The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY MARCH 23, 1911. THE 'POST' IN PILLORY

New Zealand Tablet, 23 March 1911, Page 529

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY MARCH 23, 1911. THE 'POST' IN PILLORY

—■ ,„, “—^ — SINGE the first criticism of Dr. Cleary’s Pastoral as formulated in the editorial columns of the Evening Post, there have appeared in that W) paper two letters from Dr. Cleary, and two & leaders—ostensibly by way of reply-on the pait of the Post. In addition, a tliird cons' £s>. tr ” v ? rsias t — the person of . the Rev. T. A. Williams, a bellicose Baptist clergyman of <■ Petonc— officiously obtruded himself into the discussion. This gentleman has for some time past been very much in evidence as a noisy and violent no-Popery letter-writer; and his object in pushing himself to the front at this juncture is partly, doubt to assist the manifestly worried editor, but chiefly, it would seem, to keep himself in the limelight, and gain a certain measure of self-advertisement by mingling, if for ever so let a space, with his intellectual betters. His letter over a column in length—is mainly devoted to showing that it is not m accordance with Christian principle that the State should teach religion. Never once, not in the most remote or distant fashion, has Dr. Cleary even hinted ' at such a thing—he has, in point of fact, maintained with all possible emphasis that such a function clearly belonged

to the Church alone— the way in which both the Post and its clerical comrade in arms have harped on this one (utterly irrelevant) point, is itself a flag of distress. They j are unable to meet the real situation; and they can only keep up a sort of pretence of fighting by battering away -quite harmlessly—at a position which their opponent never thought of assuming. For the rest, the Rev. T. A. Williams’s letter is unworthy of the least attention; and we hope that the supporters of religious education will hot lend themselves to this scheme for side-tracking the discussion by taking any serious notice of the Betone pastor’s production. A straight-out duel is always interesting; but a fussy third person who intrudes himself into the dispute serves no useful purpose, and only spoils the view. * The most striking feature of the controversy so far has been the marked unwillingness— may safely say the hopeless inability—of the Evening Post to face the issue raised by Dr. Cleary. That issue was stated so clearly and explicitly that no room was left for the slightest doubt or uncertainty as to the precise point which was to be met; and for the benefit of non-Wellington readers we propose to print the exact words-of the Evening Post in the two attempts which the paper has made by way of reply. But first let us state the precise issue raised by Dr. Cleary. | Here it is, in the words of his Lordship’s first letter to the j Post Both secularists and anti-secularists agree that j education is a preparation for life and the responsibilities ; of life. .And the numerous friends of Christian educationj in New Zealand are entitled to know on what philosophy \ of life, on what educational principle, so powerful a moralj agency as religion is excluded from the formative process j of school-work; why it is there treated as of no practical 1 use or value as a national asset; why, in a Christian land, j the refining influences which created the Christian home , j should be banished from the public school; why childhood’s . | incomparable Exemplar and Ideal should be barred, under j legal penalties, from contact with His “little ones” during j the working hours of the system.’ And that issue was { pressed home, pointedly and directly, on the Post individually: ‘Now, on what grounds do you defend a system which was devised and intended for the destruction of religious faith in France? . . . You-can adequately defend the secular system only on some philosophy of life, or as an educational principle based upon a philosophy of life. Atheists thus defend the secular system; Catholics and great numbers of Protestants thus defend religion in the schools. Atheists and Christians both know their principles precisely, and act consistently with them, and are ever ready to state them on demand. Either you can defend the secular system by such an appeal to groundwork principles, or you cannot. If you cannot, I submit that you ought to say so frankly. If you can, “carte in fnvola,” as the Italians say: show your “cards,” set forth your principles.’ And yet again ; ‘Catholic principles in education you know. The French atheist principles in favor of the secular system we know. But what are yours?’ •* There was thus not the slightest ambiguity as to the precise point which was in question;- and the Post was left without the least shadow of pretence for not fairly and squarely facing the issue. Instead of doing so, it has not merely shirked and evaded the challengeit has, in its last leader, incontinently and ignominiously run away. We will let the Wellington paper speak for itself. In its issue of March 9, dealing with Dr. Cleary’s first letter, it began by saying: ‘The plain man does not deal in philosophies of life. He leaves such things to the philosophers and the theologians.’ As Dr. Cleary has forcefully shown in his second letterwhich appears elsewhere in -this issue— ‘plain man’ is very much given to dealing in views or philosophies of life, and has a very real and practical interest in them. Apart from that, it may bo noted that this access of modesty on the part of the Wellington paper is quite a sudden and recent development. .In its past utterances on the various aspects of education in New Zealand the Post has, in common with most of our other leading dailies, spoken with a considerable measure of authority; and by its reasoned deliverances on many of the. minute and almost technical details of our system has claimed —inferentially at least — be regarded as an educationist of no mean order. It was not to the Post in its new ultra-modest role of plain man,’ but to the Post as educationist, as one of the intellectuals, as a moulder of public opinion, as an accredited champion of a system, • that appeal was made. Recognising, however, that, if only for appearances’ sake, it would be better to attempt some sort of answer to Dr. Cleary’s pointed and pertinent query, the Post concluded its article with the following: ' When, therefore, Dr. Cleary asks us why we object to the State endowment of denominationalism, we reply (1) that the present system is comprehensive and impartial, and discharges in the most obvious and effective way a primary

obligation of the State; (2) that denominationalism has no locus standi at all unless some injustice can be proved against the present system; (3) that to encourage sectarianism or even sectionalism’ in general education would bo opposed to the solidarity which it is the aim of every wise nation to promote among its citizens.’ It requires little penetration to see that all this is no answer at all to Dr. Cleary’s question. The Post was asked to state on what principle of child-training, on what view of lifeof its origin, destiny*, duties, and ideals —it justified the exclusion of religion from the formative process of schoolwork. The reader will look in vain for the faintest trace of a view of life or principle of child-training in the shuffling and evasive ‘ reply ’ above set forth. » In his second letter, Dr. Cleary again raised and pressed the same issue, giving the Post a further opportunity to ‘make good’; but in its leader appearing—by way of ‘reply ’ —in the same issue, the Post has definitely thrown in the towel. ‘We must again,’ it says, ‘decline his challenge to propound a, “philosophy of life,” either on our own behalf or on that of the State. We prefer, as we have previously indicated, not to exorcise ourselves in such great matters. We are content to leave the discussion to the metaphysician and the theologian. . . .’ In other wordsas we have above described it—the Post incontinently runs away. It tries to cover up its retreat by taking shelter behind some utterances of Mr. Gladstone, Archibishop Temple, and Dr. Barkerwhich are contained in an English Secular Education League tract attached to Professor Mackenzie’s recently published pamphlet—and, in particular, it adopts as its own a dictum of Dr. Barker, in which he declared that ‘ no education can bo complete which does not include thorough religious training,’ but added that ‘as a citizen, 1 deny that it is the business of the State to furnish a complete education.’ The reason which he gave for this denial was ‘simply the old Nonconformist reason, that religion is personal, sacred, varying its aspects and claims according to various convictions,’* and-that to support it by rates and taxes, and thus by possible penalties, is to vex and offend its characteristic and essential spirit.’ As against Dr. Cleary's challenge, all this avails the Post not one iota. There is here not so much as a reference to any 1 view of life’ or life-philosophy,’ nor statement of any fundamental ground-work ‘ principle of child-training.’ Moreover, Dr. Cleary has never once asked or suggested that rates or taxes should be devoted to the support of religion or religious instruction of any kind, or that the State should in any shape or form undertake the work of teaching religion. This the Post knows full well; and the way in which it harks back, again and again, to this old irrelevance, is evidence of the straits to which it is reduced. * 1 lie controversy is not yet concluded; and it would bo premature, at this stage, to attempt to comment on its lessons or results. Our present object has simply been to keep our readers an courant with the leading points and features of the discussion so far as it has yet gone. Already it has furnished a very striking illustration of the value and importance of getting back to first principles. If the nominally Christian supporters of the secular system can be prevailed upon to attempt a statement of their groundwork principles on this question, such statement will—according to its tenor — at once bring out their hopeless inconsistency in defending the exclusion of religion from education, or it will serve to show how very little real Christianity there is under their religious professions. However highly we may esteem the utterances of the daily press on other matters, to which they have given careful thought and study, on this question of secular versus religious education—owing to their never having troubled to get down to bed-rock principles on the subject—they are, for the most part, veritable blind leaders of the blind.