BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 139, 18 July 1914, Page 10

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

THE TEACHERS' VIEW.

AN UNEQUIVOCAL OBJECTION.

A long discussion on the Bible-in-Schools question took place at this morning's meeting of the Canterbury District Institute of the New Zealand Educational Institute, when Mr Maxwell moved: —"That while we are heartily in accord with any just and righteous means of giving religious instruction to children, we strongly oppose the form of religious instruction proposed under Religious Instruction Referendum Bill.

" (1) Because the State would be satisfying the consciences of some denominations and would refuse to satisfy the consciences of others.

" (2) Because State supported institu: tions would be used and State control given to the propagation of Teligious doctrines and dogmas which are opposed to the beliefs of many taxpayers. "(3) Because though it is admitted that the Scripture teaching would be! such as entitles parents to a_ conscience clause, no conscience clause is provided for teachers.

' 1 (4) Because political action can only be tajcen on compromise and expediency which, are the direct -antithesis of religious action. This religious matter is, we consider, degraded when dealt with politically. '' (5) Because we object to any unjust method of promoting Bible teaching, since the whole of Bible teaching is against injustice. "(6) Because we believe that the liberties of all are safer in the hands of a judicial, like Parliament than in of sectarian struggles that ( would' result in taking a referendum fcw-sectarian lines. ' -

"For the above and.other reasons we are strongly opposed proposed scheme as unjust and unrighteous, and beg that Parliament will refuse to lend itself to the'introd'uctionW>f sectarian distinctions in the expenditure of State moneys." The mover said this matter was of vital importance to the whole of the teaching profession. . It had been stated that one reason why the teachers were opposed to the Bible and Clergy in Schools Bill was that they were afraid they would have a little extra work put upon them. He would say there was not one teacher in that room who had ever looked at the matter from that point of view. (Hear, hear.) They looked at the matter from the jpoint of view of what was right and just and best, not only for education, but for religion. He had not the slightest doubt that this matter would become the question of determining whether men would get certain positicms or not. The Bible-in-SchoolS people said teachers were not to teach religion—they were to give reading lessons. That showed their absolute' ignorance of teaching. The very look on a teacher's face influenced the pupils for. good or evil, and if the teacher was not in accord with the religious matter he was dealing with it would do infinitely more harm than good. The teachers, he maintained, were the true friends of religion. They were fighting because they did not wish to see the Bible degraded, not to the level of an ordinary - school subject, but below that. The Referendum Bill was proposed on a matter of religious belief. They could not imagine a more unjust thing than that. Because some people wanted a certain kind of religious instruction, others who did not want it should not be made to accept it. In the words of one speaker on the subject, it was the greatest piece of devilry that was ever conceived by a clerical mind. Even among the four denominations who were said to be asking for it there were people who objected. If the Bible-in-Sehools Party had their way they would introduce sectarianism into the schools. It would be the thin edge of the wedge to break up the present free, secular, and compulsory system. Why were they being asked to adopt a system of . education that they were fighting to get rid of in other countries? In England there was a Secular Education League, which included in its ranks many clergymen and statesmen. '' And while they are fighting to get rid of it,'' he concluded, '' the Bible-in-Sehools party are trying to foist it on us here. , No, sir, we will not have it.'' (Applause.) Miss Chaplin seconded the motion. The scheme now before Parliament was not just or righteous. A .conscience clause was provided for parents. Did the teachers have no consciences? The teaching of religion was the province of the Church and the parents, and should remain there. What would they think of parents who were willing to give up their responsibilities in this matter to the servants of the State? She seconded the motion, feeling in common with many other teachers that the just and right method was to keep the educational system as it was at present, so that the highest principles of truth and right might be taught without any interference from controversial questions. (Applause.) Mr J. Caughley, by quotations from Scripture, supported his contentions that Bible-reading could not be given, and the children be made to understand what they were reading, without religion being taught. It was farcical to tell the teachers they must teach the reading of the words without teaching the thoughts they conveyed. It was difficult to find in New Zealand any teachers who -were in favour of the Bible-in-Sehools Leagues' proposals.' He knew of about a dozen, and that was about all. There were not many of what they called atheist teachers in New Zealand. (Hear, hear.) '' It is my opinion,'' he said, 1 ' that the teacher with the truest and deepest religious convictions is the one who will find this religious teaching most , difficult. (Applause.) I would point blank refuse to teach this." After further' discussion the motion Avas carried unanimously. WELLINGTON HEAD MASTERS' BEQUEST. Press Association. WELLINGTON, July 18. The animal meeting of the Wellington Head Masters' Association unanijmouslv resolved: ''That this meeting j respectfully requests the Hon. Mr j Allen to secure in the Religious Instruction State Schools Referendum Bill a ■ conscience clause for teachers; also to secure such an interpretation of the extent and limitations of clerical right Of entry sought in the Bill as would conserve to head teachers their present responsibility for the maintenance discipline of the schools, and their present authority over their staffs.