The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2657, 23 August 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1871.

“Ws cannot compliment Dv Morak on the breadth of view displayed in the answers given to the queries submitted to the Select Committee on Education. In his reply to the first query, four grounds of objection are laid down to the system of school education in Otago : it is affirmed that it is antagonistic to Catholicism obviously meaning thereby Roman Catholicism — and that it appears to rest on three opposing principles, the “ secular, the ‘mixed,” and the “Protestant deuo-

“ minatiomil.” We are not about to ( 'contend about the truth of Dr Mohan s | - descripiioh of our system. It seems to 1 us more witty .than correct, although no doubt the little liberty accorded to the schoolmaster of occasionally becoming a teacher of religion may, in cases whore men are over zealous, assume one shape or the other. In order, therefore, to prevent such objections to a scheme of public education, we would take the religious matter altogether out of the public school, and ask the clergy of all denominations to fulfil one of the most important functions of their profession, and, in the language of Dr Moran, create a “ religious atmos- “ phere,” “ under direction of their “ pastors,” outside the school. We should view with apprehension such a denominational system as that marked out by Dr Moran, from which every atom of information is to be excluded that tends to cast a stigma upon the dogmas of a particular church. We do not know of one that has any pretensions to nationality, whose early history, if weighed by justice* would bear close scrutiny. It is, in fact, to this meddling of churches with civil rights to which we object. History would be utterly useless if it taught nothing but a few dry narratives, which served neither to inform us what to seek nor what to avoid ; and if there is one lesson more prominently put forward than another, it is that the limits and methods of mental training must not be entrusted to the clergy of any denomination. Every chapter of Church history for eighteen hundred years tells of divided opinions and fierce controversy. Many pages are blackened with sad stories of the persecution of individuals and communities ; many others are filled with narratives of religious wars instigated by professedly Christian teachers ; the progress of science has been and is to this day opposed by many of the clergy, and it is only since science has freed itself from •superstition, the perpetuation of which is ascribable to the limits which the clergy throw around education, that any true liberty, civil or religious, has dawned upon us. What, for instance, does Dr Mohan claim as the i right of his Church? He claims the right of shutting out all information from the minds of children in which the religious system it sets up is “ ignored, contemned, or calumniated.” The inevitable conclusion is that frec- : doin of thought is to be confined within certain boundaries ; that children are not to know what men, who do not agree with the peculiar doctrines of their own Church, think of certain 1 transactions : that, in fact, they shall only see one side of a question, to the careful exclusion of everything that tends to shew the system involved has not altogether worked for the welfare of mankind. To this, as citizens, we , object. If there is one right on which society ought to insist more than another, it is that every citizen should be educated so as to be able to comprehend the civil and religious rights of . eveiy other ; and to narrow the education of a child, to suit the tenets of a particular creed, is to render him unfit to discharge the duties of a citizen in a mixed community. We have no ; objection to Dr Moran setting up a a theological institute in ’connection with his own Church, at which the children of parents i of his own persuasion may he taught. It is the duty of every sincere teacher ■ of religion, no matter of what sect, to ! do so. A little intelligent teaching of that sort would do far more towards creating a “ religious atmosphere ” in the churches, and at men’s homes, where children might breathe its purity, as shown by precept and example, than the worse than useless Bible reading in the day school. But let the schoolmaster have the training of the children to think, and in those branches of science which properly fall within the sphere of secular education. Give a child a thorough knowledge of the meanings of words, and a habit of clearly comprehending what he hears and reads, and we venture to think that what is really sound in the religions teaching of Dr Moran and other clergymen would not only be readily comprehended and applied, but that they would see the benefit of their efforts in the rapid moral progress of society, and feel it in increased respect 1 and regard for themselves. What Dr . Moran claims cannot be conceded without an infringement by the Church upon civil liberty. We do not know that a better instance can be given of the unfitness of the clergy to control education than in the claim set up by ! Dr Mohan. The children he wishes ! to withdraw from public schools are to he shut up to a certain style of thought ’ that is intended to pervade their 1 actions throughout their lives. They may he destined to be called to the • legislature, and it must influence them there : they will have to act as electors, or as magistrates, and in various 1 capacities, but it is to influence them in every transaction. No State has a light to support such a system by eii-

dewing it with funds. Bad as its effect must be on Society, the worst wou’d be upon “the children themselves.