BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS QUESTION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1676, 17 February 1913, Page 8

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS QUESTION.

I Sir,—Reading from day to day tho lettors that pour forth from tho Bible-in-Sdhools League advocate' and its opponents, there comes to tho surface in ono's mind tho thought that both of these parties in setting their minds upon th« immediate object o£ their desire lose sight of .the objective that should surely bo common to ail. The upholders of tho present Education Act have set up the fetish of "free, secular, and compulsory." That is their straight waistcoat. Into it wo all have to fit ourselves whether. we like it or not. Tho Bible-in-State-Schools League, representing a weighty body of ecclesiastical opinion, has determined that if, it can accomplish it a State religion shall be set up; all, teachers, nolontes volentes, shall havo to impart it aud all tho peoplo, Roman Catholics,, secularists and what not, shall take their part in paying for it. It is not surprising that there is restlessness. We ar,o born to freedom. We resent dictation. And some are determined not to endure any longer the yoke of, secularism, while others. are equally decided not to put their necks into the-nooso of the Australian system at present being advocated so strenuously, for while it may bo acceptable to some it cannot but mean the strangling of conscience to others. To. tho mind of tho writer the present secular system is unbearable, and he is unable to regard it a 9 being, as some tell us, neutral in character; and the opposition to the league's proposals on the part of many intelligent ana good men, aro proof that they do not solvo tho question in hand. Wlbat as a peoplo we should surely try to do is to 6eek, not tho straight" waistcoat applieai tion of our own particular fetish, but a solution of the educational problem, that will be acceptable'.to all. should, not tho Stare' oonfino itself to tho province with'which' alone it is competent' to dealP I mdan secular instruction. No ono surely would question: tho, right of the State'to "insist that'.'every bhild should be fitted for citizenship by a sufficient secular education., iAnd since, to follow - a . high and not' ecclesiastical, authority/the olosor the moral and intellectual, are knit together the greater • the harmony with' which these two forces, will co-oporate for the benefit of civilisation, lot accredited religious teachers have access to the children 'of their own faith in school hours. And yet again— for freedom, true freedom is a.glorious things-why should not those who desire it establisn their own schools;.bo under State regulation for' seoul&r vork; have freedom for religious teaching; and receive such grants as'tho State considers right- for tho secular results accomplished? Is it not—l ask for information— some such plan as this that obtains in Quebec? It would enable the State to secure a properly educated people: it w.ould give variety instead of tho present, dead level of uniformity: there would be freedom of conscience: and a solution of the whole question. It is a big question. I am fully aware of it. But the hunt is up. And I beliovo the people of the Dominion could work it out. And wo should have, instead of the oft-repeated : "Look at Australia.' How well the. Now South Wales system works there"—while to-.the impartial it.is only at the most a rough and ready plan, maintained by the mere weight of a majority—tho higher privilege of showing. Australia a more excellent way.—l am, etc.,. „„ ■ ' A.B.C.