Original Correspondence.

Clutha Leader, Volume IV, Issue 203, 31 May 1878, Page 6

Original Correspondence.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — Tho subject of teaching science is now so fully occupying the attention of the education community that the. more important topic, namely, morality, which has lately been all engrossing, bids fair to be driven out of the field ; and it is chiefly j in the hope that merely mentioning the name may induce some others to keep up the interest in so important a subject that I now venture. to intrude the few following remarks on your- valuable space, if you will be so good as to favour me. The existing piece of educational legist lation enacts that the teaching in our schools is to be wholly secular, therefore nothing may be taught in these schools which is not secular. Now everyone admits that morality, is a most important part of education, ; but if.it is not a secular subject, we may not, according to the Act, teach it in our schools. It is then very clear that the now popular question " Can morals be taught in secular schools ? " is equivalent to "Is morality a secular subj ect ? " Now religion not being a secular subject if morality be inseparable from it, it (morality) cannot be taught in secular schools, because in that case religion must be taught with it. But let it be granted tbat morality is separable from religion, and it would be most illogical to say, therefore, it is secular. , .It is merely begging the question to -first separate morality from religion and then take for granted that ■ everything not religion is secular. The fact is, 'morality and religion have been so, long associated together, and in actual practice are. so remarkably alike, that the two (ii such they be) cannot but be looked upon as equally distinct from secularism. But the mind is apt to be deceived by likenesses; and perhaps after all morality is a secular subject like' arithmetic, reading, writing, and the other subjects, usually called " secular. " . But it has by no means yet been proved that morality is a secular subject, and until this is done we have no right, according to the Act, to teach it in our schools. If it be a secular subject, and at , the same time a , most .important . part- of education, why have our legislators left lis in doubt as to whether it , may be .taught or not? v ■"■■■'■■ «"*' s To reflect , on the practical bearing of the question.' .Thousands.. of Hiildreh— the germs J of future New Zealand— rare now receiving ho instruction in a most neces-: sary part ;of education, .because, their teachers are in doubt as ..to whether tliey. may teach it : of hotYTh'ousahds df/chii-' dreh armed with the dangerous weapon—' education -'—are- being' hrought up.in,, total ignorance of, the laws'which; governthe rights and wellbeing of ; society. - An immense army ,:is tbithe:/ use of arms.,^ .outr.a/generahj inevitable/:^ Jajl^qcau'se^'ou "leave it i&oubtfu?lwh-^

a most important part of education, shall n d or. shall not form part of Education. 'AA'iyyAAi*-^ ■--.-Ittcannot be .expect. ditjiat tlie ordim*ryY'M<? schoolmaster, can perceive, the; fine distiifc-- .vY tion betyeen morality and religoiiy wlnch- R '' a schooled psychologist, sees.- • It isfuh-'Y^ 1 reasonable to expect him ' to see .'.such >& A { '.-lose resemblance "between moral teacbing!,T% and secujar teaching, as to identify the 'two*. A" A Still moi*e unreasonable is ; it to 'expect-' s^ A .him 'to ;teach morality:' a 1 subject not:Y " ? -mentioned in' the ; Education* Actf : '''ahd ! ''./.; ( ; which he believes to be excluded by the Y. J word ' •* secular. " Many highly gifted and :A.l cultivated, minds fail to see the possibility** 1 - •< of separting religion and) morality.' ■'-. StrUYY' ' less then can the ordinary" mind/ detect '^ the distinction. How then hah a/mind ix which fails to see the distinction separate; '}". ,the ; two ir practice, so as' to teach one •'- --without the other 1 And so they remain inrfi/X: doubt, and do not teach morality. Of course > } '. ) there are' many teachers whose daily good example and constant supervision of their pupils inculcate more morality *.thah''many others would teach, who would have, their , mouths constantly 'crammed with texts _f s> -* scripture: ;But this kind of ihciilcatioh'is *-'""- a very different thing, from teaching', andYY* does not; have half the force, which, the -„-;•■ latter— quite a distinct thing— would give it. And what of the weaker brethren x in' ' : >- ", doubt, whose children under their care are ' ' : receiving . no moral instruction 1 ■ What -.:>, •: •of that army now being armed, shortly to iT I bo let loose without a commander or guide?" What of the bad principles,. dissolute 1ive5,.,,,; crimes, factions, misery, and national /.,„. degradation, which must inevitably result — from the exclusion of morality from'education. And who shall we have to thahlc? " : Is it not the fabrications of that scheme^'" in which they, out of patriotic considerVi- '' tion for the. welfare of the people* ' and-' ; ' country, have left it doubtftd whether or not a most impoijant part of education^ '• may or can form part of school instruo-' : *' tion? — I am, etc., ' . ... :r.v. Gbo. W. Cabrington,,:. ■• Wangaloa, May 24,1878. , ■ •..;... ..