Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 19 June 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

The Minister for Education and the Referendum It is not likely that the present Government will give their official support to the demand for a referendum on the Bible-in-schools proposals; but if they do, some of their members, at least, will have some difficultyin reconciling their action with previous utterances on the subject. On the introduction of the first Referendum Bill in 1894, Mr. James Allen, who is now Minister of Education, opposed the measure, not only because he considered that particular Bill badly drafted, but also on a broad ground of principle. In his speech on the second reading of the Bill, after pointing out that the ordinary man needed educating on public questions, he went on to say:—‘He had either to read or be educated in some way *or other with regard to them, and I say, therefore, that under existing circumstances it is fair to assume that a large proportion of the multitude will be irresponsible, and the tyranny and despotism of that irresponsible crowd will be found to be worse than the tyranny and despotism which might and possibly does exist here sometimes.’ ( Hansard, , Vol. LXXXY., p. 281.) If the ‘ tyranny and despotism ’ of an ‘ irresponsible multitude ’ were to be dreaded on purely political questions, on which electors had some reasonable chance of being fairly informed and in respect to which no specific, questions of conscience were involved, how much more indefensible is it to allow a purely religious question, in which the most sacred rights of conscience are affected, to be submitted to such an arbitrament. Dean Fitchett’s Lecture The much advertised ‘ Reply to Bishop Cleary ’ by the Very Rev. Dean Fitchett was duly delivered on Friday last to a crowded audience, a very large proportion of whom were Catholics. A disagreeable and discreditable feature of the performance was the somewhat virulent No-Popery tone adopted by the lecturer. It is one of the most striking signs of the weakness of the League’s cause that a clergyman of Dean Fitchett’s ability and culture found himself unable to discuss the question at issue without dragging in allusions to Ne Temere and the Spanish Inquisition. The following general review of the lecture appeared in the Otaqo Dail.;/ Timas of Monday:— ‘Sir,Will you allow me, as one of the auditors at the Garrison Hall on Friday evening, to express ray extreme disappointment with Dean Fitchett s lecture. Literary finish there was, of course, and platform effectiveness, and flashes of humor that one could appreciate, to the full; but not the faintest attempt was made to get down to fundamental principles, or to squarely face the issues that have been raised in this controversy. The solid body of official and authoritative evidence advanced by Bishop Cleary for every statement made by him was left untouched by Dean Fitchett. It is only by a figure of speech that Friday’s lecture can be called a “reply to Bishop Cleary.” r * 4 . ‘ Evasion was the key-note of the lecture; and it was in evidence at the very outset. Here is a sample from one of the opening sentences; “Members of the Bible in State Schools League desired to educate their children in their own way,- and they did not see what a Roman Catholic bishop had to say in the matter.” If _ one were to exercise the privilege, so effusively claimed by the lecturer, of calling a spade a spade, one must perforce describe this utterance as clap-trap f 1 ure ( S ld Slm P le \ For the point is quietly evaded that the Roman Catholic bishop” and his people are to be compelled to help to pay for .the League’s scheme. If the members of the Bible in State Schools League who desire to have their children educated in their own way are prepared to shoulder the cost of their proposal, they may be fairly entitled to an exclusive say on the subject; but when, as in the case of the League’s demands, it is asked that the scheme be paid for out of the common purse at the common expense, the

matter becomes a taxpayers’ question, and the “Roman Catholic bishops,” the Congregational and Baptist Synods, the teachers’ institutes, the W.C.T.U., even the Nelson Presbytery, have the same citizen right to voice their view as the most estimable of Anglican deans. It may interest Dean Fitchett, by tlie way, to know that the Nelson Presbytery . contains within 5 its ranks both the Clerk and the Moderator-elect of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church— fact which surely entitles the unanimous decision of that body to some small measure of respect, at least from Presbyterians. • * But it was at question time that the lecturer’s policy of evasion was most glaring; and for the most part the so-called “answering of questions” bordered on the farcical. Here are a few samples of the speaker’s treatment of serious and relevant questions. I give the unreported questions in substance only, as I heard them, but I have taken every care to be accurate. Question: If the four religious bodies composing the League are really behind the present movement why have many representatives of these denominations expressed opposition to the League’s proposals Answer. That -is what I would like to know.” Question . Will Dean Fitchett kindly state the number of visits .paid by him to the children of his faith in the public schools during the past year,?” Answer : “That is what I want to do, but the law will not allow me ’—a. statement which would have to receive a somewhat unpleasant characterisation if the “calling a spade a spade” principle- were to be adhered to. Question: “If teaching under clause 1 be Bible extracts, merely as literature, history, and morals, why have the League adopted a conscience clause for the child ? Does not the existence of this conscience clause indicate that the League felt that they were going to teach religion under this clause?” Answer: “Dean Fitchett explained that the conscience clause was there because of the Buddhists and Confucians of whom he had spoken before.” Compare this with the statement made in the body of the lecture: “If the 11 per cent he had alluded to (i.e.. Baptists, Congregationalists, etc.), did not accept the teaching given, they could go on with their work; they would be protected by a conscience clause ”and readers will see the delightful muddle in which this quibbling attempt to explain away the existence of this conscience clause has involved the lecturer. And in this connection the query naturally suggests itself: If only “morals” are to be taught, why should even Buddhists and Confucians be allowed a conscience clause? Asked whether it would not be better to consult the more than forty denominations that are at present outside the pale of the League in regard to the settlement of this question, the speaker answered; “I leave that to Bishop Cleary; he knows all about them.” Some of these answers may be considered more or less smart; the wildest enthusiast on the side of the League , will not suggest that they are convincing, or that they are in any sense straightforward answers to straightforward questions, * ' * I mention, without commenting on them, some further palpable inconsistencies and contradictions in which the lecturer involved himself. In one sentence he defended the present misleading name of the League by saying that they “had taken over the name from the corresponding organisation in Queensland, and with it its aims, its principles, and its hopes”; and in the next breath he attempted to vehemently repudiate the Queensland conscience clause ! A.t one stage we were told that the whole Bible was not suitable "for the children; a little later we were informed that “if he went to a school he supplied the whole Bible to the scholars; and the ministers would put it into the schools with their own hands.”’ Glaringly inconsistent, also, was the lecturer’s answer to a question regarding the teachers’ conscience clause granted by the Bible-in-schools denominations in 1903. Under the scheme for which, in that year,'' a referendum was desired, the teachers were to administer simple Bible lessons, and they were expressly restricted to “explanations ’of a literary, historical, and ethical character.” (See Otago

Daily Times , May 2, 1903.) :■ On Friday night Dean Fitchett said the teachers were granted a conscience clause in 1903 because they were “asked to teach religion.” In other words, he contends that “literary, historical, and ethical explanations” of simple Bible lessons were “religion” in 1903; and he contends just as strenuously that they are not religion in 1913. A versatile genius, truly I - * ‘ Dean Fitchett’s whole attitude towards the teachers can only he described as little 'less than truculent. “When the teachers . . . realised that it never belonged to the teachers to say what should be taught, in the schools, they would take another view of the position.” “If the teachers would not accept that (the speaker’s) challenge, let them hold their peace” —this challenge being, by the way, an entirely useless exhibition of generosity on the part of the League, for the simple reason that even if the two teachers came back with the most gloAA'ing report of the working of the system in Australia the report would have little applicability to New Zealand. Here teachers are appointed, not by a central authority, but by local school committees; and that, for the teachers, makes all the difference. Finally, asked what would be the consequence if a teacher persistently refused, on conscientious grounds, to give the Bible lessons, the answer was: “I think the consequences, would be serious.” No doubt teachers will have made a note of these conciliatory utterances, as furnishing interesting illustrations of the way in which the League “trusts, the .teachers.” * ' Dean Fitchett dwells with, pathetic iteration—•clinging to it as bis one plank out of ship-wweekon the obviously ridiculous pretence that Scripture lessons, given to the children as portion of the inspired Word of God, are not religions teaching. I will not, for the present, burden your columns with quotations from the League leaflet, compiled last year by the Rev.- Alex. Don before the new theory was in vogue, which utterly and finally disproves Dean Fitchett’s contention. Some of these quotations I have already given your readers; and not a solitary League representative has attempted to face the deadly evidence which this leaflet supplies as to the definitely religious character of the lessons as they are being given. In the very preface of tire New South Wales text-book it is expressly set forth that the books have been compiled on a method “calculated to fix much of moral and religious instruction on the heart.” To say that a teacher who imparts, “as intelligently as any other lesson,” the lessons in the Queensland manual on “Tlie True Vino” (p, 115), “The Last Supper ” (p. 116), “Gethsemane” (p. 118), “The Crucifixion (p. 123), “The Resurrection” (p. 126), etc., is only teaching “morals,” is to trifle with the intelligence of thinking people. * I To sum up: The cardinal objections to the League’s scheme it is unfair to conscientiously objecting teachers, that it places teachers in a .position to be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, that it is unjust to dissident taxpayers, that it hands over to the State a function which belongs rightly to parents and the Church, and that it involves the settlement of questions of religion and conscience by the unjust and"tyrannical method of a. mere count of heads —remain unrefuted. If Dean Fitchett has failed, as he manifestly has done, to successfully reply to them, it may fairly be inferred that it is because they are intrinsically unanswerable.—l am, etc., ‘ J. A. Scott. * June 14.’ Press Comment on the Lecture In a leading article in its Saturday’s issue the Evening Sim commented in part as follows on the ‘ reply to Bishop Cleary ’: 1 When the Very Rev. Dean Fitchett undertook on behalf of the Bible in State Schools League “to expose and refute the fallacies of their opponents” (see advertisement), he accepted a task

beyond his ; mental and physical powers. It ; was a brave and plucky thing to do: it was* magnificent, but it was not war.: The Dean could not be heard, save occasionally, more'than halfway down the crowded hall; he was too obviously tired. after an address lasting an hour and a-quarter; and he certainly did not convince -one-half of his audience with the wisdom of his policy*,: We are where we were. .Teachers.in the public schools and journalists who approach this subject re« from sectarian bias have no need to review their position or to recast their conclusions as a result of anything that the-Dean said last night, whether sarcastically, wittily, or eulogistically.'