A REPLY TO MR. CLEGUORN

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2149, 15 May 1914, Page 7

A REPLY TO MR. CLEGUORN

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Mr. Cloghorn'.s objections to my letter ariso from Ms failure to observe that the rejnarhs lie takes i-o himself aloiiq were made in rcfercnc-ci to tlio two Hadficltl guests. ' They seemed to be acting .together. Ai any rate there is evidence that they conferred on tho subject of their letters'. I oatt imiigino 0110 saying to the other, "Lot lis try and fetch out tho Bishop in order that tho professors way have n shot at liim.',' The plot did not answer and even tho professors have not evinced swificiMti gratitudo to aoku&wleclge the services of thoso n*lii> —'Arcaclos rtjiibo"'—were clever in singing the- sawo song. Therefore, I grouped them together, and I think most people did, tab how Sir. Cleghoru nojmdiates some at least' of liis friend's opinions and sentiments* I congratulate him acca.rding.ly.. I aficcpt his correction as te tlie number of questions to wliiah they demanded an answer and willingly, substitute "four" for "three." Mr. (leghorn will pleiiEO understand that I do not say now tliac each asked foitf fiiiostifras.. This wmark should bo sufficient to show tiiin that tho questions, ho puts to fno tiro also pointless. Ho candidly admits making an attack; upon the Church of l&igland in the interests of the opponents- of the Bible-in-schook movement. In such an attack his methods resemble tlie- Red Fed. system of heaving a b'riek at those* who cannot share his cpHiimis. Tho causo that needs such a defence is clearly felt by him too weak for rational discussion. His conccrn is Hint by "superintending the reading of the Bible" the teaeln or should teach as true (at fcasi by implication) what he may believe to bo untrue, that he sbii-H bo compelled to loud the sanction of liis silence to doctrines ho may hold, in utter contempt." By theso words hp suggests that tho . education of our children must be bjtsod upon tho assumption that the Bible and its doctrines ofo to b& held in "ult'ir contempt." Noiv the- implication that so distresses hitti is easily camelled by tho implication in secularism apd in the compulsory abolition of the Bible. Christian children have an inalienable right to a Christian education, and it is a monstrous'injustice that the State should compel any of them to be educated under atheists and men or women who hold tho Bible and its doctrines "in contempt" under a. Bible prolabi-" tion law. Mr. Ckghorn is fearful lest a serious wrong would be done to teach-; ers of this description by the introduction of the Bible under the syvti-w proposed by the .Biblc-in-Schools League,, but thinks nothing of the wrong done (o the children by secularism. Happily many of the teachers are Christians, but still even this docs not do dwfty with the evil implication from secular- j ism. If Mr. Cleglsorii is thej-cpresen- ! tativc, as he appears to be, of teachers i who hold the Bible and its doctrines ill "ntter contempt," ivllt he picas® _ ox-1 plain why such teachers are so aissions to teach the chiMrcn.. of Christian par-j cuts?—l mil, ate., NISI DO-MINUS. J