CORRESPONDENCE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 516, 9 November 1912, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

The Editor. Sir, —A published letter from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland asks me to favour the general public with a general defence of the system of which lam the official advocate. I am anticipating the Bishop's request as quickly as railways and time allow me; but if his Lordship wishes me to enter into a controversy with him personally, I must respectfully decline. The League is not in existence to attack the Roman Catholic Church in any respect, not even in its anti-edu-cational system. Though the League cannot accept the Roman position of State-aided denominational schools under ecclesiastical control, we are not following in the footsteps of Roman Catholic countries such as Portugal, France and Italy, where that Church is not permitted to have anything to do with the educational system, and its clergy and sisters are not even allowed to enter the schools. On the contrary, if our League succeeds, the Roman Catholic Church in the Dominion will be in exactly the same position as it is to-day, it will still have its own schools wherein it can teach exactly what it likes. Moreover, so far from setting out to do an injury to the Roman Catholic Church, it will obtain—if the League is successful —exactly the same as we are seeking for all, the opportunity for its clergy or other accredited substitutes to instruct their children in the faith of their fathers during school hours in the State Schools, and without their being compelld to read the Scripture lessons. Surely we are seeking to create an official religion in the State Schools. We do agree with him that the offical religion of secularism should disappear, and we therefore regret very much that he and those who think with him are opposing our movement. We are seeking instead of the official religion of secularism in Stats Schools to substitute liberty of conscience, which liberty will give every parent absolute control over the religious insturction his child receives in these schools, without interference by the State or any Church. I acknowledge the courtesy of the Bishop's letter, and also of his earlier statement; but not even his courtesy no more than his arguments will succeed in convincing people that the majority have not their rights as well as the minority. If the Bishop's ideas prevail with the people of the Dominion, it will mean that because a minority can come to no agreement with the majority, the schools are to be kept secularist and the children shall continue to be deprived therein of the Bible and all religious teaching. The question may be sumed up: Shall the majority rule in its own house, or surrender its freedom to a minority represented by the esteemed Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland? —I am, DAVID J. GARLAND, Organising Secretary Bible in State Schools League. Wellington, October 4 th, 1912.