THE ANTI-BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS CRUSADE AND MR. CAUGHLEY.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2150, 16 May 1914, Page 7

THE ANTI-BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS CRUSADE AND MR. CAUGHLEY.

"Any British Government attempting to exclude tho Bible from the public schools of the land deserved to be well thrashed at the polls."—Mr. Runciman. Sir,—l have to thank Mr. John Caughloy, M.A., for his letter in your issue of the Ist inst. Like Professor Mackenzie, he is utterly unable to contradict the evidence that I furnished in your issue of the 24th ulto., that the real objective of tho so-called National Defence Leaguo was antagonism to tho Biblo in the syllabus of the schools of tho democracy. Its opposition is distinct and 'determined. Hero are the exact words of the report, passed unanimously at the meeting, with Mr. Johii Caunhley, M.A., in tho chair:— '•Every National Schools Defence .League in the Dominion is irreconcilably opposed to making Bible reading or religious instruction part_ and parcel of the State school curriculum."

This is really the one positive thing in tho platform of this league. Professor Hunter, in a letter, dated 15th ulto., in your columns, informs us that tho "Secular Education Defence League," which camo into existence through tho efforts of Mr. Joseph M'Cabe, tho well-known advocate of atheism, has ceased to bo, but memhors of Mr. M'Cabo's defunct league are' now members of this so-called "National Schools Defence League." Mr. Joseph M'Cabe's league was "irreconcilably opposed" to Bible-reading in Bchools, and so is the leagno to which Mr. John Cnughley belongs. Members in Mr._ M'Cahe's league had no difficulty, if Professor Hunter's evidence is true, in joining the league to which Mr. John Caufrblcy belongs. There'is clearly one principle in common to both of those leagues, and that is distinct and determined antagonism to tho Bible in tho syllabus in the schools of tho democracy of New Zealand. Tho onp positivo outstandiiic principle of this league which Mr. John Caughloy thus _ champions is "irreconcilahlo opposition" to the Icga.l recognition of God and the Biblo in the curriculum of our schools. The one outstanding principle of this league, supnorted by Mr. John Ciiuehloy. is to make, to uso the words of Dr. Cleary, "nil teaching regarding God's law as contraband as pipe opium." Such is the chief aim of this loaguo! Could any institution, with such an object, be worse named than to call it the "National Schools Defence League"? Such a principle is fitted t<s destroy any system of na-

tional education amongst'a people where Christian opinion is preponderant. Tho Leaguo is to strengthen and complete our system of education by tho introduction of the Bible and religion, and thus freo it from tho following reDroaoh of Dr. Cleary regarding it: "If God is brought into the working of -the system, ho is brought surreptitiously and as a stowaway"; its aim is to give what our King hns called our great national heritnge" to tho children in our common schools.

Mr. John Caughley, instead of writing one word of defence and explanation of this league's "irreconcilable" antagonism to tho Bible in tho curriculum of our schools, drags in the names of Bishops Sadlier and Julius, Dean Fitchctt, and the Reverends Porter and Davies, and invites your readers to look with scorn on the opinions of theso much-respected gontlemon. Tho introduction of the names of theso men into this correspondence is a hugo irrelevancy; their opinions need no apology from me, and your readers know that theso gentlemen, to say the least of it, are all equal in consistency, courtesy, piety, and intelligence to. Mr. John Oaughloy! Mr. John Caughley is not ashamed to write in boasting terms of his now somewhat notorious apnearance on a Duncdin platform in September last. I ivns led to attend that meeting because Mr. Caughley announced that ho would unfold a scheme of religious instruction in schools superior to that of the Bible-in-Schools League. I listened for nearly an hour and a balf to most wearisome platform rigmaroles from Mr. Caughley, and not one word did he utter in fulfilment of tho solemn Pledge with regard to a rival scheme. Ho preserved the silence of the grave on the subject that took me and many others to the meeting. Never in all my experience of nlnt.

form speakers can I recall such a flagrant breach of good faith. This meeting, which to most men would bo so unpleasant a memory, Mr. Caughley now finds a ground of boasting, for ho has the audacity to write: "The Rev. K. Wood can testify to the picture of ludicrous helplessness that tha Dean presented." The last thing in the world that I would do, would be to testify to the truth of such an insolent and confounded statement. Mr. Caughlev'e Jack Falstaff style of boasting of his own prowess, coupled with the breach J-Ii \ have warred-to, has discredited him in Otajjo as a platform speaker. He will wait till the Greek iialends before ho gets another invitation from the Otago Institute of Teachers to represent their views on a Dunedin platform. I do not know any man that has done more to prove to the Utago people the weakness of the case of the Anti-Bible-in-Schools party than Mr. .John" Caughley. There is not one utago teacher's name in the list of the executive, published in your columns, oi; tins so-called Defence League. Dunedin city furnishes, however, a total of three representatives— a Congregationnlist, a Hebrew, and a Unitarian; the represents himself and not his denomination, and the total Unitarian population in Dunedin is 18 and tho Hebrews 202. .These facts lurnish an interesting commentary on Mr. Caughley'3 boastings about his triumphs on the platform in Dunedin. 1 have not the slightest desire to advertise jnto notoriety tho Anti* Bibl-e-bchools League Mr. Caughley represents by taking part in a gladiatorial conflict with him on the platform on a question in which he is in glarino- antagonism to the open and public testimony on this question given by the 1 resbyterian Church of which he is or was an ordained .office-bearer... I won't encourage him in his career of opposition to his Church, on this question, but I reserve my right to criticise his views when they-apptear-before me in public print. May I bo allowed to Bay, in closing, that this antagonism to tie Bible in schools means a perpetration of a crime against tho moral, nature of the children m our schools. Cries are coming to us of the impotence of secularism in education m Japan, India, and France, and tho increasing moral degradation disclosed by the statistics of our Juvenue Court shows the necessity of setting our house in order here. ■ The Vice-Chancellor o? the Otago University said some years ago that the three 1 H s in our schools might become -the I servant of a fourth B, Rascaldom, and Mr. W. W. Collins, of Christchurch, nas agitated ( for a moral text-book for our schools. The children are suffering while Mr. Caughley habbles his ineptitudes about the function of the State and his Schools' Defence League declares its deadly antagonism to the Bible in the- syllabus 6f our schools! Mrs. Browning wrote in her magnificent verso her protest against the wrong inflicted on children of a past ago in England. I venture to apply her words to our crime against the child's moral nature in our schools, and say: ■ • ■

"They look up with their pale and sunken faces,

And their look is dread to see, For you' think you see their angele in their faces With eyes meant for Doity; "How long," they say, "how long, 0 cruel nation, Will you stand to more the world on a child's'heart— Stifle down with a mailed heel its palpitation, And tread onwards to your throne . amid the Mart! Our blood splashes upwards, 0 our tyrants, And your purple shows your paths: But the child'n sob cursetn deeper in the silonco Than the etrong man in his wrath. —I am, etc., ROBERT WOOD. Dunedin, May 5, 1914.