THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. VIEWS OF LEGISLATORS.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 17, 20 July 1905, Page 2

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. VIEWS OF LEGISLATORS.

A PLEBISCITE' PROPOSED. The House was occupied during the ■whole of the silling yesterday evening in discussing the question of ]Jible-reaaing iv ichoolK, on the -Bill brought in by Mr. Sidey pioviding for the taking of a plebiscite on the question.' In moving tlie second reading, Mr. Sidey sud that e\eiy iiiemb.us Iwd probably aheiidy made up liis^ mind liow he ivtis going to vote. fie then proceeded to give borne historical details of the movement to secure" Bible-leaching in schools. When the Education Act •of 1877 had been introduced it had contained a clause providing for the reciting of the Lord's Prayer. Tlio clause had bjen. struck out, and this was the bjith of the agitation that had lasted to thus day. The Bible-in-Sckools Paity had given up its agitation for the direct introduction of the Bible into the schools, and the only demand' now was that a plebihcite should be taken. He quoted irom a speech in the House by the Premier in 1903 in -which the question was declared to be one which should be referred to the people. The question as staged in the Bill was, that arrived at by the Biblerjh-Schools parly. Those who were asking, for this legislation knew' very well what" "lesson" meant, and they were not asking for theological teaching. The question was one which should be removed from the arena of party politics, and it was for this reason that the question should be placed before tiro electors. Mr. Fowlds, while approving of the reading of the Bible and religious instruction of the young, was strongly opposed to that duty being undei taken by the Stats. Whatever was the fate of tha Bill, he hoped the people would not permit any change in our present system of education. When the question of conscience was involved, no majority had any right to 'dictate to a minority, .however small. One could not give Bible lessons without the teachers giving •religious instruction coloured by their own religious v^iews. He could not sea how the wishes of the Bible-in-Schools Party could ba given effect to without completely destroying our national .system of education, and for that reason he was opposed to the question being submitted to a referendum The whole question of religion was outside the domain of civil government. If the people made* a false step on the question, it would be a long time before they would .regain the liberty for which their ancestors had fought. He hoped that failure *would attend this attempt to put a chain round the necks of the people pf the colony. The carrying of the present proposal would create sectarian bitterness, and this element would be visible in the elections of School Cpmmittec*. It would lead also to the application of a. religious- test for State olfice, one result of which would be tho exclusion of excellent and able teachers. The' Staleand religion should be kepc entirely separate and apart. He hoped the day was far distant when {fay such proposal as this would succeed, and our grand system of education be brought toniaught. (Applause. ) Mr. Aitken pointed out that in New South Wales there already existed what was sought for in this colony, and ho had the highest authority tor saying that the teaching of the Bible in the schools there was attended by notible smoothnsss and a lack of friction. He contended that tho question was one that should bs settled by the psople themselves. It was much moio a question for the people tlian tho question of Legislative Council reform. There wns no intei i^on to destroy ths present &ystcm of education, and the placing of an extra subject on tho syllabus would rather enhance and improve that system. He hoped the House would agree to tho second reading Mr. Millar, in opposing the Bill, dechred that there were differences of opinion even amongst the churches on the question, and therefore Parliament should not interfere. Religious teaching in schools without homo infhtence was not worth a rap. • The "conscience clause" would lead to sectarian bitternesi Ho hoped tho women would not let their sentimental feelings cany them away oil this question. He expressed the opinion that the teaching of the Bible in schools, as part of the syllabus, would probably lead to the very result that the Bible-in-Schoo!s party wished to avoid, inasmuch as the Bible would bo sunk to the level of the other books, and thrown aside after school life like an ordinary school book. Mr. Fisher expressed himself as opposed not only to tho introduction of the Bible into schools, but to the taking of a refeiendum on the subject. Ho proceeded to deal with tho Victorian Text-book, which contained lesions to ba taught to chi'dren under twelve years of age which he would not allow to bo taught to liia chidrcn under any circumstances whatever. If we weie to have to vote on the question, let the ad\ocates of tho Bible-teaching in schools let tho people know what that teaching was proposed to be. The Victorian text books were as . scarce as moa-bones in tho countiy. Moreover, ho van averse from the taking of rsferendums on special subjects. A point that should not be overlooked concerned the Catholic schools. As Catholics had the ce'.f-sricrificc and energy to build their own schools, then, if the Biblo were to be taught in the State schools, the Slate phould meet, tho juefc claims of the Catholic community. Were the Bible-in-scho6ls advocates prepared to support all the Catholic schools in the colony? He would oppose tho Bill on every, ground. Mr. A. L. D. Frascr also opposed the Bill, taking especial exception to tho proposal to hold tho plebiscite on gen-eral-election day. Thnt day should be kept clear- of the confusion of issues. Mr. Ltuircnson. said the question was : Are we prepared to lru'>t the people or not with a vote on a certain proposition? He, peraonaT-ly, was prepared to trust the people on any question. Mr. Buddo objected to the form of the question, and said that when, the Bill was in Committee he would endeavour to have the referendum confined to the simple issuo as to whether there shduld bo Bible-teaching in s>choo!a or not. Mr. Hcko snid that if members objected to the principles of Bible-reading in schools they should not allow the Bill to go any further. Minister for Public Works said he dfd not appiovo of the form of tho question as it was proposed to be put. Mr. Duthie considered that the people should know what they were voting upon. He had always opposed the referendum (system, but as tins question was one that possibly involved a question of conscience, Parliament should not deal with it. Nevertheless it would be for Parliament to deal with the question eventually if f he Bill wore agreed to. The Colonial Secretary said he had nothing but respect for those people who regarded the Bible as the basis of their fuith, and who believed in tho agitation for Bible-reading in tho State Hchooie. ]f they were a majority they had a right to have their will ghen effect to, but the miuoiity must not bo overlooked in Mich an important ni'ittor. He thought it wou'tl not be a bud thing if ,cumpu'.hory attendance at Sunday school waa provided for the vaiious denominations. Tho pioposal as now fcubmitled, however, would lead to the introduction of denominationnlum into the whool« t and

he would prefer to see a straight-out vote taken on the question of whether the present system should be continued or not. Fov that reason he should not vote against the second reading, so that the question cou'-d be put to the tefct in Committee. A referendum as proposed was tantamount to an act of cowardice. His belief vas that a straight-out proposal ought to be made that the Bible be road iv the State schools. The Minister for Justice stood by the piesent system of education. Tho public, he uiged, was not acquainted with the Bible-lessons thut were proppssd to bo given, and therefore would not be competent to vote a& the suggested referendum. The only issue should be, "Aic you in favour of the present system or do you want another?" Teachers ought not- to be asked to teach what some of them tcarcely believed in themselves. A majority ought not to have the power of influencing the consciences of a minoruy. Several other numbers spoke, and at 1.5 a.m. the second leading of the Bill was carried by 39 to 22. The division-list was as follows: — For the Bill— Messrs. Aitken, Alison, E. G. Allen, Arnold, Baunie, Bedford, Buddo, Davey, Duncan, Ell, Field, Flatman, W. Fraser, Graham^ Hall-Jones, Hanan, Hardy, Hawkins,' Herdman, Herries, Houston, Jepnings, Kirkbride, Lang, Laurenson, Lewis, Mander, Massey, M'Nab, Moss, Reid, Rhodes, Sidey, Tanner, J.- C. Thomson, J. W. Thomson, Vile, Ward, Willis. Against the Bill — Messrs. Barber, Bennet, Carroll, Fjsher, Fowlds, A. L. D. Frase,r, Hall, Harding, Heke, Hogg, Kidd, Lawry, Lethbridge, Major, M'Gowan, T. Mackenzie, M'Lachlan, Millar, Parata, Remington, Wilford, Witty. Pairs. — For tho Bill: Steward, Dutliie, Buchanan, and Wood. Against the Bill: Symes, Rutherford, Pere, and Colvin.