State Education.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2950, 30 July 1878, Page 3

State Education.

The Anglican Bishop of Melbourne has called attention recently to the failure of the clergy to carry out the proposed plan of religious instruction on t-aturdays, and he holds that there is grave cause for regret at the fact, that all religious training is excluded from our State schpols. The bishop thinks that all parents would wish their children to be taught broad moral and religious truths, and is of opinion that we here might well follow the English example, and allow instruction in such truths to be given. The question is a very wide and very difficult one, far wider and far more difficult than we think Dr Moorhouse at present sees. The contest is, in truth, between two widely differing views of the training of youth. The people of this colony have got free education," and they are not at all likely to give it up, and it is generally held that free education cannot be given unless it is secular, so no portion of religion can be taught without the State becoming a party to dogmatic instruction. The theory is, that the State is absolutely secular. Its business is to provide ample instruction for the youth of the colony, as one of the most efficacious means of lessening crime, and when it has done this it has fully done its duty. Eeligious tearing is the duty of the parents, aided by tpe clergy, and the State is, not at all bound to pay any attention to those who hold that there can be no effective j training of youth so long as religion is excluded. The whole question appears to us to be in a very crude state, and to have been hitherto discussed without much regard for really fundamental principles. For is it not essentially false to say that the State is secular ? We know, as a matter of fact, that if a boy or girl is called as a witness in a court of law, the judge will insist on proof of religious instruction before the evidence is allowed to be taken, as it is held that those who have: no religious knowledge .cannot know the nature of an oath. We have thus before us the very curious fact that the education provided by the State does not prepare the child for the duties which the State calls upon it to fulfil, such as witness, juryman, magistrate, &c, all of which functions cannot be entered upon without the taking of- some form of oath or affirmation. This shows us (hat.it is quite untrue to Bay that the duty of the State absolutely ends with purely secular instruction, since it is at least the business of the State to provide the future citizen with the knowledge requisite: to the full and faithful exercise of his duties." There is no reason why the State should leave this to chance any more than reading, writing and arithmetic, and it is as reasonable that children shouldbeexaminedrelativetotheir duties to the State, as that they should be made to prove that they have a sufficient knowledge of the multiplication table. In short, the existing system, popular as it is because it provides free instruction, is absolutely absurd, as it is based on an assumption which is contrary to the fact. For example, a citizen is fined for trading on Sunday, though, so far as the State is concerned, he may not have been taught any reasons why he should not do so, The State will not run trains on a Sunday, or allow of Sunday theatricals, as in many parts of the world, yet absolutely refuses to let the State scholar know the reason why. State education is, therefore, not in harmony with State practice, for, after all, we are not living tinder a purely secular Government. This is, of course, simply the practical view of the business, as deduced from the alleged basis of the existing system, but there are, of course, many other considerations which all instructors of youth regard as essential to sound teaching. For example, is it the duty of the State to teach morals as well as reading and writing? If it is, how are morals to be taught without reference to at least some broari religious principles? If it is not, can it be said that the State is really taking the right course to diminish crime, when it fails to let a glimmer of moral light fall upon the youthful mind ? Why should a parent be compelled to show that his children can do certain sums and read out of cer^ tain books, and not also be compelled to show that they know their duty to the society in which they live, and are being prepared to do their work as citizens of a free community? Surely, the.one is as important as the other, and if..the State, is to interfere at all, it ought, at least, to go to the extent of turning out the youth of the colony ready to do their duty to their country. We call attention to these matters, in order to show that our system is not even theoretically complete, and that the State ought to do a great deal more, or change its method of getting the work done. It is, at all events, absurd to tell a child that the State is absolutely secular, when he cannot so much as give evidence to a debt of five shillings unless he is able to undergo an examination in theology. —Ballarat Mina, June 21.