The Evening Star. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1870.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 279, 1 December 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1870.

Now that the question of education is before the Provincial Council, there is the usual flutter among the upholders of sectarianism in state education. It matters not how utter the inapplicability of a denominational system to overtaking the necessities of a sparse population, the lusfc of power is such that the ever recurring effort will be made by the directors of sectarian divisions of the community, to retain the distribution of the loaves and fishes, with all the influence which this confers. Of all the'arguments that are adduced with this object in view, the hardest to feel patience with is the ad capitdndwn one of the injustice involved in the state giving only secular instruction. " "What right," it is said, " has the state to tax us for the support of a system of education to which we have conscientious objections. "We believe in religion as a vital element in education, and we cannot support a system which ignores its claims." There is speciousness in this objection which is very telling with the unreflecting ; and from an inherent love of fairplay, there is a strong tendency with many to consider that the plea is good, and that a system of education which is thus opposed to "conscientious convictions," should not be countenanced as the general system of the country. . But it seems to be forgotten by tliose who wax indignant on the injustice of a secular system, that the state does not admit the claim on it to supply complete education. In an especial manner it has practically, in many ways, repudiated such claim in respect of religion; and the whole policy of this colony, in common with many other colonies, is based on the general belief, that from the great diversity of religious views in the community, and the rancorous feelings engendered by any interference with religious convictions, the state must stand aloof from the recognition of religion. We have no state church, we confer no religious endowments. [We make railways and build gaols, but we do not, as a state, build churches, or endow preachers in connection with them. It is felt that peace and goodwill are promoted among the people, by leaving to their diverse religious Convictions, the support of their particular religious faith. And in making bridges and not churches, we cannot be regarded as valuing bridges beyond churches, or being guilty of atheism ; but we are simply actuated by the feeling, that as there is a common interest in bridges, the common revenues of the people can be devoted to this purpose; but rs there is not a common interest in any particular church, the common resources cannot in justice be devoted to the support of any particular church, and cannot bear such a. strain on their resources as would be necessary in affording support to all churches. The very same principle applies to religion in the education of children. Reading, writing and arithmetic, are of common interest to all, and therefore can be paid for from the common fund. A particular religious faith cannot be imparted to all with any sense of justice, and the thousand and one diversities of religious convictions would be too severe a pressure if resting on our limited resources of revenue. The state therefore wisely adheres to the imparting of what it can impart to all, and leaves to the various sects of religionists the inculcating of their, own particular views to their own particular followers. In a wise system, the state should not profess to give a complete education, for the reason that it cannot give such It does not essay to impart medical or surgical science in its common schools, nor yet to complete the education of a barrister. But it te-ches to read, to write, and to keep accounts, and so me other elements of education, without which no one can be educated: and professing to give instruction in these elements it cannot be charged with injustice in declining to teach medicine, surgery, law, or theology. It is true that religion is a necessary part of education, and that no education is complete without the training of the moral, and even the physical, as well as the mental. But the state cannot educate, and should profess only to instruct ; and if it instructs in what is of common necessity at the cost of common funds, it cannot be charged with injustice in refusing to go farther. If it supplies bread, .which all eat, and refuses to supply beef and fish, because there are differences of taste and habits in this regard, the man who eats fish cannot exclaim that his rights are injured because he only gets bread, nor the man who abhors fish complain that hia physical nature is done

violence to, because he is not also provided with beef. In education the suite can, without any violation of justice or conscientious convictions, oo a certain length ard there stop ; and refusing to aid in imparting religion it does not show disrespect to its vital importance as an element in education, but it merely declares that it leaves this portion of education to the various religious sections of the community. Nothing therefore can be more unfounded than the objection so glibly current, that a system which does not teach religion does violence to a principle of justice.