OUR READERS’ OPINIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 3685, 21 November 1912, Page 3

OUR READERS’ OPINIONS.

SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

(.TO THE EDITOR.) Sir,—Permit mo per medium of your valued .‘■pace to pen a few lines on the above subject. Seeing that there is one correspondent assuming the role of the :• nirmativo, 1 venture to accept the nega*ive The question is: “Should the State Teach Religion?" That there are many thousands of people who are strongly in favor of the introduction of Scripture instruction into State schools there can be no manner of doubt. But whether or not there is a majority in favor of this question is. nothing to the point. Past history teaches us that in questions of religion it is not always safe to follow majorities. When Christ preached the Gospel in the Holy Land, He was in a hopeless minority as far as numbers are concerned. So was Luther when he stood alone before the Emperor Charles and his august Diet at Worms. If the State essayed to teach religion, it must first decide which religion it would choose. Of course I should expect the majority to claim their creed as the fit and proper one to be taught. TV hat of the minority whose faith does not permit them to accept that creed? Religion is only obtainable through faith. Then, again, secular education is accepted without demur by Gentile and Jew, Atheist or Spiritualist, but what conditions would prevail over the State to compel these adherents of various faiths to submit to a ruling of a majority of the people? The various faiths would soon be in open revolt, and religion would soon be on the retrogressive. No, it is impossible for the State to touch religion in her schools. If the Scripture must be taught, let the Churches do their work and let those men and women who love their Bible impart to the children the principle for which it stands, and not what they consider their own interpretation. I consider that the State is most unfitted to dictate to a man what faith he shall accept. Religion must be voluntarily accepted if accepted at all. I did not want to come into conflict with “A Godfearing Mother," but there are some things one cannot .see eye to eye with in her letter. She makes the sweeping assertion when she concludes that the Federation of Labor is crowded with Atheists and Materialists. After all, everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, whether it bo in religions or other matters, and on looking back to history we find numbers of our prominent scientists and leading men of the day who choose to follow their own hearts and erased religion therefrom. Then again, as to the desecration of Sunday by surf bathing, etc., it has yet to be proved that Sunday, as we call it, is the day set down in Scripture for worship and rest. —T am., etc., SECULAR. CONTROLLING THE LEGISLATURE! (TO THE EDITOR.) Sir,—l am sure the public gonerally Tvill thank your correspondent, -Honest Worker,” for pulling the mask, as it were, from the face of the U.L.P. When the workers have the amazing impudence to talk about controlling the legislature, well! ’tis at such times we realise how’poor and inexpressible the English language is. I think most people (especially employers) will endorse onr virtuous friend when he says, "1 suppose no more insolont or immoral project was ever placed before any branch of the electors." Why, sir, such a doctrine as this controlling the legislature business is even more pernicious and dangerous than the Federation of Labor tactics. When will the workers realise that if they want to improve their conditions they must strive to become more efficient and better workers, rally round their employers, above all support CAPITAL (big type, please, Mr Editor), do their work quietly, turn up to Church regularly, and il they must use their vote, get their employers’ advice, or the advice of some other intelligent person? But if they heed tlieir leaders the workers will surely be dragged into the bottomless pit. Controlling the legislature, indeed! What is the working mail coming to? I am, etc., ALDERMAN CUTE.