THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1905. BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS TYRANNY

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 31, 3 August 1905, Page 17

THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1905. BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS TYRANNY

FRESH manifesto was published last week by w||\\^ the executive of the Bible-in-schools 'Refer/ffi&NXy endum ' League. It deals directly with a recent pronouncement of the State Schools C&fcVfcS Defence League. But, in the triangjular *VsySr duel between us and these two organisaJs@aFf& tions, some thrusts and slashes, howevet yf^ aimied by our antagonists, will occasionally point or sweep our way. And thus it happens that sundry contentions of the leaders of the sectarianising party, both in matters of fact and. of argument, affect the Catholic position, althouigh more immediately directed against the heads of the Secularists. And in dealing with matters of fact the recent pronouncement of the standard-bearers of the sectarianising movement is marked by even a seyerer economy of truth than any of its predecessors. It reminds us— by an easy association of ideas for which the Bitole-in-soh-ools executive are responsible— of certain remarks of David Harum. ' A hoss-tradc,' said David, ' ain't like anythin' else. A feller may be straighter 'n a string in ev'rythin 1 else, an' never tell the truth — that is, the hull truth — ajbout a hoss.' And then he told the story of old Deacon Penkins. ' He's a terrible feller fer church bus'ness,' said David by way of preface ; ' c'n pray an' ps>alm-sing to beat the Jews, an' in spiritual matters c'n read his title clear the hull time, but when it comes to hoss-tradin' you govt to git up ,very early in the mornin' or he'll sikin the eye-teeth out of ye.' The Bible-in-schools leaders seem to have impiortcd into their movement something of the principles that guided David Harum and Deacon Perkins in making a 1 hoss-trade.' They ' may te straighter 'n a strimg in ev'rythin' else,' but they have certainly failed to tell ' the hull truth ' in their recent manifesto. Worse still, they have, in a large class of matters of fact, contrhed to convey an impression that is worlds away from simple truth. It is difficult for a man with the ordinary sense of fair dealing to speak or write temperately! of such contentions and statements of 'fact' as the following : (1) There was, up to 1877, no religious difficulty in New Zealand, although ' the Bible was read in the schools in every province in the Colony ' ; therefore the peace of Nirvana would again settle on country if the League's scheme of ' Bible lessons '

were intnxkced-^atid subsidies to denominational schools for the secular instruction imparted in them made for ever ' impossible ' ! (2) Again, we are told, in the fees of notorious facts, Vbfa.i • there, are no sectßrifch difficulties ' under the public school system in New -South ' Wales, where the manual used is the discredited textbook drawn up by Archbishop Whately aiti the proselytiser Carlile for the express and predetermined purpose of ' weaning Irish Roman Catholics from Hhe abuses ot Popery.' (3) The same suppression of truth and sug* gestion of untruth mark the references made in th© manifesto regarding the (denominational) school systems of England, Scotland, and Canada. 4 The same lesson » (of educational peace) 'fs taught us by the experience of the United States of America.' So the League's story runneth. And this (we are told) is particularly true of ' the old Eastern States.^ In these States the Bible has been read in the schools for the last 250 years, and not a single State report indicates that there is any dissension caused by the Bible lessons.' We are, unhappily, in a position to state some facts which, thougjh they may or may not have appeared in the ' State reports,' are so notorious that even the Bible-in-schools executive ought to be cognisant of them. For brevity's sake, we shall only, for the present, touch upon one— anld that one was by no means the most intolerant of * the old Eastern States,' namely, Massachusetts. In the early and middle Colonial days the public schools of Massachusetts, as of all the New England States,, taught ■ Puritanism in all its olden rigidity, with serene disregard of the claims and sentiments, . not alone of Catholics, but of the members of other religious faiths, who were, nevertheless, compelled to share the burden of sectarian public instruction. Later on £ when the old-time Puritanism was riven into many fragments, ' the religious teachings df the schools became,' says a recent authority on the su!h ject, ' " broader," less doctrinal, more V)ague.. It was still Protestant^ still heavily freighted with condemn*-- , tioit an,d calumny of the Church of' Rome ; but it aimed to be " non-sectarian," neither advocating nor denying the pet doctrines of any particular Protestant sect.' In 1837, when Horace Mann was Secretary of tfie Education Board, the Unitarian type of religious instruction and devotion— now advocated 'by our Bible-in-schools League— was definitely forced upon the .public schools of Massachusetts. It inculcated a sort of ' Chrisiianity ' but witoi a strongly Protestant Mas. Catholics, Jews, and many of the Protestajit clergy raised their voices against it. But the feelings pf dissidents received as little consideration then in the Mayflower State as the Bible-in-schools party propose to extend to their opponents in New Zealand. Objectors were simply ' snowed under.' The ' State reports ' ignored them. And so there was ' educational peace.' * After the agony of famine and famine-fever of. ' Black Forty-seven' there rolled into Puritan Massachusetts a flowing tide of Irish Catholics. In that day peace was made between Mann and Ms Puritan clerical opponents, and they went hand in hand in the congenial work of roobing the little Irish ' Papishes ' of their precious heirloom of the faith. Catholics objected, pleaded, prayed. It was of no avail. Their children were forced to recite Protestant prayers in the public schools,, to sing Protestant hymns ; and the reading of the Protestant Authorised Version of the Bible— which had previously beer, voluntary and subject to a sort of ' conscience clause '—was made compulsory on every child. The ' Researches ' for April, 1903, showed how rigidly this State- organised system of wholesale proselytism was administered. In the Eliot public school, Boston, a ten-year-old Catholic boy, Thomas J. Whall, politely but firmly refused to read the Protestant Version of the Scriptures. Thlsfwas on Thursday, March 10, 1859. The little rebel for conscience was brutally flogged for thirty -five minutes, and then expelled. Some four hundred of his companions pluckily followed his example and shared his corporal punishment, though in

* less- -barbarous' degree. - It va? in the" wild' days whew the .Knownothing spirit was rampant in Boston. The event made history in Massachusetts-, and led directly to the (ornna'tion of the great boys' school that later on developed into the present Boston College. • But the Whttll incident had other results. It led to the modifications of 1862, and these in turn to the statutory changes of 1880, which left the Massachusetts schools nominally secular ; but, in a real and oppressive sense, they xemarn institutions to this, very hour. In one of • the old Eastern States '— we thi:nk ib is New Hampshire—it was, till a few years ago, illegal to give any Catholic an appointment as teacher in a public school. The law permits of their employment now, but the systematic discrimination against Catholic teachers is one of the crying scandals of public life .In those very States which our Bible-in-schools. leaders have had the hardihood to set before thr p,uWic as bright examples of the sort ot ' educational peace • that they hope to see in New Zealand. In May of i the present year the ' Republic,' a leading paper'of Boston, collected from a number of Teachers' Agencies ft, mass of information which records, with outspoken unanimity, the sordid story of the boycott of Catholic instructors that is practised openly and shamelessly by these in control of public schools in those model ' old Eastern States.' Let one average 'sample report suffice. It is; from the Bridge Teachers' Agency, and rims as follows :— *It is quite true that discrimination is shown because of prejudice against Catholics. We have many cases where school superintendents, when writing us to secure teachers, specify that they will not accept Catholics. Especially is this true in western Massachusetts, and in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. In many instances the Catholic applicants impress us as superior to some who are engaged because the latter may be of another religious faith. We have secured positions for Catholic young women, but hot to any great extent It is really very difficult to secure places for Catholics. We, cannot eradicate the prejudices. We act as agents and do as requested. When we find an opportunity to place a Catholic, teacher, we do so glaidly. We explain to all Catholic applicants the difficulty of securing employment, "because we do not wish them to misunderstand the true conditions.' Only a few months ago the New Orleans ' Picayune ' published in its ' Wanted ' columns the following advertisement from the Louisiana Teachens' Agency of Covington : •' A male Protestant teacher for <p/üblic school in a small but hustling town in Louisiana.' • Did space permit we might enlarge upon this and other great and petty tyrannies that are practised upon minoritjy creeds— sometimes besiae the Jaw, sometimes in the very teeth of the law— in the States of the Union that are set up as grand exemplars for New Zealand's imitation. One might almost as well look to the Galerie des Batailles at Versailles for 'an account of French defeats as to ' State reports ' for details of administrative scandals that have become ossified by long and criminal toleration. Is this the sort of ' educational peace ' the Bible-in-schools party are trying to Introduce into New Zealand ? There are not wanting indications that it is. The Dunedin ' Evening Star,' for instance, of April 5, 1905, repons that a cleric of some prominence in the sectarianising movement ' made a statement which was received with applause, to the effect that the schools did not exist for the teachers, but for tne people's children, and if the Government prescribed the Bible in schools, artd teachers were not willing to teach it, then they should be treated as they wiould be in other Departments.' This candid declaration mak!es art interesting commentary on the sham ' conscience clause for pupils aad teachers.,' A word to the wise ought to be sufficient.