Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 12 June 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

Bishop Cleary’s Attitude: A Correction We quoted in our last week’s issue—without, of course, endorsing or identifying ourselves with the words quoted —some interesting comments from a secular paper on the Bible-in-schools question ; and in the course of its remarks our contemporary fell into a slight and obviously inadvertent error in regard to Bishop Cleary’s position. On such a matter even a slight error is of consequence and it is in the highest degree important that the public should be perfectly clear regarding Bishop Cleary’s attitude. In this connecion we are authorised by Bishop Cleary to state that the position taken up all along by him has been this: That Catholics have no objection to the Bible-in-Schools party having either the whole Bible, or mutilated extracts from the Bible, for their children in the public schools, so long as they do the teaching thereof themselves, at their own expense, and not force it upon the consciences or purses of conscientiously objecting (taxpayers, teachers, parents, or pupils, or lure objecvtors’ children into it by the trickery and false pretence of their Irish proselytising conscience clause.- In con- ' nection with another matter quoted from the same : secular paper, Bishop Cleary’s statement- has all along ► been as follows: That if the League only .accepted the j. principle of the fair and equal treatment of consciences •of taxpayers, parents, teachers, and pupils, • the re- ■ ligious difficulty in education could probably be settled • ; by a round table conference in forty-eight hours, leaving the State system secular for those who desire it so, and religious, on fair all round conditions, for those who wish to have a measure of religious instruction in the schools, but that the League demands, not such equal treatment, but the exclusive party privilege of a State taught and State endowed school religion for a section of four denominations at the cost of fifty denominations. Unitarians and the Bible in Schools Scheme Judging by the number and vigor of the resolutions that are being formulated against the Bible in State Schools League’s proposals fit would seem clear that the opposition to the scheme is steadily and surely strengthening. Amongst the latest to give articulate and official expression to their sense of the tyranny and injustice of the League’s proposals are the members of the Unitarian body. A meeting of Unitarians has just been held at Wellington, at which a number of visiting ministers were present; and before the gathering separated the following motion was moved by Mr. J. Gammell; —‘ Believing that historical experience has shown that it is advantageous for. religion to be separated from the functions of the State, believing that the Bible cannot be taught in the State schoolsby State teachers without the State interfering with the religion of its citizens, believing that it is a flagrant violation of justice to compel all teachers to teach the Bible in schools, and that such violation of justice would be contrary to the interests of true religion : we record our emphatic opposition to the proposals of the Bible-in-Schools League and our determination to do all in our power to defeat the same.’ According to the press report, the speaker said that there was, going on in the community at the present time a gross attack on the personal and religious liberty which was taught within the walls of their church. He referred to the system of freedom and religious liberty in their schools which had stood for a generation. He did not know where the impulse came from, but he was certain it was not from above. (Laughter.) ‘ The motion,’ concludes the report, ‘ was duly seconded and carried unanimously without discussion.’ The W.C.T.U. and the League The determined efforts which are being made by supporters of the Bible in State Schools League, both lay and clerical, to persuade or cajole—or, as in the case of the Bishop of Nelson, to intimidate—the members of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union into

going back on the declaration adopted by the annual convention expressing * opposition to the League’s- proposals do not appear to be meetings with conspicuous success. As already . chronicled in . these- columns, the Nelson branch some few weeks ago passed, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution endorsing the convention deliverance; and now the influential Wellington Central branch have followed suit. At a well-attended and thoroughly representative meeting held ‘the other day two resolutions were submitted and both were carried unanimously. The nature of the resolutions and the character of the meeting will be gathered from the following letter sent by , Mrs. Atkinson, the President of the Wellington branch, to the Dominion newspaper. ' Sir,—l sincerely hope that .my friend, the Rev. J. Ward, has been misreported in your paper this morning. In your report of the meeting of the Wellington South branch of the Bible-in-Schools League I read: The Rev. J. Ward stated that the meeting of the Women s Christian Temperance Union, which passed a vote against the Bible-in-schools movement, was not a representative one of the Wellington branch.’ The meeting referred to was the regular monthly meeting of the union, announced as usual by pulpit notice and post-card, and there was a good attendance. Mr. Ward’s statement is thus absolutely incorrect. The meeting unanimously endorsed the convention resolutions approving the Nelson system, and condemning the platform of the Bible-in-Schools League. A further resolution protesting against “the attempt of Canon Garland’s Bible-in-Schools League to force teachers to give religious instruction without providing any conscience clause for teachers,” was also carried unanimously. Trusting that you will soon find space for this correction,— am, etc, L. M. Atkinson, president W.C.T.U., Wellington Central, Wadestown, May 23.’ More Misrepresentation It seems to be a matter of sheer impossibility to stem, or even to check, the tide of League misrepresentation. We have hardly done correcting a misstatement made by one advocate of the League’s proposals than another comes along and r repeats the same misstatement. The latest offender in this direction is the Rev. J. C. Jamieson, who has been Bible Class Travelling Secretary for the Presbyterian body in New South Wales for the last couple of years, and who is now about to take up the duties of assistant minister at Knox Church, Dunedin. We know Mr. Jamieson well enough to know that he is not the sort of person who would knowingly distort facts or consciously misrepresent the state of the case on this or , on any other question. Yet—such is the power of —he has contrived to pack into an interview given to the Lyttelton Times almost as many false statements as there are sentences—at least so far as his utterances in regard to the Catholic attitude are concerned. We quote a portion of the interview from our Christchurch contemporary of May 31: The system was supported as heartily by Roman Catholic teachers as by any other teachers. Outside the schools, as far as he could ascertain, there was no feeling amongst Roman Catholics against the system. In New South Wales the Roman Catholics held a very powerful' position in politics, but they certainly were not taking any steps to have the system repealed or abolished.’ ♦ Regarding these statements we observe: (1) Mr, Jamieson safeguards himself as far as possible by such saving clauses as ‘ As far as his observations and knowledge went,’ As far as he could ascertain,’ etc. Obviously, his observations and knowledge of the Catholic feeling and attitude are extremely limited; and, that being so, it would have been wiser and fairer to decline to be interviewed on that aspect of the question. (2) If either Mr. Jamieson or the Lyttelton Times wished to know what the Catholic attitude is towards the New South Wales systemeither here or in New South —there are recognised Catholic authorities to be be appealed to, and they alone can give a definite and decisive answer. (3) Regarding the statement that 1 the system was supported as heartily by Roman Catholic teachers as by any other

teachers/ it will be sufficient to quote the specific declaration of such a keen educationist and recognised authority as - Dr. Gallagher, Bishop of Goulbourn, who affirms that the Catholic teachers within his vast jurisdiction positively ‘hate the lessons.’ (4) The Catholic attitude of entire dissatisfaction with the system in operation in New South Wales has been again and again expressed by members of the Australian hierarchy, the late Cardinal Moran and Archbishop Kelly, in particular, having made very explicit and emphatic declarations on the point. We quote Archbishop Kelly’s latest utterance on the subject, which should settle the question once and for all: ‘I am speaking to Australians in general, said his Grace, in an address delivered on April 23, ‘ and I say that it (the N.S. Wales system) is most Objectionable to Catholics, that it is in itself unstatesmanlike, and that from a religious point of view it is nothing better than a delusion,' a mockery,; and a snare. . . . Our legislation that our Catholic children, when they are compelled, to attend public schools, should not be present at these lessons continues. Catholic parents would fail in their duty if they did not see that their children were absent from these lessons. Therefore, it is false for anyone to say that the Catholics of New South Wales are content with the present system of Bible lessons and religious instruction imparted in the name of secular instruction.’ The Conscientiously Objecting Teachers Those who know the fine band of Catholic men which Dean Holley has the good fortune to have around him in Wanganui will not be at all surprised at the success which attended Bishop Cleary’s meeting in that beautiful and wide-awake town the other evening, The interest shown in the meeting— the result of their effortsmay be summed up in the following brief sentence from the local Herald-. ‘The Opera House was altogether inadequate to accommodate the big crowd that turned up to hear his Lordship.’ A feature of the gathering was the interest shown in the lecture and the part taken in the subsequent proceedings by local Protestant members of the teaching profession. The mover of the principal motion, Mr. Jas. Aitken, was the headmaster of the Victoria Avenue State School, a Presbyterian, and a Sunday School teacher of forty years’ standing. The vote of thanks to Bishop Cleary was also moved by a teacher, Mr. J. K. Law, headmaster of the Aramoho State School, whose brief speech contained one of the most weighty and significant utterances that have yet been made in the course of this controversy. As reported in the Wanganui He)aid of May 30, he stated that he was voicing the convictions of eighty per cent, of the teachers when he said that he conscientiously objected to the obligation of imparting the League’s Lessons being placed upon his shoulders.’ b b * We hope that Bible in State Schools League advocates will fairly face this statement. Their ablest apologists, DeamFitchett and the Rev. Isaac Jolly, have contended that there was no need for a conscience clause for the teachers, the latter going so far as to say that while some teachers were opposed to the general religious teaching ’ because it meant an additional subject to the syllabus he had never met or heard of a teacher who conscientiously objected to giving these lessons. Well, here is one teacher, name and address given, who has publicly stated that he does so object and that in this attitude of conscientious objection he represents an overwhelming majority of his fellowteachers. What is the League going to do about it ? Here is mo imaginary bogey or purely theoretical difficulty, but an actually existing situation, and a concrete, practical question of moral right and moral wrong The Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith as Held by the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand—compiled by the Rev. P. B. Fraser and endorsed by the Presbyterian General Assemblydeclares (p. 28) that ‘liberty of conscience is the inalienable right of every man. What is the League going to do in regard to this _ inalienable right ’ of the teachers ? Either it must modify its proposals and grant a conscience clause to

the teachers, or it must abandon its own Christian principles and play the tyrant... If it persists in adhering to the latter alternativeto which, indeed, it is now practically committedfair-minded electors will know what to say to the proposal. Otago Teachers’ Opposition: * Explosive Unanimity» That Mr. Law was not over-stating the position when he claimed that in opposing the Bible in State Schools League’s proposals he represented 80 per cent, of the teaching, profession throughout the Dominion is evidenced by the stand taken by the Otago teachers at the annual meeting of the Otago District Institute held at Dunedin last Friday. After an interesting discussion, lasting over an hour, the Institute unanimously reaffirmed the deliverance adopted by the annual conference. of the N.Z. Educational Institute, the motion being put in this form: -‘ That the Otago Educational Institute, while, recognising the value of Bible teaching and religion, . are . opposed to the Bible-in-Schools League’s programme.’ According to the Otago Daily Times report, the motion ‘ was agreed to unanimously, and with acclamation’ ; while the Evening Star de* scribed it as being carried ‘ with explosive unanimity.’ * The speeches on the question reached the high level which was to be expected from a body of educationists of such recognised standing as the Otago Institute. To begin with, they were uniformly courteous and temperate in tone. The speakers, without exception, expressed their personal reverence and regard for - the Bible, and their high sens© of the necessity and value of religious instruction. That is, in itself, significant, as showing that their attitude on the question was nob dictated by a blind or biassed conservatism, or by any love of secularism as such. If a scheme were brought down free from injustice and from tyranny of conscience it was made clear that it would have little to fear in the way of opposition from the teachers. But the League scheme now before the country notoriously fails to conform to these conditions and not a solitary voice was lifted in its favor. The points of objection that were emphasised in the Dunedin discussion were that the League’s proposals meant the introduction of ■sectarianism into the schools, that they were an invasion of the rights of conscience of the teachers, and that they involved notable injustice to Catholics and other dissident taxpayers. * That the teachers object to the violation of their rights of conscience, as proposed by the League, was made unmistakably evident. ‘Mr. Tyndall,’ says the Otago Daily Times report, contended that the point was not secularism or denominationalism, but the right of private conscience, and that, he said, was the mistake in the platform of the Bible-in-Schools League.’ On this aspect of the question, Mr. P. J. Duggan, the deservedly respected Catholic headmaster of Windsor State ■ School, who moved the motion which was ultimately adopted by the Institute, made a manly, straightforward, and altogether admirable speech. ‘He respected,’ he said, ‘ the conscience of every ..person, and believed the Bible was worthy of the highest veneration, but what was the position of a teacher if this question was brought to issue ? He might have to walk out of his school rather than teach something he disagreed from on conscientious grounds. He had thought that sort of thing ended in 1828. Yet, now in this democratic country they wanted to introduce the very question that caused fighting for 200 years. He believed that they all regarded the Bible as the finest source of morality, from which even an atheist would derive benefit. But the League’s means of attaining the end . of having the Bible in the schools put a hardship upon the teachers. Again, they had been told that the Catholics were satisfied with the Bible reading, and the fact remained that there was more work going on in New South Wales in the way of building Catholic schools, than anywhere else. If they wanted to drive the Roman Catholic children out of the schools, let them conform to the Bible-in-Schools League’s programme.’ On the subject of the teachers’ rights of conscience, Mr.

W. Jeffery (Anderson’s Bay) spoke in similar strain. 1 The schools had been built out of the general taxes, and they were built for secular purposes. It seemed to him, thpn, that to apply those buildings to any other than secular purposes would be violating the consciences of all those people who objected to the religious element being brought into the schools. —(Hear, hear.) The Roman Catholics numbered one-sixth of the community. They had paid their proportion of the taxes, and if the buildings were- used for denominational purposes the other denominations were using buildings which had been paid for partly by Roman Catholics to disseminate sectarianism, which the Roman Catholics objected to.(Applause.) The Baptists and many of the Wesleyans took up the same stand. He did not think that a referendum on the question should be allowed.— (Applause.) It was a question of religious conscience. The proposal was practically one to bring in an. Act of Uniformity. The teachers would then be under a religious test, and it would be a pity if it were so. He fancied that the religion of teachers had a broader basis than the religion of many ministers who would like to bring the teachers under their thumb.— (Applause.) ’ *

The alleged success attending the operation of the League’s system in New South Wales was very effectively dealt with by Mr. W. Davidson (Mornington), an ex-president of the Institute. ‘ It had been said that a particular system had been in operation in New South Wales for 30 year's. Well, what were the results there ? If they looked at the percentage of children who attended Sunday school there as compared with New Zealand, if they took the number of people attending church as compared with New Zealand, or if they took the statistics of crimes against the person, or against property, or the question of wife desertion, intemperance, and so on, and compared the results of 30 years’ operation of the New South Wales system with New Zealand they would find that New Zealand stood quite above New South Wales in every respect. •—(Hear, hear.) He did not say that the result was due to the New South Wales system of Bible-teaching, but he did say that where the State stepped in and took care of the spiritual welfare of the community, or pretended to do so, those bodies whose duty it ought to be —the churches, the Sunday school, and the home—to attend to that matter did not work with the same intensity as was found in the countries where the State did not pretend to take in hand the spiritual welfare of the community. — (Applause.) ’ This is merely a repetition and an endorsement of the view expressed in our leading columns a fortnight ago, when we remarked that the people, under the impression that their children are getting religious instruction, are lulled to sleep on the subject, and the system becomes what Archbishop Kelly plainly declared it to be— a •delusion and a snare. More than one speaker drew attention to the misleading methods adopted by the League to secure signatures to the petition asking for ,a referendum; and this aspect of the question was summed up by Mr. Davidson in the following sentence : * He believed if the supporters of the Bible-in-schools platform had made quite clear from the outset what they really wanted—that was, free entry into the schools of the clergy or of the representatives of each denomination— of people who had signed the cards asking for a referendum would never have signed them.’ — (Hear, hear.) * Altogether, the utterances and attitude of the Otago teachersrepresenting, as they do, the attitude of the profession generally —are extremely weighty and significant. Here are the people on whom will devolve the duty of giving effect to the proposed scheme if it should ever be adopted in this country; and to a man and to a woman they are opposed to the proposals. Apart from tho injustice of the system, how could it possibly be expected, under these circumstances, that the scheme could be carried out with any measure of success? The moral of the position, as it has now been made clear by the teachers, is admirably summed up

by Mr. Davidson: When it was found that the New Zealand Educational Institute, at its annual meeting, while approving of Bible-reading and religious teaching in the schools, entirely disagreed with the platform of the League by a majority of six to one, it was time the public took notice of the position, and looked into the reasons for this disapproval.’