"THE CHURCHES AND THE STATE."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1042, 3 February 1911, Page 6

"THE CHURCHES AND THE STATE."

Sir,—Your-leader of to-day's date is really a challenge to the supporters of •our present State system of education to declare the faith that is in them. Yoii are evidently impressed by Archbishop Redwoods speech. I am not. He has told us nothing that we hnvc not heard before. It is the old plea for denominational teaching at.tho expense of tho State. I admit, though, that the plea is advanced in very plausible fashion. - Whether the recrudescence- of tho Bible-in-Schools agitation is responsible for his deliverance, just now is, of-course, not f™ .'»? to say. Certain.it is that,, if the Bible-m-Schools .party succeed, the Archbishop must -then in .equity receive State grants for denominational schools.- Yoiir definition :of fhe parties to this controversy leaves no room for the position of which Milton was (ho most striking representative at the tirao of tho Commonwealth; which is being held by steadilymcrcasing numbers in the English Free Churches, and which is championed by many in Now Zealand, viz., that religion being a question of conscience, is purely a question for tho individual and the Church, and is, therefore, quite outside tho functions of the Christian State. We hold, sir, that .tho State ceases to be Christian, cither when it directly teaches religion in its schools,. cr when indirectly it subsidises Churches for such teach■ing. The Christian State is under law to ™ Christ, nnd it is u violation of His Will to-seek to advance tho cause of religion by compulsion, cither by way of taxation or text-book. The voluntary principlo is at the very soul of His religion. So lam opposed to 'Archbishop li-edirood s position. But T am as vehemently opposed to tho Bible-in-Schools party; and I baso my opposition to both en liberty of conscience, individual and national equity, and tho preservation of Christian-principle." Now for tho Archbishop s.case-as it is reviewed in your leader. His position you say is summed up thus: There is only one truo basis of spurn -education, and that is religion." Granted; but. it.does not necessarily follow, that this religious basis should be supplied by the State.- The fallacy underlying the whole argument here is that the State school is the only factor in the child s education. There aro other factors, tho experience of life, the hornthe Church,.etc.;.and-it is for the homo ami the -Church to supply the religious' basis—of course, at their own expense! Then, to imply that God is eliminated from, the State education is to further imply that our State education .is Godless which misrepresents tho facts. ' Our education is not materialistic, although we call it "secular.". The moral teaching given in the school of necessity assumes tho religious atmosphere iii tvhich civilised nations to-day" live and have their being. But, suppose we wui-u to admit, for tho moment, that the State should supply the religious basis for education, what form or interpretation of religion should the. State ndont? The I R.C.- form? The form held by tho majority? The Baptist form? or any and every form? • Hero is another deadlock! J \\'c aro only safe, sir, oh the ground of principle. . Next we are-'told . that it is "a great injustice to bo compelled to nay taxes for public schools to which they cannot conscientiously send their children." This looks plausible, but let us analyse tho actual position. In our schools "certain subjects in tho arts and sciences are taught by trained men, irrespective of creed—tho men may be Roman Catholic or Protestant. No religious creed has a place in the schools. Thus, no Church is favoured; all are on tho. same, plane of perfoctaud righteous equality, and the schools nro pnen to nil. Then where docs tho Ronia'u Catholic injustice enter? But, he persists, they have conscientious objections,, nnd so cannot send their children to these schools.- I resnect conscience as mucli as anyone, I th'ihk, but where does conscience enter here? \n wo really to suppose that it is a violalion of. tho Roman Catholic conscience for a Roman Catholic child to be taught by i>. teacher, who.mny be Roman Catholic or Protectant, at the expense of Ihe Stale, (hat trfice' two" are four? That conscience must be peculiarly constituted, surely? But, notwithstanding this parade ot conscience, by the Archbishop's own admission, half tho Roman Catholic children arc trained in the State schools at the present time! Then it is a bit- singular that the same sensitive conscience does not operate in tho staffing of these presumed godless schools Roman Catholics serve with Protestants on tho school staff—a further evidence of the equity of our system. And, further, ' Roman Catholics have not always held ' the'conscientious scruples'of the Arch- , : bishop. "Under Cardinals Wiseman and Manning tho Roman Catholics of England i availed themselves freely enough of the ' privileges of Ovford and Cambridge, and' these by the way, were distinctly Protestant institutions. No, we arc not going to allow our present ideal system of Stato education to be reduced to chaos for the sake of fanciful ideas of conscience.

Then as to the demand that the money they save tho State should bo refunded to them for the secular knowledge which they impart to their children, with- tho cleverly-put plan that they should not bo "fined and oppressed" for imparting "one. item of education beyond the secular curriculum." This is simply a demand for a denominational grant. You, sir, describe this statement as "fair and logical." I cannot. It is not fair because it is not full. It is not logical because it makes juvenile distinction where distinction is impossible. The Koinnn Catholic school is a unity.saturated throughout with the Roman Catholic atmosphere; and tho grant for- secular subjects is to perpetuate and multiply that atmosphere at State expense! But I prefer the case for the Roman Catholic schools as stated by another Itonian Catholic dignitary. It is

fairer and altogether more frank, said Bishop Grimes at Mang'iora. "He was sorry that tho school was not supported as it ought to be. The school was' a necessity. Ho thought more or having a school than a church in a parish. It was tho homo and training-ground of the future Catholics who were to build up a strong church." One says nothing against this, out obviously, if tne Catholic ichool

'"is- the homo and - training-ground of the future Catholics" the Catholics must concontinue to maintain it. No, tho "oppression" is purely imaginary, and as things now are, they Have not the slightest warrant nor State aid. But let a Protestant text-book 'be introduced into the.State school and tho position would be altered materially. Distinction would then bo made, and tho logical and fair outcome of that would be State grants to ■ tho Roman Catholic school?. From that issue there could be no escape. Further, notwithstanding what tho Archbishop terms "a false and groundless fear," grants to. Soman Catholic schools must inevitably mean grants to other denominational schools, e.g., to the Angliciin schools. (In Auckland the Anglicans have a Girls' High School, with others elsewhere.) The other' churches would soon follow suit, and this would necessarily involve the utter collapse of our national system of education. Is the nation prepared.for that? We think riot. It would bo back into the abyss with a vengeance. You, sir, appear to be profoundly affected by. Mr. Kennedy's threat to make the Roman Catholic question a first-class issue in our politics, and if I interpret you rightly, you would avert that by concessions, the first of which would relate to the junior national scholarships. To make any such scholarship tenablo at any denoniinational institution would be equivalent to Stato aid to such institution, and that, needless to reinark, would be subversive of the fundamental principles of our national system of education. Depart from theso. principles ever so little and you embark on the troubled sea of sectarian strife, the echoes of which will resound in every school,committee room in the Dominion. And. as to Mr. Kennedy's threat, why— let him! It will not be the first time. And we shall not be without warning. I fea'r. I. cannot take" seriously the argument that' the State has not an<! will not be able to supply the needful facilities for all the children in the Dominion. The State would bo only too. glad to take them air in—at proper notice, of course, Were your- correspondent's sage suggestion enforced it would only show that tho Roman Catholics were out for a little Irish fun.—l am, etc., T. A. WILLIAMS. ' Baptist Manse.