The Evening Star MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1872

Evening Star, Issue 2798, 5 February 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1872

We do not think it at all necessary to reply explicitly to the charge of infidelity so dogmatically brought against the Press of Dunedin by the Most Reverend Bishop Moran. The position we take on the education (question necessitates no confession of faith on our parts. The view we take lea /es the matter of religion an open question, and may be consistently adopted by any Roman Catholic, English Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Independent, Wesleyan Methodist, or, if his Lordship pleases, infidel. The objection raised by the Bishop is, that it is impossible to separate religion from " ordinary education,” and he intends this to be an answer to our proposal to separate “ secular ” from “ religious ” education. His Lordship s assertion is a mere play upon words. He intends in this case “ ordinary ” to stand in opposition to secular,” although it is plain that it will bear no such interpretation j for the common sense and experience of mankind suffice to shew that it is quite possible to ordain that religion shall be taught separately from every other branch of learning ; for ”it is done in colleges, monasteries, and other schools where, separate professors are provided. His Lordship, in fact, has adopted one of the commonest practices of sophistry—the fallacy of equivocation. He skilfully uses words that by custom imply one set of ideas, which, explained according to their derivation, suggest another. Thus, when he charges the Press with being u infidel,” he knows perfectly well that mankind will generally understand something antagonistic to religion ; whereas the word literally means, in regard to religion, what the Press ought to be to be useful to society, of no faith —meaning thereby not sectarian : giving fair play to all. As his Lordship uses the terra “ education,” he wishes the readers of his letter published in the Evening Star of Wednesday to infer that those who advocate the adoption of a “ secular system,” as that alone which the State is justified in providing means for imparting, consider that religious teaching is to be excluded fron* their idea of education. Lest we should be charged with misrepresentation, we present his Lordship’s words ;

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 is an impossibility. You must, in educating a people, either teach a specific religion or teoch infidelity. There is no medium ; and such being the case, is it not a mockery an an insult to say to ns, after your secular educatoiu has infidolised them -teaoH tbom religion, and don't attempt to throw your own duties on other people s shoulders.

JSTowj what on earth does all this rigmarole mean 1 Perhaps his "Lordship may consider it an insult to term any expressions falling from his Most Reverend pen “ rigmarole but when Bishops present their ideas to the public they must expect them to be dealt with as if they emanated from commoners. His Lordship should at least have condescended to define his terms ; but though he has not done so, we, at any rate, will define ours. He must well know that the term “ secular’,” as applied to education, is merely used as opposed to “ denominational.” We do not use it in the sense in which it is understood in the Church of which he is a dignitary, but merely as signifying that no “ specific “ religion” should be taught in the day school provided by the State. Used in this sense, a secular education does not imply, as his Lordship very illogically insinuates, an education from which religion is excluded. It only limits the extent to which the public revenue shall be applied to educational purposes. What arrant nonsense it is on the part of his Lordship to assert that that which is not taught at all, a mere omission—a negative—shall result in the positive effect of “ infidelising,” pupils, instead of leaving them open to the reception of specific faiths. If it were proposed to teach the theories of Voltaire or Tom . Pairs, instead of those branches of learning which prepare children intelligently to apprehend the highest religious truths, there might be some ground for this childish assumption : that is, using the word “ infidelising ” in its ordinary acceptation. But that which we have advocated —the secular system — leaves his Lordship and other clergymen perfectly free to give that religious

teaching which we assert can only be in the highest degree effective on the human mind, when it has been trained in those branches of knowledge necessary to the understanding of the words in which sacred truths are conveyed to man. The system which his Lordship wishes to see established —the denominational may be engrafted on to the secular , but it must not be at the State’s expense. As used to signify a system of national education, “ denominational ” means that each section of society professing a common religion shall, in proportion to its numbers, have assistance from the public revenue to train children up in a belief ot its own theological dogmas. The arguments used by advocates of this system seem to imply that there is nothing which children require to know in common ; whereas as a matter of fact there is only one branch of learning which is not common. No matter what the religion of the parents, gram mar, arithmetic, writing—every art and science, excepting theolog} 7 , is common ground on which to meet: all are required in every-day life for business, study, and recreation j and because of their involving no infringement of that liberty of conscience which is every man’s right, they can be taught without injustice to anyone at the common expense. And just as each religious sect supports its own raiuistei, let it provide for the denominationalor if it please better, the religious instruction of the children included in its fold. This is the only strictly equitable way in which the matter can be arranged. But this does not suit his Lordship Bishop Moran. As he will not consent to separation of secular from religious instruction, but insists that they must be imparted together, it follows that his demand is that the public revenues shall be devoted to spreading the religion that he professes. And this is the condemnation of the system. He and his flock have a perfect right to hold and to teach the doctrines they believe to be true ) but tbey have no right to ask others to pay for the machinery they use for the purpose. His Lordship considers that the refusal to grant help is unjust. He claims the right to State assistance, on the ground of his people paying taxes. But those taxes are levied for the common purposes of society only : not for the spread of special doctrines, Were there no common ground on which children could be educated, we cannot see that any portion of the revenue could be consistently devoted to educational purposes : but since it is plain that all branches of knowledge but what is termed religious, are common, exclude that from the state curriculum, and education becomes asocial duty. When therefore, his Lordship claims State assistance for purely Roman Catholic schools, he claims specially that which cannot be granted without violating the consciences of other men, and his i claim cannot justly be conceded. Whatever he may assert to the contrary, we alljrip that the conscience of no Roman Catholic .can be considered violated by the State providing a secular school for educating his child. He stands only on the same footing as ; every other member of society, and if 1 lie does not choose to take advantage . of the arrangement he must not grumble ; it is his own fault. Equally with every other mau the means of education are within his reach, and as no denominational grant can be given without outraging the conscience of every other religious professors, we do not think .cur Reman Catholic fellow colonists desire this.