The Evening Star FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1872

Evening Star, Issue 2825, 8 March 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1872

On Monday a correspondent expressed a wish to know what we could say in opposition to a very milk-and-water proposal to ask the Government to leave the subject of Bible reading in schools to school committees. There seems to be great horror in the minds of many very good men at the bare thought of that venerable book being excluded from the day school; and some men, from whom more expansive ideas might have been expected, call it a narrow view of the case to propose to have it excluded. It is hardly necessary to say that so far as our individuality (if an Editor has an individuality) is concerned, it is matter of indifference whether it is read or not: whether or not it is commented on or whether each child is allowed to stumble into truth or error, as must necessarily be the case if it is read without comment, and, commonly, if explanation is attempted. Give education, and they will set themselves right. But others do not think so. Our objection to leaving the decision to school committees is manifold. In matters of religion, no majority has a right to override a minority, and although every member of a school committee were an educated man, there would still be wide difference of opinion amongst them. Instead of devoting themselves to an united effort to render the education given as effective as possible, every school committee would be transformed into a debating club: they would be in continual strife. One would hold by the authorised version of the Bible, another would insist on theDonay version being used. And those who have witnessed the heat with which even trifling questions are discussed in churches where men profess a common belief would realise the prophetic expresion, “ I came not to send peace on “ earth, but a sword.” Such a war of opinion could not be restrained within the limits of a school board. It would necessarily extend outside, and society would be in constant turmoil. As the election of school boards or any member of them was about to take place, each contending section would seek to strengthen itself by selecting some wellknown partisan. Family would be arrayed against family, and religious discord, of, all causes of difference the most unreasoning, would cause dissension, dissension would cause weakness, and weakness inefficiency in the conduct of the school. This would be aggravated by the transfer of no small share of the animosity on one side or the other to the schoolmaster. Instead of enjoying the confidence of all the school committee, and thus working cheerfully in his calling, he would be harrassed by the weaker section. If the majority decided to have the Bible read, he would be held by the minority to be a mere tool. Placed thus between opposing parties, no man of talent would submit to the continual insults and interferences to which he would be subjected, and thus for the sake of what, with the utmost charity, can only be accounted an amiable superstition, children would be doomed to be taught inefficiently where their education ought to be thorough. By what extraordinary twist of the intellect some men have found out that to advocate secular education is a narrow view, we cannot tell. In our opinion it offers not only the broadest basis, bnt the only just foundation for national education. It affords opportunity for the unfettered effort of every creed to proselytise, so long as they do not interfere with common rights. It is amazing to find the clergy so persistent in their opposition to the clearest moral maxim—- “ Do as you would be done by,” and this is all the advocates of secular education ask. The clergy tell you that mere Bible I’eading is not denominationalisra: that no man ought to object to it: and that if any one docs

object to it, it is because he hates the Bible, and is an infidel. - But if men do object to fit, it should be quite sufficient to lead them to fall back upon the J reflection that as a citizen he is nor bound by their opinion, and ought not to be subjected to be taxed for its propagation. As theologians we have nothing to do with the clergy : we know they do not agree, and we are thankful we are not called upon to make peace amongst them. We are, however, as enthusiastic in maintaining the equal rights of every one of them to teach according to his light, as we are that every subject of Her Majesty shall enjoy a like freedom. What we object to on their parts is that they cannot leave men of business to settle secular matters in their own secular way. If they would cease from meddling with things with which they have no concern in their capacities as religious teachers, they would get on very much better. How this matter of national education is one of these. It is plainly a social, not a religious question, if in the hands of the State ; and as such ought not to have a shadow of the religious clement introduced into it. If there were no way of imparting religious instruction but by delegating it to the schoolmaster, the matter would bo very different. But we believe that if the schoolmaster were relieved of it altogether, the Churches would be roused to the necessity of making special arrangements by means of catechumen classes or such machinery as was adapted to the purpose, that religious instruction would be more thorough, religious men more willing to accord to others the liberty they claim for themselves, and the advancement of the population in intellectual, moral, aud religious culture more rapid.