The Hawaiian gazette., 1888-11-27

umn in the Bulletin to criticism Of ml
second letter, it seems proper that
should make some reply. If the ADyER
TIsER will indulge me once more, 1 vii
endeayor to be as brief as can.
l fear it will be impossible for the
Bishop and myself to find any common
standing ground on which to discuss this
question to advantage. / have stated
my position frankly, and in as clear Ian
guage as could command. l have sci
forth at considerable length the princi-
pies on which that position was based,
and my reasons for the views | hold.
The Bishop, however, appears to be en-
tirely oblivious OF these things. / will
not charge him with purposely ignoring
arguments he cannot successfully refute,
nor do like to say that he is incapaci-
tated by mental constitution and train
ing from approaching the position Of
those who may chance to differ from
him. Certain it is, however, that from
some cause or other, his mental vision
seems to be closed, not only against the
force, but against even the existence OF
any line Of argument which does not
virtually concede the essence OF the mat
tiers in dispute.
The cornerstone OF the Bishops posi-
ton, the fundamental assumption which
can alone justify a claim to any conces-
sions beyond those equal rights which
the Catholic church, in common with all
churches in this country, now enjoys, is
one which nc Protestant can endorse or
accept. Whether plainly stated by the
Bishop or not, it is substantially this:
that the Catholic church has inherent
rights and should enjoy privileges diff
ferent from, and superior to those of
other Christian bodies.
Under the constitution and laws OF
this Kingdom the Catholic church now
enjoys, not federation, but absolute
equality with other religious bodies.
The Bishop and his Clergy have full lib
ertv to preach and teach, to proselyte
and convert, and to bring every man,
woman and child in these islands within
the fold OF their church, if they can do
it by argument and persuasion. They
have also full liberty to establish as
many schools rs they please, wherever
they may think best; and having estab-
hshed these, to get in as many children
as they can, IRON the Protestant as well
as the Catholic community. Having got
the children in, they have equal liberty
to teach them whatever religion they
please, and as much or rs little of it as
they please.
This is the theory; how is it in prac-
tice? Ii in the administration of our
laws, Partially has been shown, and
Catholics, us such, have been discrim-
mated against in any way, it is an injus-
tice which should, by all means, be ex-
stand the Bishop 10 make any COM
plant in this direction. For instance,
there is no pretense that the school |
houses in districts where Catholic chill !
dren abound, are any less numerous, or
commodious, or well appointed than
where the population is nearly ali Pro |
testant or that the numbers and qualifi |
cations OF the teachers employed in the |
two cases are not substantially equal. 1t |
is not claimed, so far as | am aware, |
that the question of religion is allowed |
to influence appointments, or that COM
petent teachers OF good personal char
acter have been rejected or discrimin
ated against in any instance, because
they were Catholics. In these and SIM
liar matters, the Board OF Education,
though composed of Protestants, seems
disposed to render equal and exact JUS
tice. The suggestion that the Catholics
should be represented in The Board
seems entirely reasonable, though so
long as there is no claim OF Catholics not
receiving the same educational facilities,
both in quantity and quality as other
people, or ofstheir being Disseminated
against in the making OF appointments.
cannot see that there is any great prac-
teal grievance.
The suggestion about the Protestant
wolf and the Catholic lamb, as well as
the plaintive appeals on behalf of those
who now receive exactly the same treat
ment as everyone else, and some other
of similar character, / pass by
as irrelevant rhetoric am endeavor-
ing to deal with facts, and the essential
facts of the case are as follows:
First-The Catholic church demands
that the Bible be excluded from the pub
lie schools, on the ground that its pres
ence and use makes those schools, sub
Protestant and sectarian.
Second-The Bible having been got
rid OF, the same church denounces the
schools as goddess and insists that re-
ligious instruction is necessary part OF
any good school training.
Third-The schools being public insti-
.utions, supported by general taxation
On all classes OF people, and intended for
he children OF both Catholics and Pro- {
;estants, to say nothing OF others, it is
that the peculiar tenets OF l
my one sect or denomination should be
.aught without giving just cause OF ofense
o others.
Fourth suggestion rs 10 the posi-
1ility Of formulating some general state I
nent OF religious truth which should be |
agreeable 10 the great body OF Christians '
II all denominations is promptly met by {
he declaration that no such arrange {
nent would be accepted, and that Cath 9
,lics can be satisfied with no religious in I
truction Tor their children unless it in S
ludes the distinctive doctrines, in the I
holding OF which that church differs
rom tile rest of Christendom G
Fifth--There being, apparently, no '
possibility OF finding any common ground |
# agreement in the matter OF religious !
the Protestants say: let us I
hen agree to disagree, let us have a +
purely secular school system, which shall I
i'm at nothing beyond imparting secular +
and intoxicating good man S
ers and good morals, and leave all re- s
Oious and Rspecially doctrinal teach L