Bible in State Schools.

Waiapu Church Gazette, Volume III, Issue 8, 1 February 1913, Page 114

Bible m State Schools.

Bishop deary's Accusations. , Bishop Cleary exhibits much anger at what he describes as the "JSI6 Popery" attitude of our movement, and the league's objective affords him no ground for this statement. If there are people who raise this cry — and we have not yet met them—there is one person {responsible, and one alone — Bishop Cleary himself. He accused the League of seeking to revive the penal code ,of Ireland with all its horrors. This was but a neat way of saying that the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Methodist Churches, and the Salvation Army, who had combined m the league, were seeking for legislation prohibiting the Roman Catholic Church from existing m New Zealand. Reviving that penal code would necessarily include some of the horrible methods used under it m Ireland, such as, e.g., preventing a child learning the only language its father could understand, or making it a punishment by death, or imprisonment for taking part m the holitst service of the Roman Catholic Church. Such an accusation against the league could only be brought up by one who was m desperation. It is impossible to imagine that the Churches concerned could have such an intention, and no one knows it better than Bishop Cleary himself. But the accusation having been made by him, it was necessary to rebut it, and the rebuttal would obviously include the drawing of attention to simple admitted facts of history, such as the Spanish Inquisition, and the Massacre of S. Bartholomew, as showing that the unjustifiable accusation of seeking to revive the penal code did not* come well from that Church which had been guilty of those atrocities. Had Bishop Cleary dealt with the merits of the league's proposals without introducing old-world and old-time matters, nothing would have been heard of them. When the sincere toleration extended to h s Church m New Zealand is borne m mind, the enormity of his accusation becomes clearer, and the foundation of the "No Popery" cry, if it has been raised, is to be found m Bishop Cleary's uncharitable accusations. Some time ago Bishop Cleary accused the League of issuing a

statement under the name of the Director, of Education, Tasmania, whiich was hot genuine or auJthentic. His Lordship stated that the Director of Education for Tasmania "Never made the foolish statement attributed to him," and then the Bishop proceeded to insinuate that other evidence produced by the League was of a similar character.. The Bishop was challenged on this point by Canon Garland, who produced the original document on the official paper of the Education Department of Tasmania, duly signed. The accusation was widely circulated by the Bishop. It now appears that another person has received a communication from, the present Director of Education for Tasmania that the statement published by the League was duly written by the then Director of Education, and signeed by his Secretary, and Bishop Cleary accepts this statement, and admits that " the statement m question was not a forgery." The good Bishop has done himself an injustice unworthy of the. high esteem m which he is held. In his ardour at any cost to keep the Bible out of the State schools and to deny liberty of conscience to the parents of children therein, he resorted to, a method calculated to. disparage a reputation otherwise held m respect. He could have avoided the pit-fall into which he has' fallen by asking tc see the original document, a courtesy which would have been granted him readily. His astuteness also failed him, otherwise he would have realised that the document would not have stood the test ol publication for some years if it were a forgery. It is a matter oi regret that Bishop Cleary, when he so tardily acknowledges his error, did not apologise for the serious reflection which he cast upon the honour of the heads and leading members, of those Churches constituting the Executive of the League, Had he done so > it would not havt been necessary now to add thai the only good thing which follows from* his accusation is the smal attention which will be given tc any similar statements emanating from him. HOME RULE OR ROME RULE BishoD Cleary again is an^ry be cause the phrase "Home Rule oi Rome Rule" has come into thi controversy, but again he is th<

person responsible. His claims may be summed up :- 1. That he would deny the right to the) people of New Zealand to settle their own affairs when he objects to them deciding, this matter by referendum, and fails to suggest any better method. 2. He puts forward the view of the Roman Catholic position as the only one which is to be considered, or as possible, and that unless and until all the people oi New Zealand come to hold Roman Catholic views on the subject oi religious instruction it is to continue to be prohibited m our schools. These claims amount to an attempt to force the Roman Catholic position Upon the people oi New Zealand. As the Roman Catholics are only 14 per cent., the tyranny of it becomes acute. The phrase "Home Rule or Rome Rule" cannot disappear until Bishop Cleary withdraws irom. his position that the Roman Catholic view is the only one tenable by the people m that part of the British Empire m which we live and m which the law of the Roman Church has not yet destroyed the people's free rights under the Magna Charta. It has been pointed out by the [ League that wherever this system of religious instruction exists, State aid to Roman Catholic schools has' become impossible for the simple reason that the vast majority of the people become so , satisfied with the National system ' that they prefer it to schools under ecclesiastical control. This view is '' shown to be the correct one by the ; following letter from the Hon. '• Digby Denham, Premier of Queens- [ land, to Archbishop Duhig, Roman 1 Catholic Archbishop m that State : Chief Secretary's Office, s Brisbane, 3rd Aug., 191 1. ; My Lord,— I have received your letter of the • Bth July, but have been prevented i from replying sooner by pressure - of public business, consequent upon 5 the opening of Parliament, and I I trust that you will overlook the > delay. r , Your Lordship complains of recent legislation, permitting Bible lessons m State schools. As to this, I assume the following facts _ are not m controversy :— r (a) The Bible lessons were introb duced into the State schools as a 1 result of a referendum majority of

1 7>547) upon, a vote of 130,959, 7651 votes being informal. (b) The lessons which I send for your perusal have been framed with the most scrupulous care to exclude any denominational,, sectarian, or controversial matter, and as such as, m my opinion, cannot fail to be conducive to the moral and religious improvement of those who study them. (c) The clergy of your denomination have the right of free access to the State- schools for the purpose of giving religious instruction to the children of that denomination under regulations framed m accordance with law. Under these circumstances, I contend that there is no just ground of complaint against the decision of the people being given effect to, nor do I see any special connection between this subject and the subject of endowment. Your Lordship's main purpose, however, is to ask me whether the Government have any intention of proposing endowment to your schools. In reply, I may say that the Government have no such intention, as they are of opinion that a majority of the people af this State are opposed to grants of public money to any religious denomination for educational purposes. — I have, etc., (Sgd.) D. Denham. This letter was laid on the table of the Queensland Parliament on the 25th October, 181 1, and was accepted without challenge m Parliament. BISHOP CIvEARY'S ALLIES. Forty-two persons met the other day, and m solemn conclave decided once and' for all that there is to be no religious instruction m th?. State schools of New Zealand. This decision will no doubt receive the weight which is its due, and which will be increased by the fact that the same 42 persons seriously decided that the t ,000,000 of people m New Zealand should not be allowed to decide a matter upon which the 42 have finally declared themselves. That at the time of this momentous vote these 42 members were officially supplied by one of their own officers with Bishop Cleary's pamphlet against religious instruction, liberty, and an open Bible, may account for their decision. Bishop Cleary will doubtless welcome allies who are prepared to muzzle the people of New Zealand, a muzzle specially indicated as most appropriate for the parents of the children m the

schools from the pojint of view of the opponents' of Religious Instruction, PRESBYTERIAN OPINION. At the annual . Conference of the Presbyterian Bible Classes held m January at Temuka, the following resolution was carried unanimously and with such enthusiasm that the members rose to their feet and pledged themselves to give effect "to it :— "That this Conference of Bible Class delegates (there being 535 registered members) accepts the policy of the Bible m State Schools League, and the members pledge themselves to earnestly support it by assisting to form branches of the League, and that m the meantime they suggest that all interested should take advantage of the present facilities for giving religious instruction m State schools." Additional confirmation is continually forthcoming confirming the statement made by the New Zealand League that the religious instruction system works satisfactorily m Australia, and causes no friction. The Director of Education, Western Australia, m a letter received last month, writes, " The system continues to work smoothly here." At Dubbo, New South Wales, 513 visits have been paid to the d ; strict schools during. last year for the purpose of imparting religious instruction to the children belonging to their respective Churches. There were 163 visits paid by the Church of England, 143 by the Presbyterians, 100 by the Methodists, and 107 by other denominations. It is alleged by opponents that the larger number" of Church of England visits paid indicates th.it the Church has an undue ad/antage. Those who make this stalement ignore the fact that the. Church of England visits correspond with the percentage of the children attending the schools. It is estimated that somewhat more than half the children, attending State schools belong to the Church of England. A little arithmetical calculation will show that the visits paid by the various denominations fairly correspond with the respective strength of those denominations according" to their per cent ape of the population. Writing to the "Nelson Mail" on the Bible m Schools question, Rev, J. H. Collier says : — "According to his letter m your issue of to-day, the Rpmari Catholic Bishop of

Auckland, is greatly concerned about the statement of the State education authorities of Tasmania; that ' the Bible m Schools ' system m that State is accepted by all denominations as a happy solution of the religious difficulty.' The Bishop's letter is a long; and desperate attempt to explain away the plain, blunt, and official statement of the highest authority on public schools m Tasmania. Your many readers may like to know the opinion of one of the high authorities m New South Wales, as given m the ' Sydney Daily Telegraph,' for the Christmas holidays. He at the breaking-up of the schools says : ' One of the finest things m connection with the State school teachers is their public tolerance m regard to matters of faith. Privately they may hold views of the most extreme type ; they may hold office m religious orders, but to each other, to the school, and to the public generally, there is no question of faith or creed, Gentile or Jew, Catholic or Protestant, Agnostic or Rationalist. They have loyally interpreted the regions provisions of the Public Instruction Act, having m mind one thing only — the moral, physical, and mental advancement of the children under their care, . . . Whatever rolitical parties or differing- denominations may do or desire, the teachers have shown through years of unswerving" fidelity thst the provisPons, of the Public Instruction Act are carefully carried out.' There are 6000 teachers employed m the State schools of New South Wales, and it is unspeakable presumption for Bishop Cleary or the Archbishop m New South Wales to say that they shall not be allowed to give, religious instruction m the State schools. Christianity hasbeen the jruidine light of our race 1-ack through the ages to the days of the Apostles, and shall we banish it from our children, and for the first time m history refuse to acknowledge it or have it taught m pur schools ? The President of tlie Children's Court m New South Wales, speaking from a public platform a few weeks ago, said that he fomid by inquiry that almost all the children brought to the Court by the police knew nothing whatever about religion, and had received no religious instruction ; ?n-l, further, that very few of them even 14 or 15 years of agfe knew how to read or write. Evidently, the compulsory attendance clauses! of the Act have not been carried put m these cases,"