Religion in Board Schools.

S U P P L E M E N T TO “ W A T T S 'S L I T E R A R Y G U ID E , " A P R I L , 1894.

I n the spring of 1894 London was scandalised by the heat and bitterness with which the School Board discussed the subject of religious instruction. Week after week educational progress was stayed. Reports were shelved. The necessities of the schools were ignored. Deputations were treated with discourtesy. A memorial presented by representative Nonconformists was not even honoured by reference to Committee. A ladies' deputation was kept waiting and standing for hours. Members o f the Board tossed abusive language across the council room— “ lie,” “ infamous,” “ atrocious,” etc. None stood up as avowed Freethinkers. All represented some shade or other of Christianity. As Christians they succeeded in making their own creed a laughing-stock. One member blasphemed his own religion by offering, in jest, to sell the doctrine of the Trinity for ninepence ! Miss Florence Balgarnie appeared as leader o f a deputation, and, being heckled with questions, she retorted, “ What is Christianity ?” whereat there was a burst o f laughter through the Board-room. I f God does indeed watch the world’s movements, what would he think o f such merriment?

These pious debates had two results— a new reading of the compromise o f 1871, and the issue of a theological circular to the teachers. Let us first glance at the question of

THE COMPROMISE.

Has its working been satisfactory? For four reasons, No. (1) It has created bad blood and discontent among Christians. Witness the acrimony of the School Board debates on Bible teaching. (2) It has had to be patched. It used to read : “ The Bible shall be read, and there shall be given such explanations and such instruction therefrom in the principles of morality and religion as are suited to the capacities of the children.” Now it has been amended : 11 'fh e Bible shall be read, and there shall be given such explanations and such instruction therefrom in the principles o f the Christian religion and of morality as are suited to the capacities o f the children.” Why this change ? Because it was suspected that un-Christian doctrine had been taught, and Christian articles of faith neglected. (3) A proportion o f the teachers under the London School Board are heretics —-i.e., do not believe in the truth of the Apostles’ Creed. Some are Freethinkers, though, for obvious reasons, it is impossible to state the number; some are Unitarians. Up to the period of the debates of 1894 only two, it is believed, were officially recognised as non-Christians, and excused from the task of Bible teaching. What did the others do? They taught what they could not believe. Perhaps some one will say : “ That is their own private concern. After all, the welfare of the children must first be considered. The compromise was not made for the teachers.” But is it well for the children that they should be taught by men and women who have to hide their convictions up their sleeves ? Can we gather grapes of thorns ? Can we expect sincerity to flourish among the children when a vicious system represses it in the teachers ? (4) Freethinking parents have allowed their children to receive Christian instruction. Such parents give the lie to their own opinions. Their children are made to feel there is a falsehood somewhere, since the teaching they listen to at school is opposed to what the parents say at home. But there is a Conscience Clause ? Yes, a Conscience Clause which marks a child like the medieval Jew was marked with a yellow cap. The little heretic must sit apart. While his class-mates gather in their proper places he has to be stowed away for separate instruction. Is it likely a Freethinking parent will advertise his beliefs by thrusting his child into a corner for outcasts ?

But let these objections pass. I f all London joined in a chorus of praise to the old or new compromise, the fact would still remain that Christian teaching is a mistake, and

UNSUITEI) TO CHILDREN’S CAPACITIES. This is affirmed on three grounds. (1) Christianity rests on doctrines of Supernatural Beings— God, Angels, Devils. None of these are capable of reduction to clear ideas. What is God ? Can man by searching find out God ? Can a child’s tiny lantern discover the secret ? Why not wait till the Jew, the Christian, the Moslem, the Hindoo, and the Buddhist can agree as to what are God’s attributes, and then go and tell the urchins of London? God is Our F'ather, says Christianity. Board-school children repeat a prayer daily to “ Our Father who art in heaven.” It is, however, well for the majority of London boys and girls that they have an additional father in the flesh-and-blood parent who feeds and clothes them. Some children have only a Heavenly Father, and they drift into the Workhouse, the Reformatory, or Dr. Barnardo’s Homes! There exists an excellent organisation called the London Schools Dinner Fund, which provides meals for the little ones who are neglected by both the earthly and the celestial father. Even then all the starving children are not fed. Hungry lads and lasses, as the clock strikes twelve, are made to assume a devout posture, and sing :—

“ lie present at our table, Lord ;

lie here and everywhere adored ; These creatures bless, and grant that we May feast in Paradise with thee.”

They are dismissed, and go home to gaze at empty plates, and meditate on the teacher’s glowing description of God's paternal love. These things are so eminently suited to the capacities of the children 1 How easy of comprehension is the proposition that the Absolute and Infinite, in whom we live and move and have our being, took the solid form of a Jewish Carpenter. He planed wood at so much per foot, and we are “ bound to trust and serve him as our God.” The Carpenter died, and the Board-school children sing the reason:—

“ He died that wc might be forgiven :

He died to make us good. That we might go at last to heaven,

Saved by his precious blood.”

In other words, a London boy’s rudeness, untruthfulness, cruelty, or dishonesty will be forgiven him through the blood of a Jewish person long since deceased, yet stated to I be still living— this person being a man whom the young I Londuncr has never seen, never shaken hands with, never