NOTES & VIEWS ON THE REFERENDUM PROPOSAL

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2210, 24 July 1914, Page 9

NOTES & VIEWS ON THE REFERENDUM PROPOSAL

PLAIN ' WORDS FROM A METHODIST -JOUENAL WILL MAKE IT AN ELECTION ISSUE fi (Published by Arrangement.)

Tho current issue of the "Methodist Times" contains a striking .article ou the Referendum Bill now before Parliament. Herd it is in full, and it may bo said in passing that the "Methodist Times" is the official organ and voices the views of tho Methodist Church: — Wo have reaohed a- pretty pass in New Zealand in connection with the Bible-in-schools movement. The question of. the right, or wrong of introducing tho Bible into our State schools is being overshadowed by the larger question as to whether or not the people of this country who pay for these schools have tho right to havo any say. whatever ; concerning. what shall be included in the school curriculum. In what claims to be one of tho j most democratic countries tinder -the. sun, the ; grossly : undemocratic theory \ is seriously put forward that the people must not, and shall not have . tho opportunity, of. expressing their opinion on a matter of vital importance to their children's welfare. A number of individuals in the community havo.' become possessed of the idea that t-lioro , aro , certain , matters on which the people at large, are not to be trusted, and this, matter of what; shall be taught in the schools theypay I for is one of them. If , the consequences wero not too serious, no small amusement might _be obtained from a 1 study of the delicious .assumptions made by the individuals referred to. As , Bishop Sprott, of Wellington, lias pointed out, it is really a rsviyal ~in another, form of the, old theory of the divine right of kings., By-a certain assumed right, obtained from goodness knows whore, a number of persons in , l this country, coolly undertake to declare in the. most dogmatio fashion imaginable that they have already decided concerning what is proper to be .taught ,in our schools,, and that any appeal to the people that might possibly result in thedr' decision boing challenged, must not for a moment be thought of. And it is in New Zealand of all countries in the world tlsafc this outrage on .the rights. of :thp people isbeing-'atteippted. Imagine the hue-and-cry that would be raised, if tjio liquor-sellers should solemnly' announce, to the' Government that the matter of the salo of. liquor was one qn whioli .the opinion of tho people ought not to be consulted, and the Government should - be inclined -to givo heed to thorn ! Dictated to by the liquor-; sellers as to whether or not .tne liquor traffic should exist I Is it less imperious, less impertinent that tho people at:large should.bo dictated to by the Anti-Bible ;in - Schools- League -leaders concerning- what shall be taught to their own children in their own schools? "Oh, but," we'are told, ' 'this is a, m.itter of conscience.'' and;that makes all the difference between tho liquor question and the: question ■ of Bible in schools." Conscience, indeed! What humbug is tieing:palmed off 'upon'the public to-day on the back of that gross-ly-abused word'!? - let the 'rights of conscience.be respected, but where, pray, are the rights of conscience \nvaded in the.proposal that.'.tire, people jhall' havo the opportunity .of saying- , jvhether. t-lio Bible shall or shall," not bo, taught in their. <iwn- schools? ! But Vhoso conscience would really be jeopardised by the exercise.'of a right that' inheres in the fundamental idea of citizenship ? The Bible in Schools Leaguo system, wherever : introduced, respects tho .rights of' conscience in every way as far as can be reasonably. Expected. If it be.contended that tho ) result of tho Referendum might be suoh j as to involvo an obligation on. certain sections .of the; community to . which they had conscientious objeotion, 'ii still remains to be asked on what the consciences of such people claim- consideration in preference, to the.consciences of. those who, in such' mso, be .-in ;tho majority? No. child receives a. Bible lesson or reli-; gious . instructiqn.' against the wish of. its parents, and no teacher is called upon to discharge a ■ duty that can fairly_ bo construed as trenching on tho domain of conscience.■'• The fact that Among, all the thousands of teachers in Australia of' all' creeds>who:are giving such Bible lessons to-day a difficulty Dn the point of conscience is practically unknown, is surely strqng. ovi- . jence in support of such a contention. But it is to be remembered that it is not that system that is now on its trial. Whether that- is right or wrong, is not the question on which Parliament is asked to declare itself. It fs the -graver question of whether the educational destinies of this coun-try-are to be controlled by a number of self-appointed dictators, or, whether tile popple who bear tho cost of our educational system ' shall have' a voice in declaring whether they will or will not havo tho present system modified In the direction of Bible teaching: To lay that Parliamont must not grant a Referendum because it has received no mandate to that effect from the country, is to. raise, all argument-that'cuts m more ways than one. When Parliament decided to banish the Bible from »ur school curriculum, was that step taken as the' result of a mandate from . l-Ke oountry ? Everybody' knows that In that matter the people wero not consulted, at all. , If , they. had been, such a gross and unpardonable act of vandalism would never have been perpetrated. Parliament is not now asked, to restore the Bible to tho place from which it ought never to have been taken; what it is asked to do is to provide the machinery whereby the people may' declaro whether they want the Biblo back or cot. If a request based on such elementary justice as tha'A is to be denied, it will be of some interest to note how far those responsible for such a high-banded refusal to trust tho people will themselves be deemed worthy nf trust when they once more seek to ivin the support of the electors. Thero are many thousands of people in this country who hitherto havo taken no notive part in politics who will be touched to tho quiok by what they will regard as a deliberate flouting of theirright'to be heard on a matter which is" to them of the gravest importance, and who will go to tho poll this year with a very definite idea of what t-hoy are going to vote for. They may be denied the Referendum, but_ t-hey will not forget to whom that denial is due, v/ben it comes tfl a matter of. t voting. We sincerely : hope ' bettor . things .for New Zealand than tho necessity for making this an- issue at the coming election; but when all elso fails, even that must be accepted as a record .of protest against the domination of the educational policy of this country by the reactionaries whoso antagonism "to the Bible in schools system takes the extreme and intolerablo form of a negation of the rights of citizenship.

THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. . CLEARY. For the last three years the Roman Catholic prelates of New Zealand have unwearie'dly and unceasingly., branded our public school eystem as. "godless." because the system was theoretically ocular. Among-thef'Roman Catholic

representatives who have used the wide and forceful focabulary of denunciation of our school' system, Dr. Cleary is easily first.- In his remarkable pamphlet' "Secularism Versus Religious Education," which appears under the imprimatur of Bishop Verdon, the language is almost vitriolic in. its biting power. He deolares in one place that religion is treated in our schools as though it was dangerous as the "declared leper, or a bubonic rat." ' In a -somewhat gentler way he says that "God and his law are as contraband as pipo opium." With increasing mildness in another place he says that "When the secular system was set up in 1877, tho New Zealand Government found the flag of Christ flying upon the schools, and it took it down." Else-' where, in the same romarkablo pamphlet of denunciation, he says that "our Government found God in our schools—it banished Him therefrom." Such is our public school system as described in the lurid language of Bishop Cleary, who has been going through the country in recent mouths delivering pleasing speeches to those whose motto' is "Hands off our secular system." It may be sincerely hoped that Mr. G. Af, Thomson, M.P., will have his attention directed by some of the witnesses to Dr. Geary's avowed abhorrence of our national school system, and it is reasonable to hope that the committee will give Dr. Cleury au opportunity of explaining to-day_the reason why he'is. in agreement with those who are fighting for the. preservation and perpetuation of a secular system of education, whicli he so cordially liatos. ' A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT'S INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES. Mr. J. C. Thomson, M.P., speaking in the House in 1905, on the occasion of the introduction of Mr. SitTey'a Bill for a Referendum on tho Bible-in-schools question, said (Hansard, 1005, , page 731);- . "I visited the largest school in Syditty, and the head teachor told me that he had not heard of any discontent with tho system, and,, that he himself would be very sorry to see religious reading lessons taken out of the schools, as they wMe produotlve of much good." SECULARISM ' IN EDUCATION ANTI-NATIONAL. Nothing shows the anti-national character <}f the 'National Schools' Defence League moro than its merciless and relentless hostility to the -.Bible in tho syllabus of our national schools, I In April last, with Mr.: John Caughley in the chair, this league enthusiastically adopted a report in which it said that it ; was- ~ H rreconcilabJyvv)BPTO^"<j;-! t <> Bible-reading in the curriculum of theState, schools. This incredible narrowness gives this leaguo the stamp of anti-national, i<i;!This sejmr-, ates this golf. fmni" the. sane arid broad-niirided. educationists of Britain. Mr.. Rtinolnian, speaking as. a member. ,of the, Astiuith Cabinet the other year, said that the Government that attempted to banish'the Bible-from the sohonis deserved to be thrashed at the polls. A recent visitor —tho Rev. Dr. Jonessaid that 99 per cent, of the people of England would be opposed to putting the Biblo out of - the schools. In the remarkable .pamphlet "Toward , Educational Peace" it is stated that the seciM JarisinT of public schonls would be educationally hurtful, and also repugnant to the wishes of the immense majority of the parents." , Among. those responsible for this, deliverance were the. prominent Congregationalists, such as the late Rev-. Silvester Home, M.P.-,-and Principal Selbio; prominent Baptists, such as the, Rev. J. H. Shnkespi'ife. and Dr. W. T. Whitley ;■ leading Methodists, such as Professor Moulton and Dr. Workman, and a large number of Anglicans. All these men would reject .with- scorn and indignation the suggestion that the Bible should bo flung out.'of the schools of Britain and the school& ropiain 'national." These moil would rather die than see'; thepublio schools degraded to a secularism that would furnish an occasion to an English ,Dr. Clearv to say that religion was treated in tho national schools as though-it was a "declared leper or a bubonic rat."

REAL REASONS OF OPPONENTS. ' There are a number of intelligent'and active enemies to Christianity, who feol impelled, to binder'its efforts, eveii'wheii it can be shown that , the churches, aro at present unfairly hampered by present conditions.. These i>eople view with dialiko any movement to free the advance of religion. In this movement they, aro f-learU acting an oppressive part. Far larger, howover, is the number of the ill-informed and indifferent. Tho latter present the vis inertiae to the wheel of progress, and resent any alteration in tho present scheme of things, which does not- appeal to their presont views ol expediency. Such, people are being roused by the moro aotive class, but their opposition is of a kind which will vanish with further knowledge. . Some have genuine but strained and artificial views as to the relations of the nation and religion. • Others, again, it must bo sadly - confessed, are actuated by uuworthv suspicions of religions bodios other than their own. They cherish vague and unreasonable fears that tho churches which lead the movement aro seeking to strike at the rest. The earnest and impartial student of affairs must, however, approach it with an open mind, and balance facts fairly. When this is done, the overwhelming case for-Bible-in-schools will assuredly be appreciated. 1

/ CONSCIENCES. The proposed system of Bible in schools violates, in action, tho conscicnco of no one. Tho parents have •porfect freedom to have, or go without, religious instruction for their children. Tho statement made that the parent is not free because ho must write a few lines to secure his freedom is unanswerable in its absurdity. Much has been said of alleged injustice to tho teachers. "Wliilo any such thing would be totally objectionable, the Broad principle must b'e remembered that the children's-interests come first. But it may bis shown that tho teacher would suffer not at all. Soma teaohers are agnostics. Well and good. But . they must'at least admit that there are two sides to tho question, For instance, in teaching Elizabethan history to' a mixed class of Roman Catholics and Protostants, they would bo outraging their trust to inculcate partisan views on one sido or tho other. As a matter of fact, all that is called for in such a case is tho exorciso of those pre-emi-nently teachor-like qualities of tact and discretion. And so in the case of Biblical narrative. The children are those-of Christian parents. The teacher, in giving tho lesson, will respcct. the convictions of others. The moral lesson. -Jo be imparted should unquestionably .be esteemed a privilege, not n. disability, to the teachsc.