THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2794, 31 January 1872, Page 2

THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

To the Editor. Sir,— On the all-important subject of education, I find it absolutely necessary that I should no longer permit my views to be communicated second-hand to the public. Justice to the cause I advocate, as well as to the public generally, demands that I should begoing myself tjie reporter of my own discourses in reference to this subject, aud tho expositor of my own views. Considering the position you have assumed on this question, I do not feel 1 have much reason to complain of the tone of your leader in your issue of yesterday evening, though, of course, I differ altogether from your views aud principles, aud regret that you so far fqrgpt ‘ the ‘ ppip-tesieg of cjvilised life as tq refuse to address mo ag pot opjy my own Church, hut 41 well-bred people arp accustomed to do. Neither have I a right to find fault with the epitome of to last part of my discourse on Sunday evening in St, Joseph's; for though there are in it some very serious mistakes, on the whole it is not unfair, nor in the circumstances, more incorrect than might be reasonably expected. In askiug you to publish this, I am not forgetful of the fact that your space is limited, and I shall therefore ask your attention to only the most important points, and shall endeavor to employ as few words as possjhle, Ip the first pl9.ee, I pojpplainpff on §upfay evening that the tope "of thg Dqiiefiiu Bre§s. taken generally, was disrespectful tq Christian clergymen of ah denominations,. ” It still appears to me that no one well acquainted with the Dunedin Preps can deny that there is gqqd reason for this complaint. Vonrs was not the only journal I had before my mind at the time I made it. Myim. pression of the tone of Dunedin Press is, that it is sneering, infidel, aud insulting to the clergy. But at present as 1 have only to do with the Evening Star, and to make good my position in reference to it, it is not necessary to go back farther than your issue of Saturday last. In your leading article of that date I find the following:— “Like Dr Moran, he is apt to undervalue every other epeed, and to desire to spread those fidimas which hp either believes, dr professes tp bqlipve, hy pypry 'pogsiblp means.” Here, sit, yog tell the public pretty plainly that it is at least doubtful whether I and others really helieye what we profess and teach. If yog huff-any good reason for holding apd expressing such au opinion you would be justified in doing so; but I beg to deny that ag far at least as 1 am concerned you had any such reason, and I cannot, consequently, regard such language in any other light than that of gratuitous insult, and as most disrespectful, Again you gay, ! ‘ The religious .education we are quite content to remit to the clergy, and feel well assured, if they would give themselves heartily to the work, instead of siriviug to put it upon other people’s shoulders, both they and mankind would very much

improve by the change. ” Were it not that your leader is directed chit fly again t me, I should not consider this language intended for me and my clergy. But he object is unmi-takeable; and the suppi sition thaf. we wish to throw our own work on other people’s shoulders is groundless and insulting, and reminds one of the sneers of a Voltaire and a Gibbon.

Our complaint is, Sir, that yon endeavor to establish or uphold a system which most efficaciously prevents us from imparting religious instruction. Our greatest anxiety and only ambition is to be permitted to discharge our duty. You, Sir, acquiesce in the system of edution at present existing in this Province —at least yon are not actively and zealously opposed to it. Under this system, Catholic children, for example, are carefully taught to despise and loathe the Catholic Church and her ministers. Anyone who has read the school books used, and knows the animus of the teachers, who declared they would resign if Catholic assistant-teachers were employed, cannot fail to see that it is so. Under such circumstances, is it not a mockery to say to us, Do your duty and all will be well with your children and society. Our children taught in these schools will not listen to us, hut, on the contrary, shun us as they would a pest. According to my experience this is a fact. But, Sir, you are an advocate for what is called a secular system of education, and for separating religion from ordinary education. We hold, and know it as a' matter of fact, that this is an impossibility. You must, in educating a people, either teach a specific religion or teach infidelity. There is no medium ; and such beipg the case, is it not a njockery and an insult to say to us, after your secular eduqationhas infidelised them—teach them religion, and don’t attempt to throw your own duties on other people’s shoulders.

You will, no doubt, deny my position—that between religious education and intidel education there is no medium. . My argument is founded on the nature of things, and on experience. The highest authority has said, ‘‘He that is not with me is against me,” and these divine words express an universal fact. If you do not. teach religion, you must .necessarily teach non-religion. Then look at the United States of America, where three-fourths of the people never enter a church, and do not even pretend to the profession of any religion. Perhaps you may consider this a desirable state of things—l do not; neither do I think it desirable that our future ' New ■ Zealanders should become Petroleuses, and imitators of the Commune.

There is only one other point with which I shall trouble you at present. You say in jrour issue of last evening, “Our difference with Dr Moran is not merely with regard to ends : we differ as to the means to be used. He wants the funds of the State to help him to spread the religion he preferses.” You are mistaken, Sir, I do not want any such thing. But 1 object to the State taking our money to help it to make our children infidels and pests to society, I object to your taking our money to help you to teach nonreligion. 1 and I say that it is a tyranny to tax us for education, and refuse us all share of the public funds rmless we abandon our religious principles, and to do that which we are convinced must inevitably load to the ruin of our children here and hereafter. I do not ask the State to give money to help me to spread my religion, but I ask the State to give me my share ,pf the public funds to help me to teach our children to read and write, &c., as it helps other people to teach their children to read and write, &c. I shall provide for the religious teaching putting tjie State to-a shilling's gxpeusp,

in fjte, you say—“ Perhaps we should not press ioo hardly upon Dr Moran. . . , . We have a foreign element struggling to obtain ( ominiou over the minds of the people, and to control the institutions of the Colony,” &c. lam not aware of any foreign element struggling to obtain dominion over the minds of tie people, and to control the insiitutions of the Colony. Our struggle is to prevent the minds of our children from being perveited and corrupted, and to induce, if possible, the framers of the institutions o' the Colony to act fairly and justly. Our st: uggle js not for dominion, but for justice -not for control of the rilinds of the people, but for the preservation of pur faith. Aml I am ; stoni hj d to hear a publicist in a Christian country call the Christian law a foreign element, and the divinely-appointed interpreters of that law au “ element that has of late years prov. d detrimental to the welfare of every State,” If yop bad stated' tse contrary—if yop' bad said : The State of lafe years ‘ foas labored successfully to prove itself detrimental to the Christian Jaw—you should have stated a notorious fact. Again you say—“ Whilst including in its ranks men of the highest culture, it has sought to fetter the masses of mankind by placing a limit beyond which thought shall not soar.” When, and where, and how, .1 ask, has the Church sought to do this ? With all deference, I beg to say, sir, the last quotation from your leader is contrary to fact, and looks very much like the production of an ima inative schoolboy. 1 ajx?, ftp, P. MOR4.N, bishop qf Dunedin. Dunedin January 31, 1872.