THE SECULAR PHASE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXVII, Issue 13, 1 April 1909, Page 490

THE SECULAR PHASE OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM

A DISCUSSION . r (By the Editor of the New Zealand Tablet.) : , The following article on the ahove' subject— the twelfth ' of the series— appeared in the Otago Daily Times of March 27: — XII.— THE CATHOLIC CLAIM. PART II.: WHA^ IT IS.— (Concluded.) • x- IIL ?? e 9,tarianism of the Secular System.— The objection of Catholics, and of great bodies of earnest and Grod-loyuig Protestants, . to the secular ' system .is directly based, as already, stated, upon the exclusion of religion from its proper place, in the vital process of education: lhat objection is emphasised by another", consideration which furnishes an ironical comment upon the alleged ' unsectanan' and ' undenominational ' character of the secular , system, and its vaunted ' fairness to all.' - The secular system, as well as the religious system, starts from the principle that education -is- a preparation ror life. Upon this the secular system, in logical effect', raises the following implied dogmas: That religion > in education is inconsistent with; or hostile to, or at best unnecessary to the true life-aim of the child; that the exclusion of religion from -education promotes the true life- ■ aim of the child ; that the immemorial teaching of Christen- - dom as to the need of an intimate union of religion and education- is, so to speak, a piece of heretical pravity Here we have a highly sectarian set of dogmas regarding religion —that is, of religious dogmas. These represent an attitude towards religion, a school of thought, an « ism ' They directly suit the educational' ideals of. the Secularist and the Agnostic. These implied dogmas are forced by law upon the public schools. Those parents that accept them are rewarded with the free education of their childrenthose that cannot in conscience accept them must either smother their conscientious convictions in return for the valued boon of free education or they must pay a double and continuing tax or fine— one for the education which they cannot in conscience accept, the other for the education which they can. I could fill a large space of this paper with evidence of the extent to which both Protestants and Catholics recognise the radically sectarian character of any and eve-y purely secular system of piiblic instruction. Let' one quotation in point, however, suffice— from the able, interesting, and excellent organ of the Presbyterian body, the (Dunedin) Outlook. On various occasions (as in November, 1898) it said of ' a system of pure secularism ' that 'it is -is much a denominational system as is a Roman or a "Presbyterian.' . And, legally, the New Zealand system is (as has already been amply shown) ' a system of pure secularism. Here, in fact, we -have a form of secularism raised to the rank of an official State school creed, and forced upon the consciences of the people by what are, in effect, legal pains and penalties. True, it does not— and dares not— as yet blot out the name of God from tho school text-books, as was done in Victoria, and as is done to-day in* France, the land from whicli the world has received the secular system. With us— as yet— its mischief lies rather in what the secular system fails to ' inculcate j in the manner in which — in a materialising age — it forces religion into the background of the child's life; in its failure to strengthen and train the moral conscience and the will of the child when such training is most urgently needed, and when, for a great and increasing number of children, such training must be imparted or not at all. You can kill a child's bodily life as surely by withhplding food as by dosing it with prussic acid. And you can starve to death the faith of young souls as well as slay it with atheistic teachings such as are imparted by printed manuals and by oral teaching in the ' secular ' and professedly 'neutral' State schools of France to-day. The secular system directly suits non-believers. • It is also accepted (on grounds already dealt with in a previous article) hy some Christians who -were so embittered by school hardships inflicted by the intimate union of Church

and State in another land that they swing to the opposite extreme, and stand for the more or less complete exclusion of religion from schools conducted by the State in these countries. But, after over thirty years' experience of the secular, system, -the greater body of Christians in New Zealand would, I think,' welcome 1 a change which would result in the introduction of some measure of religion into the daily school-life of the child. Catholics do not believe in the right or competency of the civil government to teach religion, and they would not tolerate such teaching by it to their own children. They would, however, be more than willing to see useful measures of Biblical instruction and religious training imparted to non-Catholic children in the public schools. At the same time they liave, of course, opposed specific wrongs (detailed in two previous articles) ? which have been done, or proposed to be done, to Catholics by the operation of certain ' defective schemes of nonCatholic Biblical or religious instruction in the public schools. The Catholic position in this connection, as the, present writer understands it,, is substantially as set forth hereunder.

IV. A Suggested Scheme. — (1) The public schools to remain secular, as at present, except' for those children, whose parents desire for them some measure of religion in the school. (2) The public school system to legalise Bible^ reading or Bible-teaching, or religious instruction, suited to the conscientious requirements of parents desiring it. The details to be formulated by the non-Catholic churches in groups, or in any other, way that may to them seemgood. This is a matter for them to ■ artange. Such forms of religious instruction, etc., to be given only to those children whose parents express a desire for the same. A suitable conscience clause and other suitable -protection to be likewise provided for teachers. In all" cases in which the teachers decline to impart Biblical instruction^ etc. (as above), arrangements could, no_ doubt, be made for the same by volunteer or paid helpers at far less cost than Catholics would he willing to pay for the' religious education.' of their children. Catholics would thus give non-Catholics — both Protestants and secularists — much the best of the bargain — (a) Catholics would be willing to see a nonCatholic programme of religion, legalised (as above) as part of the State school day; they ask no such privilege for themselves; (b) they would leave the school day of secularists, and of others desiring it, as secular as they please; (c) Catholics would, to a very large extent, be willing to surrender to non-Catholics — for such religion or non-religion as these might desire — the public schools, for the erection of which Catholics have contributed^ heavily, and, as will be seen later on, they ask not one penny piece from non-Catholics in return. 3. Those that like it could accept a secular school day. The bulk of the rest of non-Catholics would probably accept some or other form of Bible-reading or Bible-teaching, etc , on inter-denominational, or pan-denominational, or denominational lines, according to a system or systems of their choice. Catholics, as a matter of conscience and religious principle, could no more accept this than they' could accept a purely secular system; and they would -object to be taxed for the maintenance of either. Ever since 1877 the Catholic conscience lias been exploited for the benefit of the general taxpayer. We are carrying on our school system, not for social or domestic reasons, but from sheer motives of a compelling conscience. Every year comparatively poor Catholic parents are compelled, as a penalty for putting their conscientious belief into practice, to pay some £40,000 for the education of the children .of nonCatholic parents, who are usually better fitted to bear that burden. In any and every non-Catholic scheme of religious instruction in the public schools Catholics would, as a broad principle of justice, expect to be relieved (as both Catholics and Protestants are in. parts of Canada) of the burden of supporting a system which they cannot in conscience accept. 4. Catholics would accept any fair arrangement of school finances. This might take the shape of (a) a capitation grant based on secular educational results, as attested by State inspectors; or (b) payment of teachers' salaries; or (c) any other equitable arrangement ; (d) Catholics do not ask, and have never -asked, for so much as a bronze penny from the pockets of non-Catholics for Catholic schools', but they strongly feel $hat they are entitled (as is the practice in the province of Ontario and Quebec) to a fair equivalent of what -they themselves annually contribute to the upkeep of the State system, and for which they get but little return ; (c) Catholics do, not ask, and have never asked," for so much as a penny piece of State contribution towards the cost of the religious instruction and training imparted in their schools. In this respect their demand is identical in principle with the State system for the reform of inebriates which is carried on by the Salvation Army on Pakatoa Island, New Zealand. Religion is a chief factor in the , raising of those hapless people above their dead selves, just as it is chief factor in the training of Catholic

children in Catholic schools. In the case of the Salvation Army on Pakatoa, the religious instruction and devotion is not paid for by the Government. The State does not concern itself with the amount of preaching, exhortation, -' knee-drill,' etc., that the management throws, of its own good will and pious intention, into their work. The State merely makes a capitation" grant for the maintenance i f those committed, and for other secular services rendered. It, however, affords facilities of environment for, the play of religious influences, in the reclaiming of those c children of a larger growth.' In like manner, the Government paid the contractors of the Makatote Viaduct for secular results only, and did not bother its head how much they, prayed and sang hymns, so -long as the work was done according to specifications. Catholics - only ask that the State-certified State work of . education which they conscientiously do, according to State specifications and State requirements, should be treated in the same way. 5. The Catholic position, . as already stated, requires, in practical effect, in these countries, separate schools for Catholic children, (a) Existing schools could be - brought into the State system on, the Canadian, German, or any other acceptable arrangement described',-in a previous .article, (b) Where 1 further Catholic schools would be called for, the German or Canadian or other suitable method might be followed; a fair minimum attendance (say, 25, for example) might be fixed ; Catholic householders, in places where a sufficient attendance -could be secured, might be enabled to form themselves into a school district^ and elect their own school committee, as under the Staifejiystem ; &»1 separate school buildings to be erected- at the^iole cost ofithose desiring such schools, and to be in accordance witlr the requirements of the education authorities^Any other religious body requiring separate schools to 1)e r ;pTaced upjaif the same footing. Such a minimum . attendance as thafr suggested above would give very few additional Catholic schools to this "Dominion. Practically only one other religious body would erect schools under these conditions — and, perhaps, not a great number of them. The friendly educational rivalry between the two systems, the bringing of large bodies of spiritually destitute children within the sphere of moral and . religious influences, the resultant improvement in moral tone, the quickening of religious, life, and the increased educational peace' resulting from a settlement of this vexed question would amply repay the State even from the civil and secular point of view. 6. Catholics would freely accord to the Government' control in th 6 following matters : — (a) In finance and financial policy — no part of' the State payments would pass through the hands of the ecclesiastical authorities; (b) in the programme of secular instruction ; (c) in .testing and determining the efficiency of teachers and keeping it well up to the level of the State system; (d) in the construction, hygiene, furniture,, and equipment of the schools; and (c), generally, in all purely civil and secular matters. The Catholic ecclesiastical authorities claim one right which they never can surrender — namely, the right of effective control in all matters relating to the faith, morals, and religious teaching and training of Catholic children. For aiiy non-Catholic children . that might attend Catholic schools there would, of course, . be a conscience clause on the positive lines already indicated. 7. Catholics are not tied to any one solution of the religious difficulty in education. Quebec, Ontario, Germany (which is, educationally, the most advanced nation in the world), and other countries of mixed religion have, as indicated in a previous article, systems of public instruction that present, on the. whole,' satisfactory solutions of the problem. And, no doubt^' other fair means out of the difficulty might also be devised- The Governments in these countries have created a monopoly in what is called free education. It is their duty aut viam invenire dut facere — to devise .a solution of the religious difficulty. The civil authority may not (so Catholics Relieve) itself "teach religion. But it, is' deeply concerned with religion as a teacher of morality, a promoter of good ' order, the' best school of "good citizenship. And if it cannot itself give its young citizens the benefits of such religious training, it becomes its plain duty to entrust it to those who can do so, and do so at the best time and in the most effective way. „ ' ' The long list of- prominent advocates of State aid to religious schools includes names of such note as John Stuart Mill- and the rationalist historian Lecky, whose testimony, I have already" quoted. Grants to Catholic schools were strongly advocated a few years ago in Interim Report No. 55 of the New South Wales Education Commission. In the secular press I content myself with citing the Otago Daily Times, which was at one period a cordial supporter 1 of religion in the schools, and of a State-aided denominational system side by side with that of the State. Thus, in a leading article of its issue of July % 1880, it said that theopposition then shown to the secular system might possibly result ' in bringing about such a modified system- of " pay-

ment by results " as we have several times sketched in these columns — a system which would leave greater freedom to • all those who are anxious to combine religious with secular instruction by making the State the equal distributor cf all public grants for secular instruction only, and would allow each separate educational organisation to give what religious instruction it pleased. This would be an absolutely impartial system; but, after all, the State schools would be necessary to supplement the imperfect efforts of private enterprise and religious zeal.' Catholics would be well satisfied with 'an absolutely impartial system ' such as this. V. A Question of Conscience. — The whole question of the Catholic claim is, on the part of Catholic's, a strict matter of conscience and of religious principle; on the part of the -State it is, at root, a question as to the extent to which the demands of conscience shall be recognised in legislation. The whole tendency of the past hundred years has been to enlarge and legalise rights of conscience. Thus, in English-speaking countries generally, Quakers and , other conscientious objectors (atheists included) are now released from the former obligation of taking oaths on various occasions. The curious conscientious scruples of Mohammedans were respected at Calcutta in " July> 1897, even at the risk of the continuance of -the bubonic plague. In 1908 the Indian . Government - likewise compelled the Mohammedans to respect the susceptibilities of the Hindus in regard to cows. Quakers in the IPnited States are . exempted, on grounds of conscience, from the duty of defending their country — a duty which, on occasion, thecivil authority may justly require and enforce. Varying measures of legislative protection are also accorded, in this and most other countries, to the ' conscientious ' objections of anti-vaccinationists. The State should, in its legislation, protect liberty generally, except where such liberty might degenerate into license or disorder, or be an invasion of the just rights of others. Freedom in matters of conscience, as in other matters, is deemed to be in possession, and adequate cause should be shown where it is taken away, or diminished, or the -area of restraints upon vfc enlarged. In the connection here under consideration, a wide liberty is in possession over the greater part of the Christian world. Over all Australia, and in a great part of New Zealand, there existed a wider liberty of conscience in the matter of religious education than at present prevails. The conscientious right of Christian taxpayers to have their children educated religiously was recognised' by . State grants to denominational schools. All this has been stopped by act of Parliament, and the only free or Stateaided education that now prevails in these new countries is (as already shown) free education forced upon the consciences of the people by (in effect) fines, and based upon a form of sectarian Secularism, or Agnosticism. It is for the defenders of this new, experimental, and comparatively localised system to justify this invasion of rights of conscience as best they may. To do so they must demon-" strate one or other of the following propositions : — (1) That State aid to religious education is, of its nature, opposed to the true end and aim of the life of the child. (2) That State aid to religious education is opposed to the principles of true pedagogy or child-training. (This second proposition is intimately bound up with the first). (3) That State aid to religious education is, of its nature, opposed to those principles of good order which it is 'the bounden duty of the civil authority to guard. Let it be well borne in mind that such evils as the advocates of the secular system may allege against religious education must be shown not alone to be of first-class gravity: it must, moreover, be shown that they are inherent thereto, and not separable from it, by the operation of skilled and statesmanlike legislation. - They will, moreover, have to reconcile their assertions, in this connection, with the conspicuous success of State-aided systems of religious education, such as that which prevails in Germany, the foremost nation in the world in matters educational. VI. A Parting Request. — I entreat the thoughtful reader who has been patient enough to follow me thus far to bear the following points well in mind: — (1) This is a discussion between secular and religious education — be- ■ tween Christian principles in education and a form of dogmatic secularism in education. (2) This is not, except" in an indirect and incidental way, a _ discussion between one scheme and another scheme of religious education. It is high time for all the friends of religious education to try to understand each other, and not to waste their energies in the aimless internecine strife, which has enabled a form of Secularism to capture the public schools. (3) Before discussing schemes, details, or side issues^ it is most desirable either to agree upon, or to thresh out,- the principles of philosophy and of pedagogy (child-training) upon whicn this whole question ultimately turns. Otherwise, the discussion would degenerate into a mere tangled wrangle. (4) The ohief object of all discussion should be to evolve light, not heat.

There are, of course, practical difficulties in evolving a scheme of all-round religious education. But the present • writer believes that they are relatively unimportant, and that they could be solved here,, as they have been solved elsewhere. The faith that educates the moral conscience and the will of children holds the key of. the future. So, in effect, said Mr. Aniasa Thornton, writing on the religious difficulty in education in the North American, Beview for January, 1898. '.Although a Protestant of the firmest kind;' added he, J I believe the time has come to recognise this fact, and for all of us to lay aside religious prejudices * and patriotically meet this question.' , : . ~