The Evening Star TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2851, 9 April 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1872.

We have already pointed out some of the inconsistencies in the programme or address of the “ Association for the promotion of National Education in New Zealand,” which has been established in Dunedin. The “ high faintin’ ” style of the address and the conscienceclause proposal were both commented on. At this time we would deal with the proposal to refer the question of Bible reading to the School Committees. The members of the Association no*doubt say “ Surely parents are the best judges of what children should be taught. Why then object to Bible reading if parents desire it 1” “ The clause,” they say, “is purely permissive. If, as you say, the majority wish State education to be purely secular, so be it—only give the parents the chance of saying so.” This sort of argument looks tine, at first sight. Let us carry it a little further. If parents are the best judges of the education suitable for their children, why limit their powers to the choosing of Bible reading'( Suppose the whole of the parents in a district—and as a consequence all the members of the School Committee —were in favor of a Church Catechism -say that sanctioned by the authority of the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese—being read in the public school, surely parents ought to be permitted—only permitted, remember, not enforced—to give this modicum of religious instruction. Or suppose the majority of the members of the School Committee said that at a certain hour every day the children who desired to remain for the period of time fixed should be taught the Church of England Catechism, or to repeat the formulas of some advanced American spiritualists, could any objection be made ? Surely the parents ought to be permitted to have their children taught their peculiar beliefs, as a strict conscience clause would prevent proselytism. Again, suppose the majority of the Committee were permitted to give aid to separate and denominational schools, what objection could be urged 1 All that is asked is simply permission; nothing is “ enjoined,” nothing “prohibited.” And then, after all, when this is asked, does not the Association see that this is all tlie “ aided school clauses,” against which they so violently protest, provide! The Bill, as introduced by the Government, neither “ prohibits” nor “ enjoins” denominational schools. It leaves this question for the decision of the School Boards. The members of the “ National ” Association may exclaim, but we do not wish anything left to School Committees to “ prohibit ” or “ enjoin ” but Bible reading. Just so. Then your position, gentlemen, amounts to this:—School Committees may “enjoin ” the reading of a book believed by you to be sacred, and teaching your creed, but they may not enjoin the teaching of any other look nor any other one’s creed. This is the position. And this being the postion, we ask where is the distinction between tiro Reverend Bishop Moran’s requests, and the “National” Association’s programme? Well, there is a difference. Bishop Moran says you may teach in State schools any religion you like, from Buddhism to Presbyterianism, provided you give me money to teach the children of my flock the religion of the Romish Church, The “National” Association is not so liberal. “ You may teach our religion, but you shall teach no other body’s in the State schools,” is what their programme says. And then, what is this but the denominational system; and as the address of the Association says that: —“ The Association believes that a denominational system would be a great evil in New Zealand,” w'e feel bound to state that the denominational system proposed by the Association would bo “a great evil ” and a great public injustice. And adopting the language of the address, we would call upon the members of the Association, “as they value the political and social birthrights [whatever these may be] of their children to unite in an endeavor to avert from our young country,” etc., etc., all the evils the Association see in the aided school clauses, and “ to secure for yourselves, your children, and your country, a national system of education, liberal, unsectarian, and universal.” To hope that a system that “permits ” one creed to be taught can ever be “universal,” or ever merit the name of either

“ liberal ” or “ unsectaviun,” would manifest an ignorance of tlie history of the education controversy, and a blindness to the signs of the times, that we do not credit the members of the Association with possessing. We hope they will yet alter their manifesto, so as to unite together all those opposed to denominationalisra. If they do not do so, they had better cease to act, for assuredly all their efforts will only strengthen that party which they mean to oppose.