CANON GARLAND AND THE "SCHOOL JOURNAL."

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1849, 8 September 1913, Page 5

CANON GARLAND AND THE "SCHOOL JOURNAL."

Sir,—ln your issue of August 18 appeared an account of an address by Canon Garland, in which lie attacked tho State school teaching in general and tliei teaching of tho "School Journal" in particular. I was too busy a fortnight ago to do more than glanca over the report, but, reading it more carefully now, I sco that tho Canon, if correctly reported, has made very wild and extravagant statements that call for serious attention. The Canon is reported as saying, "Liberty is denied if it is claimed for Christianity; liberty is allowed- if it is claimed for Atheism or Mohammedanism, or Buddhism, in tho Stato schools of our land." In support of this most serious indictment so far as concerns Atheism and Buddhism tho Canon is not 'cported to liavo said anything. But surely 110 one has .1 to malco so gravo a chareo as that thcro is liberty for tho teaching of Atheism in our schools -unless he is prepared to provo his charge very fully. If tho reporter has omitted tho Canon's proof on this point lie has omitted What tho public has a pressing right to have, and the Canon should liavo made good the omission without delay. • I challenge Canon Garland to prove that this most serious and apparently wanton charge is not absolutely baseless. It is a charge that should arouse the burning indignation of every citizen, whether he be of tho Canon's party or against it. ! Let us turn now to what is said with - regard to tho teaching of. Mohammed>- ' anism. 111 a sketch-of tho history of Egypt, the editor of the "School Jour- ■ iml" finds it necessary to tr»at of the - part played I>y Mohammedanism,- and this portion of the sketch contains a big, account of Mohammed's life, teaching, and conauo&tft. "This is doscrilbodi in tho

roport as "a four-page article on. Mohammed', his doctrine, tho ritual practised by his followers, tho coreinouies which ho laid down, his personal example, and the influence of the Koran as a sacred book. The dcctrino and example' of a murderous sensualist could bo put before tho children when Christianity was denied." Tho careful elaboration of this statement must have been convincing to thoso of tho Canon's hearers that had not read the .article. Would it bo believable from tho Canon's statement that thero is absolutely no word as to "tho ritual practised by his followers," and "the ceremonies which ho laid down," except what is contained in this ono briof sentcnco, "Mecca was to bo regarded as their holy city, to which' they wero to turn the face when at'prayer"? But tiiat is really all that underlies theso two counts in tho indictment. As to doctrine, '.'his chief doctrine was that thero is but ono God." This, and two or three similar sentences, comprise all that is said under this head. "Tho doctrino and example of a murderous sensualist could be put before tho children." Tho Canon admits and deprecates the omission of all referomio to "evil ways." What shadow of right, then, has ho to say that tho doctrino and example of a murderous sensualist aro put beforo the children? Has ho never laid boforo a congregation tho beautiful teaching of King David without referring to the darker side of that monarch's character? If he has not, many another cleric has, and rightly, too. If the "Journal's" statement of Mohammed's teaching wero such as to endanger tho faith of the'' Western child., then on© could understand that the omission of details of blood and lust really mako the matter worse." But tho "Journal's" statement has no such tendency. It would bo interesting to know what tho Canon would say if tho editor of the "Journal"should undertako to describe tho coming from afar of tho Queen of Shoba that she might prove the wisdom of Solomon, and should omit oven to ejaculate: "Brazonhussy," or to givo any other indication of tho Orientally royal completeness of Solomon's harem and its subsidiary establishments. As to the Canon's statement that tho page of tho "Journal" that gives somo precepts of Confucius contains-, a pieco of literature inferior to much that might bo taken from t'he Biblo, I agree with liira. But his -statement thai these "precepts" tcach a heathen religion cannot be adequately described in any words that ho would like. Hero is tho first, and, in the matter of religious teaching, the rest aro just as colourless: "Learn and continually practise. Is it not delightful?" Canon Garland is probably tho only man in New Zealand that has read that pago of alleged precepts without the ability to eoo that thoy do not teach a heathen religion. As to the real teaching of tho "Journal," I should like to ask the Canon why ho omitted to tell his congregation that the oarly part of tho very article he object# to refers to tho story of Joseph and his brethren, and of Joseph in Egypt, with a very simplo acceptance? Tins, as well as much that constitutes cthical teaching of a very high order, tho Christian order, is ignored by this advocate of formal lessons, not education. Yot he knows that this story of Joseph, that tho noblo poetry that appears in certain numbers, that tho stories of the lives of Christian heroes, constitute matter "to bo read aloud or expounded in the class" Believing that thoro'ought to be direct Scripturo reading, he has a duty to fight for it.'. But that man gains no real lionour for a cause, whatever ho may gain in pledged supporters,, who misrepresents what is: and Canon Garland lias misrepresented, has oven elaborately misrepresented. I am sorry, sir, that this letter has reached such length.—l am, etc., H. B. KIItK. . Wellington, September 4, 1913.