The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-12-11
Thai onendinr Circular.

Mr.. EDITOR: As one OF chose who, y
through the medium OF letter which
you kindly published for me some few
weeks since, urged its introduction
that is, the introduction OF Il regulation
whereby the accredited representatives
Of all denominations should have facili-
ties afforded them whereby they would
be free 20 impart religious instruction
periodically TO those people in the state
schools whose parents or guardians
might desire it-may 1 be allowed spacs
for some brief comments on your edi-
torial criticisms OF the recent circular OF
the Board OF Education, which do not
commend themselves to my Judgment
as being so clear and specific in their
application as the circumstances de-
mand
That the circular is inconsistent is
readily conceded. That fact is so obyi-
GUS as scarcely to need demonstration.
But the particular point where it is so is
not indicated. Your condemnation is a
wholesale one. You have failed to
recognize that the regulations which the
circular conveys are two in number and
essentially different in their nature
that the one is direct infringement of
the principle of religious liberty and that
the other is not
To make it incumbent upon public
school teachers to open proceedings with
the repetition of the Lords Prayer is an
arbitrary introduction of sectarian teach
ing into the state curriculum, whilst the
intention of the law is that it shall be
unsectarian. The Ihansgression of prin-
ciple in this case may be one OF small
degree, yet, rs you say, it is the thin
end OF the wedge
But where is the objection in the other
case? To give man permission to do
q thing is no infringement OF his liberty,
neither does the particular thing in ques-
ton affect the liberties OF chose who do
not choose to avail themselves OF it. 1t
entails no expense upon the Taxpayers:
hat item is borne by those who may uti-
lie the privilege. 1t does not curtail the
hours of study devoted to secular in
struction. II entails no extra duties, ex-
cept those OF common courtesy, upon the
teachers employed by the Government
1t neither affects nor tends to affect any
one but the individuals concerned. The
objections to religious teaching in public
schools have their foundation in the ele-
ment of unfairness which it embodies
the application OF common funds TO
class purposes. But under this provision
that element is not present. All are
placed upon one level. No privilege is
accorded to one class which is not equally
accessible to all. Which ever way it is
viewed there is absolutely no violation OF
the sacred principle of religious liberty.
You have said it is concession where
none was needed. We, at least, have
evidence that two important sections of
the community were dissatisfied at the
absence of religious teaching, for pre-
sumably the Roman Catholic Bishop and
the Protestant Layman are represen-
tative writers, and your present cores
pendent, who is allied 10 neither in his
views upon this subject, ventured hum
bly, to suggest the panacea, which the
Board in its wisdom has since adopted,
as way out of the difficulty II anyone
has been wronged thereby, who is it and
in what way has the wong been done?
G.