leaguers have no rights, as such, which do not at the same time and to the same extent, belong to Catholics as such, to Congregationalists, Baptists, Jews, Unitarians, and to every section of the community. They have a civil right to enjoy their own belief, to, worship in ther own way, to read the Bible and, to teach it as part of their religion but they have no right in this respect to any preference from the State, or any of its institutions. They have no right to insist upon Protestant practices at public expense, or in public buildings, or to turn public schools into seminaries for the dissemination of Protestant ideas. They can claim nothing on the score of conscience, which they can not concede equally to .all others. . If, therefore, the Bible. League denominations wish to have their particular view of religious education recognised by the State they must concede precisely the same right to Catholics and others before they can put in any valid claim on the score of conscience. It is not a question of majorities or minorities; for if the conscience of the majority is to be the standard, then there is no such thing as right of conscience at all. If, then, it be said that the Bible-in-schools conscience requires that the Bible' be read by and to Bible-in-schools children and that it is a denial of a right of conscience to forbid it, the answer is (1) that no such right of conscience can require that the State shall provide out of the common taxes for its gratification, and' (2) that Catholics and others have, too, the same right to have their children taught religion according to their views; and if the one right is conceded, the other must, as a matter of absolute justice, be also granted. As to Bishop Julius's declaration that ' it is impossible to satisfy both parties,' the statement is simply not true. It has been found possible in many countries which are in the very van of educational efficiency; and if the League would fling aside those features of its proposals which violate justice and the rights of conscience, and would consult and consider other religious bodies interested, a way out of the educational difficulty which would be fair to all parties would assuredly be found. ■ .",-■ * The Bishop of Waiapu makes an astonishingly perverse and one-sided application of a recent striking utterance of Mr. Balfour when he contrives to make himself believe that it tells in favor of the League's peculiar proposals. The position is quite ' the reverse to the contrairy,' as Artemus Ward would say—the words tell strongly and directly against. the League and in favor of the Catholic position. Bishop Averill quotes Mr". Balfour as saying: When you are dealing with a population of 36 millionsl do not remember the exact figure of England'and Wales at this moment —and are considering the conditions, under which 1 most parents work, it is quite impossible, whatever their will, whatever their moral qualifications, that they should all do the work of training which is required. That is universally recognised. If that be so,, it follows that you ought to provide the parents with that kind of religious training, if any, which they desire in the

schools to, which you compel them "to send J their children.' That is a perfectly sound principle; but what we complain of is that the \ League's; scheme -- utterly fails to give proper scope - and application to the principle. The .retort to Bishop Averill's contention is obvious. We have, merely to ■ ask, What - provision is made in the League proposals for the = application of this principle to the case of Catholic parents, and. of Jewish parents, and of Unitarian parents ?. And .the answer is, None whatever. The Jewish parent is told that if he cannot accept the Bible lessons on the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christwhich are to him blasphemy and sacrilege —he must make provision. elsewhere for the religious teaching he , desires, and pay for it at his own expense, besides bearing his share of the cost- of the League's scheme. The Unitarian parent is in like case. As is well known, Catholic parents, while willing to submit to State control- therefore claiming State recognitionin regard to the secular teaching, desire for their children their own religious teaching and religious atmosphere in their. own schools; and the League advocates—the men who are posing as the champions of the rights of - parents—are forever telling us that this is the very thing they are out to prevent! " . ' * ' - - .'.' ■ Bishop Julius's utterances are usually marked by more candor than discretion and in a single sentence he gives away the whole case of those who oppose the Catholic claim. Is it fair/ he asks, 'to complain that we have not made like sacrifice with the Roman Catholics, nor joined with them in a claim which must overturn the national system? Why should we? W ■prefer a national to a denominational system.' If that be so, how can the recognition of the Catholic claim by any possibility overturn the national system ? How can the incorporation of the Catholic schools into the national system by State recognition of the secular instruction imparted drive Bible Leaguers out of a national system which they prefer into denominational schools which they do not prefer ? And- Anglicans and Bible Leaguers generally ' prefer a national to a denominational system '—what becomes of the cry that if Catholic schools are recognised other denominations will clamor for like recognition ? Altogether, the Catholic position, so far from being weakened, has been materially strengthened by the two latest episcopal pronouncements. . ,