LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1764, 31 May 1913, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

"THE DOMINION" AND THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. Sir, —I thank you for vouir editorial in ' Friday's issue, and shall, perhaps, best make tho position clear by commenting on what appears to bo your answer to my questions. In your opinion, what constitutes a caso so exceptional that it should be submitted to a plebiscite? You say, "If a largo and influential section of tho community ask for a referendum on a specific. question, that question ought to bo put to the people.and not something cha; but there should bo a cloar issue on which an elector can vote 'yes' or 'no' without confusion." If wo omit tho unnecessary word "influen-

tial," tho aboyo is a description of tho referendum with initiative. It may or may not l>o dosirablo to adopt this as part of our legislative machinery. That is surely tho first question that calls tor decision. If wie adopt tho referendum

with initiative, then it can be applied to such questions as tho peoplo think fit. There is, however, sir, as you are doubtless aware, a large, if not influential, section of tho community that wliilo in favour of the. referendum with initiative, would strongly oppose the submission of religious issues to such a tribunal.

What precisely is thio issua that you would liKo to seo submitted to th« people ?

You candidly admit that it is difficult to frame tho question. You do not attempt to.do so, but aro fair enough to seo that it must not bo such a doublebarrelled proposal as tho .Bible-in-Schools Leoguo is advocating. But how can tho peoplo decide whother a referendum! should bo taken on an

issue that has not yet been formulated? I submit, sir, that you can best aid tho cause by formulating tlio issue. What precisely aro tho reasons that make you think that tho method of conducting Bible lessons before or after school hours is not-, a satisfactory solution of this question?

You. give tho following throe Toasons:— 1. Tho great difficulty of getting tho children together before tho ordinary time.

2. Tho children would be too tired to tako tho Biblo lessons after Echool hours.

3. If given before or after school hours the lessons would be a hardship both to parents and children. • May I be permitted to congratulate you for seeing the inadvisability of advocating tho presence of tho teacher for disciplinary ijurposcs. The three reasons nowgiven deserve consideration. One ought not to overlook tile fact that experience has shown that these lessons can 1)0 given successfully icither before or after school hours. It may be, however, that this lengthening of tho school day is injurious to the children and inconvenient

for the parents. If so, tho Nelson system meets your difficulty exactly by reducing the school time bv half an hour on ono day a week, and by allowing the clergy to' use this 'half-hour before school ill teaching such children as are sent to the l)?ssons by their parents. , This svstemmeets ail*the points you have raised, unless you wish to use statute law to oornpel attendances at tho religious exercises. I do not doubt that a large section of tho public is demanding Bible lessons in the schools, nor can I shut my, eyes 'to the fact that another large section, is prepared to labour assiduously and incessantly—out of politics if possible, but in politics if necessary—to prevent any religious tests whatsoever from _ being applied to the teachers or pupils of out national -echoes.—l am, etc.,, THOS. A. HUNTER.' Wellington, May 24, 1913. BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. Sir,—At the present stago of tho controversy upon the above subject, a sifting of tho available evidence is being made, which will provo of great servico to the public—and to the cause of right. This sifting applies to the statements of both tho supporters and the opponents of the-, proposed introduction of Biblical instruc-' tion into our State schools, and it is Inevitable that in the heat of enthusiasts advocacy members of both parties should be found involved in unintentional misstatements. But it little serves the publio weal and the cause of justice that charges of "misrepresentation," "hypocrisy." "vilo piece of political trickery," and the like should be hurled to and fro. The publio needs education on the principles involved and the hazo of personalities i« orily too likely to blind them altogethci to the real issues lying behind. At the School Defence League s meeting addressed by Mr. Caughley, M.A., last evening, an example was given of tho wrong spirit in which to conduct a discussion of such a vitally important subject. There was much appealing to prejudice, and littlo to thought. Now it is surely tho aim of every man of real public spirit to induce tlio democracy to think upon tho subject under discussion, and not merely to tickle the cars of tho groundlings. And it is, sir, I maintain, merely invoking tho meaner instincts, to stir up denominational strife and to represent ono church as guiltily conspiring to defraud others by utilising them as makeweights in a campaign for its own aggrandisement, as tho lecturer did last evening. Mr. M'Laren's contribution to tho discussion was much worse in taste and outspokenness, but I feel suro that ho would retract in calmer moments the very strong expressions which m his heat he made use of. One could not help feeling as tlio lecturer skirmished along his opponent's front and furiously attacked his outposts and scouts, that a great deal of powder was being expended before any real attack was made on the main position. There is the outstanding fact that the. State has more than half ousted the parents from their one-time almost absolute. supremacy over the children's tiiiio and duties. Yet the State, thus claiming tho lives of the children for the time being, implicitly shuts out God from them ami gives (not explicitly, nor intentionally bo it marked) its weighty, influence on tho side of Godlcssucss and irreligion. let much sympathy is wasted upon the caso of some hypothetical ngnostic toachcrs of such a tone of mind that they cannot treat reverently a liook which is valued so highly by flic vast, majority. Indeed, the inference that while tho lecturer was qualified to teach from the Bible, the "anyone and everyone of his fellows m tho'profession was not to be trusted to do so seems to me to imply a slur upon th« honour of teachers as a class. , It is always an eflcctive debating point to c et up a man of straw and then vig-. orouslv to assault (lie same, with obvious results. Tho lecturer devoted much timo to proving that New South Wales is more criminal than Victoria, and, liko tho opponent whom he claims to have corrected, attributes tho difference to tho method of religious instruction in schools. Surelv this is unfair. For cither side to use such: an argument is unfair. From 17SS to 1810, a period of over fifty years, the mother State was suffering from convict contamination in a way that a contury of free living would scarcely erndicate. Tlio influences at Port Ihillip were neither so prolonged nor so extensive as those at Sydney. And, seeing that so great a display of figures was made, may one bo pardoned for requiring uniform accuracy of statement, I he aurtienco was told that, protesting against tlio "benumbing influences" of tho "fate, at the Disruption in Scotland in low, athousand ministers left their pulpits ana preferred freedom to remaining in an established church. The "Encyclopaedia Britanniea" puts the number at d.>l ministers. Further, the lecturer said that tho established church thus deserted sank into a position of weakness and unimportance (or words to that cflcci). bcenifr that tho members of this established church were (in 1009) 700,(553 in number, whereas tho United Free Church, in tho samo year, numbered only jOG,ih3 members, this statement scarcely adds to tho lecturer's reputation for meticulous caro in his utterances. ; As an argument that the system works well in New South Wales, tho Bible-ill-Schools League have pointed to the nbi sencn 'of any attempt made to revoke the law. This is surely a very cogent ari gument. But, no! Tho Defence League i orator explains that teachers, in that 1 State, aro viewing its iniquities with ' silent acquiescence, sine™ to protest ; would cost them their billets. Can this ! statement be .anything but a libel on i those teachers? .. , ~ I Then an appeal for sympathy for the ' smaller religious bodies which do not 1 favour the proposed system is being work- ) cd with skilful 'effect. They are to suffer, f to bo denied their rights, while the big t fellows enjoy everything they desired— and so forth. What imaginable injustice enn theso bodies suffer? All honour to

thom and sympathy ill the difficulties of a decision, yot surely they would not commit themselves to an active campaign of opposition simply becauso an alteration is made in tho school time-table which does not affect their children, since thesß may be withdrawn to secular .instruction, nor their members who are teachers, since these will gladly teach tho Bible.

"Conscience," "liberty," "the' .Stato" aro noble words, but they must be brought into relation with definite facts in order to have any meaning. And the outcry raised by the National Schools Defence League appears so far to bo largely meaningless.—l am, eto., 0. W. WILLIAMS.

P.S.—The above was penned on tho morrow of tho Schools Defence Leaguo'a meeting, but was, not sent for publicition. In view of recent comments on tho tiuestion at issue, however, it eeems. to the writer that the editor may possibly consider it to be relevant to tho discussion of this subject.—O.W.W. May 20, 1913. ' ' . Sir, —As one who heard the address of Mr. Qripp to tho teaohers last Thursday night, I venture to think his address and explanations formed an important contribution to the Bible-in-Schools controversy. He was most pronounced in saying no friction had arisen among,the teachers through tho introduction of religious teaching, no practical difficulties, such rfs they hud feared, had arisen in carrying out the provisions of tho Act. What ho laid in reply to questions was. perhaps, moi'o interesting still. Asked whether tho teachers as a 'body had expressed any opinion as to the working oil' the system, he replied that teachors in Queensland ar<> Civil Servants, and would not bo allowed to discuss tho Act, When he was asked if any difficulty had arisen iu jchools having only one room, through the introduction of Bible lessons, again he said lie had li&ard of no diffioulty, children withdrawn from tho lesion either 6tayed in the room to do soma silent work, or they were sent out to play. Hero a teacher interjected: "Sent out into tho' rain." Mr. Gripp, however, made no reply. He told us that teachers must dovato' to Bible lessons from th'o prepared text-book not less than half-an-nour, nor more than one hour weekly; but that nearly all teachors confined themselves to 1/alf-an-hour. Ho was also asked whother ho had noticed any improved tono in tho schools, and improvement in tho children's manners since tho new system had been introduced. 110 replied: "No, in the schools whero thero had been good discipline before tho introduction of religious teaching, there had been a good tone, and good manners; where tho discipline' was poor, these things had been wanting, and ho found it was just tho Barno now. In short, he told us tho results were—nothing; no friction, no difficulties, no improvement, no change, good, bad, or indifferent. If this is tho result in a'neighbouring colony, surely it is a pity to bo causing all this excitement, all theso heart-burnings, over a proposal to havs .a text-book specially prepared, which will provide a school lesson for half-an-hour a weok, when wo know that tho introduction of such a hook is altogether contrary to the i feelings' of snoh a large part of the community.—l am, etc., CIWS. J. COOKE. lielburne, May 26, 1313, ,

,THE REFERENDUM, Sir,—lt is of very considerable interest to not a few of your readers to find that you aro of opinion that the question' at issue with regard to the introduction of , religious instruction into ouir State schools can be satisfactorily and finally determined by means of a reforendum. Personally I' cannot conceive it possiblo to rofuse, with any show of reason, a referendum or plebiscite on any question whatever, if it be conceded that it ia,,a "fit and proper" thing to determino questions involving religious issues by referendum. Surely if we are going (o avail oursslves of tho machinery ot referenda, the first thing to do is to determine what kind of questions .ire to bo submitted to tho people in this way. For myself, I would suggest that it should be a'precondition 6f "tho giving of legislative elloct to a proposal 'carried by referendum, that at least half the possible number of voters '(entitled to vote), vote in. favour of the proposal. Why should the friends' of the "status quo" ,in any political connection bo put to the expense of fighting a "oombine of interested 'innovators?, Why, for instance, should tho people of tho Dominion, who are satisfied with our free, secular, and compuisory State system of education, bo put to tho expense of defending thto present 6ystem Ugaiust the attack of interested sectarians, iwio are carrying on their campaign "on the cheap" by using eburchcs, cnapels, lnd schoolrooms .(which aro exempt Irom rates and taxes), as a politicotectarian organisation? It la highly flrobnblo that in a'year or two an. ecclesiastical combino (consisting very largely of what Is known as "Wowserdom") will bo asset-t----in;; its -right to determino su?h questions ns Sunday observance and Bible in schools, as well as sumptuary laws, by means of referenda. In. tho circumstances it would be well if, our legislators, should they concede the right to a referendum in any connection,, would mnkoit a condition that tho "etatua quo" obtain unless at least half the possible number of voters record their votes in favour of a "change." All who would not vote for the change should be regarded as in favour of the "status luo." In Queensland only, three years ago 2G per cent, of the possible voters votod in favour of tho Bible'in schools, and succeeded in carrying . it into tho schools—and that is represented as a crowning victory for Bible in schools and for the principle of the referendum! Personally I regard it as a menace to tho liberty of tho people when ecclesiastical organisations can bo used for political purposes. For months past the great majority of the pulpits, of tho Dominion havo been used to further tho aims of a politico-sectarian "combine," and somo of the ablest educationists in the Dominion have been anathematised and vilified by namo by ranting eoclesinstics because tho said educationists aro opposed to the platform of the Bible-in-Schools League! I am perfectly satisfied that no educationist of any account in this Dominion is against permitting the clergy, or their representatives, to have the use of school, class-rooms for religious instruction be-, fore or after tlw timo allocated to secular work. I notice that you want to bring the Bible lesson within school hours. To my mind it is immaterial whether you call it "within" or "before or, after" school hours; for, unless you make it "compulsory" for children to attend, and for teachers to teach, it io no port of the State system, and cannot therefore bo regarded as "legally" within school hours. For my own part, I liavo no objection to allowing tho clergy or their representatives tho use of the schools every morning from 9 to o.3o—provided that every denomination bo accorded equal privileges in tho matter—but whether that can be regarded as "within" or "not. within" school hours seems to me but playing with words. As it is clear that tho State teacher cannot, if ho is requisitioned a.s n "policeman," bs in two or moro rooms at tho same time-;where is ho to be? What is to be done in tho many one-room-cd schools with one twiclicri' Is tho teacher to act as "policeman" ■ for tho Anglicans on Monday, for tho Presbyterians on Tuesday, etc.? And is llio State goinsf to pay him for his "policeman" services? It would certainly be to our eidificatSon, sir, if youiov any of your readers could suggest a clear issue (to bo determined by referendum) which would be "fair cud just" to religious minorities as v.-ell as to majorities, and which would duly safeguard the rights and claims of the teachers. —I am, etc., COMPROMISE. WOMAN'S SPHERE. Sir,—lt is amusing to find the same utock arguments employed against tho advancement of women, by women and men of limited outlook, r.s wero used in tho days when women wore struggling for higher education. A fow passages from on article by the- Rev. Sydney Smith in tho "Edinburgh Review" of 1810 furnish a fitting reply to the sneers at 'the monstrous regiment of women moving along unwomanly ways." "That there is a difference in llio Understanding of tho men and women we every day meet with, everybody, we supposes mint perceive; but thero is nono surely which may not ba accounted for by tho difference in circumstances in which they have beon placed, without referring to any conjectural difference of original conformation of mind. Now there :s a very general notion tlmt tho moment you put tho education of women upon u better footing than it is at present, at that moment thcro will bo an end of all domestic economy, and that if onco you 6ulft>r women to eat of tho tree of knowledge, tho rest of tho family will very soon, bo reduced to tho samo kind of aorul

and unsatisfactory diet. These and all such opinions aro referable to one great and common cause of error—that man (Ices everything And nature nothing* and that everything wo sco is referable Jo positive institutions rather than to uriginal feeling." Iu thoso (lays women were only supposed to learn a little botany, music, and dancing, and "tho truo theatre tor a woman is tho sick chamber, and nothing is so honourable to a woman as not to bo spoken of at nil," were tho phrases which correspond to "woman s place is the home," ''woman's sphere and mans work" of the modern, anti-woman suftracist. Certainly history repeats ltsell, and after ft hundred years women who arc now struggling for thoir children s rights are branded as unwomanly. Sirs- letluck Lawrence, a leader of the ' noble regiment of women" moving along the ways of intelligent motherluiess, sums up (he inwardness of tho movement in these words:-' They have all tho courage and all tho final desperation of tho motliercrcature at bay/' Yos, that is tho ceciet of tho woman's movement —tho dawning in tho consciousness of women of the senso of raco-motherhood and of the corresponding sense of human dignity which expresses itself in tho determination to bo included .in tho .human commonwealth, as, a sovereign-half of a sovereign .people. The tragic thing is that men, instead of welcoming this now passion of race-motherhood in women, should drive it to tho' defensive. It is a sight to make gods and angels weep. The pioneer motherhood or the future so forsaken, yot so indomitable, doing desperate battle for her race—motherhood rights against all tho organised powers of physical force. ,Of the unthinking crowd that hurl thoir denunciation at her. it must be pleaded as it was for men of another race: "They know not what they do."

The mother-the true womanly typedoes not confine her interest in her child or other children to infants, but litis her vision concentrated on the future—the men and women of the future. She olaims the powor to make the world a better and safer place for lier children when the time coiues for them to leave her caro and meet the temptations and struggles that await them in the battle of life. She wishes to secure the betterment of home life for her daughters by education which will fit them to bo companions and comrades for their husbands, not glorified nursemaids and potential infanta. STie demands that her daughters may have the opportunity of development upon the lines for which nature fitted them,'and not be confined within tn© narrow sphere which other peoples linutaHons may wish to impose upon their faculties. 1 We women wifh the wider vision and knowledge of the possibilities of our fox thank God for the pioneer "unwomanly women"—Florence Nightingale, Josephine Bnt'cr. Elizabeth Fry. Mary Somerville, arid all the jhoble band of women doctors who had to run the gauntlet of the stones and snears of briltal men ond misrepresentation of the sheltered dolls of their day.— I am, etc..

AN UNWOMANLY WOMAN.

Sir,—l'think it is n pity that the short correspondence which has appeared in your columns on the above subject should end in ngthing being done. Miss Richmond began it with ner letter of May 18. I followed with mino of last Thursday, You approved of my suggestion in an editorial note last Saturday. Now what should be done?. Keeping in remembranco Miss-Richmond's closing paragraph: "Lst us sea that wo equip our girls for the everyday duties wliich foil to most of us, certain that if wo do this honestly, effectively, and intelligently nothing but Rood can come of it—good to our?elv-es individually and good to tho State. I suggest that Mfes Richmond sho'uld call together, a meeting of ladies to distuss tho subject who arc interested in raising the status of domestic workers, and in making tho gTeat body of them more efficient. lam willing to pay half the cost of advertising the meeting.—l am, otc.

ot °" . HOUSEWIFE. "DUMMIES."Sir,—l: note in your issue of Hay li that tho charges made by tho Liberal party in regard to the aggregation of land arc to bo referrW hy the Primo 'Minister to the Lands Committee of the House of Representatives. • . ... Air. Massey. would perhaps benefit the genuine settler if, at the same time, _ he had an inquiry into the manner in which, under the twenty years of Liberal Administration, people with no intention of settling on the land have been allowed to hold sections and ovfldo all the conditions under which others havo to work, and so cutting off the genuine man from all chance of getting roads or 'postal communication andi even education for his children. ' Of course, Mr. Editor, we all know how n Ttoynl Commission would whitewash this sort of thinsr, but I don't think I am far wrong in stating that, if you sent round a private commissioner, you would find a sinirlo settlement—particularly in Auckland Fravince—where some speculator is not fible to hold land and dodijo all the conditions that the land; boards are an keen on ranking others fulfill. If Mr. Massey still intends to give us a 'square deal" this is a matter which demands TENT'TWIITASIONGST AUTHORISED DUMMIES.