Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 10 April 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

A Question Night' Challenge We print elsewhere in this issue a letter by Bishop Cleary wnich appeared in the JV.Z. Herald of April 1, and which concludes with an important challenge to the representatives of the Bible in State Schools League, to the terms of which we direct particular attention. The challenge was distinct and specific, and was couched in a form that was fair, to all parties.. In the Herald of April 5 the challenge was publicly declined; but it will bo repeated again and again as opportunity oifers. The challenge strides one immediately as an excellent idea; and it was at once adopted by Mr. J. A. Scott, and embodied, in a modified form, in the following letter to the Ota go Daily Times. * Sir, —Some short time ago Dean Eitchett, referring to the present Bible in State schools movement, said in effect that he could not remember any great public controversy in which all the evidence and ail the argument were so completely on one side and in a later letter in your coiumns he has said : ' By inquiry and discussion the Bible in State Schools League has nothing to lose and much to gain. Its chief work at present lies in dissipating ignorance and correcting misconceptions.' To the like effect writes the Rev. Alex. Don in your issue of Thursday, in which he expresses the conviction that if the Rev. W. J. Ashford and Mr. J. Caughley only knew all about the Australian system ' these same men would be as strong supporters as they are now opponents.' In similar strain we find the Outlook of March 18, in an alliterative outburst, declaring, * The case for the League is conclusive, because it is fair, full, factual, and final,' and deploring ' the prevalent apathy towards the Bible-in-schools movement' as being the only real obstacle to success. This being the view of the League leaders, they will doubtless welcome a respectful suggestion which I now venture to make. It is that the League should give us a "question night"—that is, a public meeting, under the auspices of the League, at which the programme shall consist solely of answers to questions, and at which the various sections of dissidents from the League's proposals shall have full opportunity of interrogating the League on points which they do not understand or to which they think objection can be taken. A picked man or picked men could be appointed by the League to answer the questions. * ' The advantages of this method of getting at the facts will be obvious. At present League speakers and writers, with only the rarest exceptions, are not meeting the real difficulties and objections that are urged against the scheme. I went myself to the Burns Hall meeting and happened to drop in just as Canon Garland commenced his address. After listening for ten weary minutes to a eulogy of King Alfred, who has been quite a long time dead 2 I made a disappointed, not to say disgusted, exit. The question and answer method— questioner having, of course, the opportunity also to question the answer— obviate such a.* wicked waste of precious time. It would afford the League—if its members are as confident as they profess —a splendid opportunity for bringing out their case at its full strength, and would enable the enthusiastic Outlook representative to give us at least a glimpse of that "fair, full, factual, and final" aspect of the movement which has hitherto escaped our notice. Readers who have followed the correspondence which has appeared in your columns during the last few weeks will easily judge that both the audience and the League representatives would have an interesting, not to say a merry time; and I think I could myself safely undertake that at least the meeting would not fail for of questions: I sincerely trust that the local secretary of the League will bring this respectful suggestion before his committee, and that the public will be afforded the desired opportunity to come to close grips on this question.—l am, ect., 'April 4.' 'J. A. Scott.

The League as Religious Persecutor 7 / The'following further reply to Mr. A. Morris Barnett, whom the Outlook innocently, and of course incorrectly describes as >'a.; Jewish gentleman/ and who admitted that 1 he had been "fairly severely handled by Mr. J; A. Scott," appeared in Tuesday's Otago Daily Times. 'Sir,—l need not occupy much of your space in replying to Mr A M Barnett's last letter. Let me say at the outset that I have, and always have had, a great respect for Mr Barnett, not, as he supposes, because he has in the past advocated denominationalism, but because, with all his limitations, he has been unwaveringly loyal to the principle of religious education, and in his synod, in teachers institutes, and in the press, has stood by it through good report and evil report, whether he had numbers on his side or whether he had to stand alone. Unquestionably his heart is in the cause; and I can only regret that in the present case he has allowed his heart to get the better of his head, and for the sake of the desired end has committed himself to methods that are one-sided, tyrannical, and unjust. * fl 'ln my previous reply to him I pointed out. that the Bible in State Schools League is out to compel the Jewish teacher to teach what is to the latter simple blasphemy and that, it proposes, further,'to add injury to insult by compelling Jewish taxpayers to pay for such teaching. This is not, as Mr. Barnett tries feebly to suggest an imaginary quibble." It is a simple' fact that there are Jewish tax-payers in the Dominion • and it is an equally undeniable fact that they are to be compelled to pay for religious teaching from the New Testament a book which they do not accept and parts of which they regard as blasphemy against their God. Here is Mr Barnett's justification of this feature of the Leagues proposals: "When the Jews have increased in such numbers that a fairly strong Yiddish quarter has been established in the Dominion it would be time to consider the question." * 'With all my respect for Mr. Barnett personally, I cannot refrain from saying that this is a disgraceful defence to come from any Christian man. It is a defence of persecution, pure and simple. Because the representatives of the chosen people happen in this part of the world to be few in number their consciences are to be forced and their rights denied In its spirit it is of a piece with a like utterance to be found in the editorial columns of the Outlook of March 18 'The sceptic," writes the Acting-Editor, evidently a minister "is an alien from the religious principles on which the civilisation of the Dominion as part of the British Empire and of Christendom is built, and in virtue of that fact must be immediately ruled out of court. The sceptic has a pocket, and will be graciously permitted— compelled—to'"pay, pay pay for the religious instruction in which he does not believe; but when he ventures to mention that he has also a conscience, and that he objects to his money being taken to pay for the teaching of what he regards as religious error, then he "must be immediately ruled out of court/' On this amiable principle Hume and Humboldt Huxley and Haeckel, Mill and Tyndall, Blatchford and Mark Twain would all be classed as aliens and by the great intellect which penned the Outlook -article would be "immediately ruled out of , J hld ' of course ' no brief for scepticism, which I love as much as the devil is said to love holy water; but I draw the line at the principle—by the Outlook writer, and acted on by the Leaguethat unbelievers are to be treated as having no rights I notice that one of your correspondents, recognising the absolutely misleading character of the name taken by the League—whose proposals, if adopted to-morrow would not put a single Bible in a single school in the Dominion— been casting about for some more truthful titie for the organisation. In view of the utterances quoted above and of the League's attack on the rights of dissident teachers and taxpayers I suggest in all seriousness that the name, the Religious Persecution League, would accurately fill the bill

;.:..-..■•■';■ lam very sorry to, note that among the circumstances which, for the present, prevent Mr. Barnett from doing full justice to his views on the question is included that of bodily infirmity. I sincerely hope that this disability, at least, will soon pass away, and that with better health will come better judgment, better reasoning, and a juster view of a system which seems to me, m certain of its essential features, to literally reek with injustice. —I am, etc., , ,'. • ' J. A. Scott. ' April 5. The League « Christians' and the Jews The following letter, which appeared in Saturday's Otago Daily Times, explains itself:—'Sir, — observe that Mr. Joseph Braithwaite shows a disposition to come to the assistance of his friend and comrade, Mr. A. M. Barnett, and so long as the latter makes no demur to such dubious succour as Mr. Braithwaite proffers, I, for my part, will not object.

' There are two points in Mr. Braithwaite's letter which call for special notice from me. (a) I avoid "the present school books," for the simple reason that they nave nothing to do with the question of religious teaching, in regard to the lessons in these books—including Kipling's " Becessional" hymn, and others—tho teaciier s duty begins and ends with seeing that the children are able to read them clearly, intelligibly, and with proper emphasis and expression, and that they understand the meaning of the words used. He is not only not compelled, he is actually by tho existing law forbidden, to make them the vehicle of religious teaching. And Mr. Braithwaite seeks to place them' on the same footing as a series of set "religious lessons"—to use his own expression— the teacher is compelled to teach as the inspired Word of God, and in regard to which the children will be definitely and specifically examined on the religious teaching conveyed. If Mr. Braithwaite cannot see- the difference between the two cases he is either more obtuse than 1 had ever suspected him of being, or he is presuming upon the supposed obtuseness of your readers, (b) I have never in my life "defended an atheistic system of education," and Mr. Braithwaite owes me a prompt apology for such a gross misrepresentation. In the very letter on which he is commenting I said: "I am as strongly in favor of religious education for the young as Mr. Barnett is, but I hold that those who desire such instruction have no right to compel other people, who conscientiously object to such teaching, to pay for it." If Mr. Braithwaite calls that "defending an atheistic system of education," he does not know the meaning of words. For the present, I am "defending" nothing. I am merely, as a citizen and a taxpayer, protesting against certain features of a scheme for which I am to be compelled to pay, and which seem to me to involve an odious tyranny over the consciences of the teachers and an utterly indefensible religious persecution of those taxpayers who are conscientiously opposed to the form of religious teaching devised. . Mr. Braithwaite cannot hope to advance his cause by making gross misstatements of the kind under notice, and I have to call upon him either to substantiate his statement which I know he cannot do —or frankly to withdraw. * 'Mr. Braithwaite thinks "the wonder is that any Christian should object" to the League's scheme. I, on the contrary, think the wonder is that any Christian, who has thought the thing out, and whose Christianity has the least particle of genuineness in it, can possibly bring himself to endorse the system in its present form. In this-connection I will ask Mr. Braithwaite two questions—and they are only an instalment of those which I hope to get an opportunity of asking. (1) Is it a. Christian thing to compel Jewish teachers, without the option of a conscience clause, to handle .such lessons as " Gethsemane " (page 118 of the Queensland manual), "Christ before Caiaphas" (page 120), ''Christ before Pilate" (page 121), "The Crucifixion" (page 123), etc., and to administer religious teaching of a kind which they have been taught from

their infancy to regard as blasphemy against their God ? The teacher is a servant of the State. All State employment ought to be open to all citizens qualified for it, irrespective of their religious opinions. The Bible in State Schools League says, in effect, that- the teaching profession will be open to the Jewish applicant Only on condition that he shall teach what he conscientiously believes to be blasphemy, and it flatly refuses to grant him a conscience clause. That is the Test Act over again with a vengeance. (2) Is it a Christian thing to compel Jewish taxpayers, by the rong arm of the law, to pay for the propagation of Christianity, and of religious teaching which they regard as blasphemy against the God of their fathers There is here no imaginary bogey or mere theoretical case, but a concrete and incontestable fact. Here is a clear-cut question of right and wrong; and no amount of friendly testimony from outside can-alter the moral quality of this proposal. Is this, then, a Christian thing to do ? Is this the way in which Christian ministers propose to demonstrate to the descendants of the ancient people the superior excellence of Christianity by picking their pockets to pay for the spread of it ? M leave Mr. Braithwaite to answer these questions, only premising that he must not attempt to put us off with the disgraceful defence that this sort of thing is to be tolerated because the victims are not a numerous body —as if religious persecution and oppression of conscience were perfectly, justifiable so. long as they are not done on too large a scale. .If it should be considered that these questions are a little difficult for a mere layman to answer, I would be more than willing that a Christian minister should essay the task, say the Key. W. Gray Dixon, the local secretary of the League* over whose signature an advertisement recently appeared asking the public to rally to the cause in the name of "liberty of conscience." And to allay in advance any apprehension which that gentleman may feel in regard to again "putting pen to paper," I will promise faithfully that, unlike that wicked minister at St. Clair, I will be scrupulously polite. 1 A similar objection to that here taken applies though not precisely to the same degree the case of all other conscientious objectors to the State-estab-lished and State-endowed religion proposed by the League. I have drawn attention to it because, as evidenced by the attitude of the W.C.T.U., there are many sincere members of the Christian churches who are willing enough to see some provision made for the religious education of those children whose parents desire it,but who would cut their right hands off rather than be parties to injustice and religious persecution and I ask these to give earnest consideration to the' aspect of the case now presented. I invite them further to watch carefully the answers given to the above questions, and to note with what remarkable unanimity League apologists will evade the point.— am, etc., ' J. A. Scott. ' April 4.'

Mr. John D. Nugent, general secretary of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, speaking at the annual meeting.of the Dublin Divisions, said : ' At this moment the energetic and capable secretary of the Orange and Protestant approved society in Ulster was working in perfect accord and unity with himself in connection with the State insurance scheme. It was not that the millennium had arrived, but during the last couple of months the secretary of J that organisation has been with them as the repre-l sentative of that society, so that they might act in' common on the question of National Insurance. In politics they differ,'in business they were one; and it was, therefore, no exaggeration to sa|y that three months after the Irish Parliament assembled in College Green the business friendship which had now been created between' the Orange and Protestant Society and the A.O.K. would unquestionably fructify in the unity of larger interests, when the democratic forces of what were generally regarded as the extreme in politics and religion had joined hands in a holy concord for the benefit of our country and our people.'