The Evening Star. THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2913, 20 June 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star. THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1872.

Our correspondent “Nemo,” lias in a short sentence prominently suggested two opposing ideas on National Education. “ Is it the province of Government to teach any religion at all 1 And if so (meaning if it is, we presume), what V In the present state of society one would imagine the answer would not be difficult, if by religion is meant a system of theology. The difficulty to be met in dealing with the question is, that very few persons have accurately defined in their own minds what they themselves include in the term “ religion.” Sometimes it is used as signifying a theory, sometimes as practical morality : sometimes and most commonly it is mixed up with the mythical and incomprehensible, and very often in proportion to the vivacity of the imagination of individuals, it is muddled with childish superstitions and terrors. Then there is a sort of clerical jargon current in common conversation that passes glibly from ear to ear, the true import of which no one stops to consider, simply because the phraseology is as familiar as a house- j hold word. And thus it is that the ( term “ religion” is so variously interpreted. Perhaps hardly two persons could be found to agree as to what should be included in it. What one man holds as a matter binding upon his conscience, another rejects as false in theory and pernicious in practice. We are not even agreed as to the textbook upon which to base our faith, nor upon the laws of interpretation by which its precepts are to be understood. Nor are the differences confined to the unlearned or partially educated. In fact, the higher the culture the wider the divergence. Were our knowledge so perfect that doubt, and consequently difference, was merged in certainty, there would be no difficulty in dealing with the subject; the State could then very safely provide for religious instruction, because there would be but one faith. The dream of many earnest clergyman and benevolent laymen would be realised : there would be uniformity of faith and practice. It is very doubtful whether any good would result. Monotony is distasteful to the human mind, has a tendency to repress effort, and to induce indifference. Since however such agreement in belief is impossible, the “ what ” shall be taught in schools as religion cannot be decided without outraging the consciences of large sections of the population. This is distinctly recognised by most men abstractedly. Some of of our fellow-colonists, those notably of the Roman Catholic Church, are content to abide by the decision of the organisation called “ the Church,” and accepting its dogmas as true, earnestly desire to see all men Roman Catholics. Equally zealous are the rest of the denominations, although they differ as to the extent to which interference with men’s liberties may be carried under the plea of religious discipline and teaching. The consequence of these differences shews itself in the willingness of those who recognise individual responsibility to the Creator apart from the churches, to be content with the smallest possible degree of instruction in schools, lest liberty of conscience should be infringed. This Ave look upon as a great evil. If it be true that the highest concern of human life is to form the character for a future state of existence, and such a theory alone is consistent with the capabilities of the human mind, it follows that the least attention is given to that science which gives form and feature to every transaction : that invests the most trifling action with importance, and leaves to the merest chance whether in the groping after truth, the single narrow path is hit upon, or the mind is left to wander amid the infinite less •ve mazes of error which lie in its way. In order to avoid this, our Roman Catholic teachers wish to do what other churches, if duty were fulfilled, should do ; they wish to give complete religious instruction according to their views; and, were it true, as they affirm, that education cannot be divided into sections, and one set of men teach what are known as secular subjects, and another set religious, they would have the best of the argument. Their weakness lies in the false position they assume ; they say truly, education that excludes religion is imperfect. The fallacy they are guilty of is that they assume secular education to be a system that does exclude it, ignoring altogether the truth that the secular is separable and that the two are best taught as distinct and separate subjects by different professors; that one relates to matters which every one acknowledges to be true, while the other involves endless

differences of opinion. That which everyone believes to be true and necessary, the State may provide. It needs no argument to shew it is for the common good, and the State exists for the common good. But when the State is asked to appropriate funds for teaching a special doctrine, everyone who disbelieves that doctrine has a right to object. The Jew, Chinese, Hindoo, or even Mormon, has a right to object to any portion of the common fund being appropriated to teaching Christianity, the Homan Catholic to teaching the authorised version of the Bible, the Protestant to the Douay version. There is but one equitable plan for a State to adopt, and that is to refuse to allow any religion to be taught in the day schools provided or supplemented by it. Our correspondent’s friend mistook the present aspect of the education question. As it stands, it is not whether the State shall adopt one religion and teach it, but whether the schools of all sects shall be supported by the State or none! That is, shall popular education be secular or denominational \