BISHOP CLEARY ON BIBLE-INSCHOOLS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 64, 22 March 1913, Page 7

BISHOP CLEARY ON BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

(To the Editor “Stratford Post.”)

. giv, I have only words of Commendation for the spirit of candour and fairness manifested by the Rev. W. A. Butler, M.A., Vicar of Stratford, in your issue of March 12, just now seen by me. There are, however, some facts which have escaped or not dime under, my rev. friend’s notice;

(1) Dealing with clergy-visits to the public schools, under the Australian system demanded by the Bible-in-Schools League for New Zealand, the rev. vicar correctly says that “children lean towards the person they like best, and if the parents are not particular, are almost bound to favour the religion of the minister who takes their class, if they like him better than their own clergyman.” To avoid this form of proselytisin, the League (he says) requires that the children of each denomination shall be “taught by their own ministers.”

(2) There is such a provision m New South Wales, but it is partly a dead letter. On July 15, 1900, the Council of Education found it necessary to send out a circular (a copy of which is before me) complaining of visiting clergymen who made “obvious opportunities for proselytism” of children of other faiths. But, according to an official League pamphlet, these “opportunities for proselytism” are still being openly utilised in various Australian Bible-in-Sehools States (see the League’s “Opinions of Experts,” pages 10, 15, 18, 29, 35-36; of 31, 36). No doubt, this right of clerical entry might be freed from such “opportunities of pros'ely’tlsm” ; but the method of doing so has evidently not yet been discovered under the Australian system which the League demands for New Zealand. Human nature has' to be taken into account in all legislation.

(3) The League demands (a) that the Government shall, through Government officials, impart what is legally designated “religious instruction” and “general religious teaching.” (h) it, furthermore, demands that the Government shall compel even conscientiously objecting teachers, “irrespective of creed,” to impart and “explain” this “religious instrucdon.” Moreover, this “religious teaching” is placed '“bn exactly the same footing” as geography and grammar, and, therefore, under “exactly die same” penalty (dismissal) for refusal. Now, in teaching and explanation, a teacher—whether Protestant, Catholic, Jew, or Agnostic—mill inevitably reflect somehow the views of religion that*! he holds. This .is well illustrated.in an official League pamphlet, ‘ ‘Notes .on the Austral', an system,” by 'Rey, A. Don. This pamphlet luminously shows that,.- in its actual working the Australian classtime system of religious teaching” jk is ■as dogmatic and .sectarian ’and Protestant as it can be. Here ,agdin (.in the words ol the rev. vicar) “children lean towards the person they like lest,” and “are bound to favour” the religious views'!of tlie'.'teaphor if they happen co like him (c) The “obvious! opportunities for prosej.vUS.-n thus offered are, emphasised by the League’s shajneful Irish pro sely rising conscience clause, which, by a legalised false pretence, captures tor sectarian instruction six oft-spcmL-.nl classes of children of objecting parents. By what moral right would the Government force 10 denominations to pay for this State oppression of-the consciences of objecting taxpayers,* parents, teachers, and pupils? The League dares not say. It is good to feel that the rev. vicar of Stratford is not in sympathy with these evil features of the League’s proposals. Catholics would gladly see God’s Word in the public schools—not, however, by the League’s way, hut by God’s good way of truth and of justice to all.—l am, etc., HENRY W. CLEARY, D.D., Bisffiop of Auckland. March 18.