BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLV, Issue 10163, 18 July 1924, Page 8

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

MR L. M. ISiTT'S BILL. , REJECTED BY ONE VOTE. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 17. In the House of Representatives today Mr L. M. Isitt moved the second reacting of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill. He said it was an absolutely non-Party measure. He domed that" it was in any sense his- Bill, and that he was ploughing a lonely furrow, for it embodied resolutions parsed by the Committee of Churches. The BUI provided for Bible reading, not Bible teaching, and a conscience clause was provided for both teachers and parents. He denied the Roman Catholic suggestion that it was introducing sectarianism, and - declared that the Bill was so framed that no one could introduce sectarianism, without violating its principles. He denied Bishop Clearys assertion that it would cost the State £IOO 000 per annum if school children repeated the Lord's Prayer, sang a hymn and listened to a passage or Scripture each morning. ' Mr Wilford said he was returned on the principle that our present system of education—free, secular, and compulsory—should be maintained. It lie voted for the Bill he would be breaking that promise. He would there-

fore vote against the JJUi. The Hon. C. J. Pair said he would support the second reading of the Bill. It was true that our educational system was originally made secular, but that was because there were then wide differences of opinion on subjects or religious teaching, dogmja, and creed. All that was changed now, and the Protestant churches were now practically agreed upon these points as far as religious instruction m schools was concerned. That was a great step in advance. He could see no harm in the simple religious exercises prescribed by the Bill. ~ , . ~ Mr Sidey said he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, reserving the right to .suggest amendments in committee. Mr Witty said he had always opposed similar measures, and would oppose this one. There was too much religion and too little Christianity in the world. And this Bill was only the thin end of the wedge to create further religious differences. . Mr Holland said it was a plank in the Labour Party's platform that the educational system should be- free, secular and compulsory, and he and his party would vote to maintain that . plank. 'The proper place to teach re- ■ ligion was in the home, in the first place, in the Sunday school, and in the church. , " , . ~ Mr Massey said he believed in the ■ principle of the Bill and would vote for it The Bill was a non-party measure ■ and probably members of Cabinet would be found voting for and against it. The Bill now before the House was in his opinion, non-sectarian. Mr D. G. Sullivan urged that if a possible charge of sectarianism was to be avoided, facilities must be given for the teaching of every form of rei ligion in the schools. He contended that there was no real evidence of any desire in the country for a departure from the present secular system ol i education, nor had there been any con- < siderable demand shown among the churches themselves for such a measure as that now before the House. Mr H. Atmore agreed that there was a need for Scripture teaching among children, and that a great deal of the present-day juvenile depravity was due to the lack of religious teaching in our homes. While he recognised the urgent need for something to be done, the Bill would not meet the case. The Hon. W. Nosworthy, in supporting the Bill, declared that it was a shocking thing to have to admit, but he believed that religious teaching was not given in much more than 10 percent of the homes. He considered it ' was' therefore, his duty to do anything he could to remedy such a condition of affairs. Mr H. T. Armstrong opposed the, Bill which he considered would be derogatory to the interests of the teachers and would belittle the Scriptures in the children's minds by reason ot the perfunctory nature of the readings The present Nelson system provided a sufficient avenue for doing what was desired under the Bill. The Hon. D. Buddo, while sympathetic with the ideals of the mover or the Bill, said he thought better results would be obtained by the adoption ol th© Nelson system. Mr W. D. Lysnar said as the .mil was purely optional, he failed to see where objection could be taken to it. The debate was continued by Messrs Bartram, Forbes, Girling, Jordan, Langstone, McCombs, Edie, O'Brien, Williams, McKay, Young Monteith, Lee, McKeen, Murdoch, and omitti. After Mr Isitt replied briefly, the division was taken, when the second reading was rejected by 32 votes to 31 The House rose at 12.47.