BISHOP CLEARY AND THE BIBLE-INSCHOOLS LEAGUE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1661, 30 January 1913, Page 6

BISHOP CLEARY AND THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS LEAGUE.

Sir,—There arc two outstanding anil regrettable., features in. the organising sine of the present Wible-in-schools campaign; One is the misrepresentation of opponents' views and motive*, ami the emphasis given to tile aiiti-Popery and personal element; the other is the significant unwillingness of the league leaders— though 'often challenged—to attempt a justification of the seven or eight sweeping changes which they are demanding, in the laws of NeW Zealand.

It is with much regret that I ani again compelled, in necessary self-defence, to refer to a personal issue in a newspaper controversy:—(l) Does the rev. organiser of the league seriously believo that I laid a charge of "forgery,-" as alleged by him? If ho dees, he lias the remedy which I invited'him. to take in my last letter, and a jury of my Protestant fellow citizens wilt speedily disabuse hint of the notion. Given a fair statement of the case, so would any lawyer, or any sensible schoolboy with a moderately accurate acquaintance with the plain meaning of. English words. (2) It is (as shown by me) quite untrue that I kept silent after I had in my possession the knowledge that the late Director of Education, in Tasmania was the real author of the flagrantly untrue statement (signed by another) that Tasuiauian Catholics, Jews, etc., accept the Bib!e-in-schools system there as "a, happy solution of the religious difficulty." (3) It is a matter for much regret that the leaguo and its officials are still (continuing to 'circulate that cruel and notorious untruth, several months after its falsehood has been (so far as Catholics are concernedj.'oflicially and publicly demonstrated through the newspaper press of this Dominion. ' • I now again—for perhaps the twentieth time—direct the league's attention to some of the true and oft-stated issues of this Bible-in-schools controversy. 'The burden of proof is upon the league. Let it show —if it can:—

1. By what moral right would the New Zealand Government set up to impart what the laws of several Australian States expressly teiyii "religious instruction" and "general religious'teaching"? 2. By what moral right would the New Zealand Government force, objecting taxpayers to pay for the State-imparting of "religious instruction" and "general religious teaching" suited for only one group of consciences, and at variance with all tho rest? If one set of. consciences is to bo satisfied at the public expense, 'why not the others also?

3. By what moral right would the NewZealand Government force largo bodies of objecting teachers—under penalty of dismissal—to ' impart "religious instruction," etc., at variance with then - conscientious religious beliefs—and, in the case of Catholics, also at variance with the de-, clared discipline of their Church? 1. By what moral right would the New. Zealand Government force,:by law, upon' the public schools, an odious conscience clause dovised~by Irish proselytisers for tlio expressly avowed purpose of "weaning tho Irish from the abuses of-Popery"? In .your ■ columns of November 111, the official organiser of the league boasted that nearly 32,000 Catholic children, in New South Wales alone, are receiving, a State Biblical instruction which 1 have tatively shown to bo at variance with the faith and discipline of,the Church -of their baptism. In other words, it-is'pub-licly'boasted .that these children, have been successfully proselytised into dis : loyalty to their faith. Indeed (as I can amply show), the chief argument of the leaguo literature and leaguo officials has all along been tho, alleged success!of. tho "Australian" system as an'instrument-for tho'' legalised . ■ of. dissident teachers and children from loyalty'to their various faiths.. -

5. I refer tho league, once more, to my oft-repeated challenges in regard to tho "right of entry", and ! the deciding of questions of religion and conscience by a count of heads. Let .lis-hope that its leaders will take heart-of grace, and now, at length, squarely face the issues which they themselves have raised.r-I.am, etc., . HENRY''w; CLEARY,'"'-" Bishop of Auckland. Auckland,' 'January 28, 1913.