THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 33, 8 February 1910, Page 5

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

AKD THE QUESTION" OF STATE SUPPORT. SOME INTERESTING INTERVIEWS. The controversy in New South Wales, and the attack made by Cardinal Moran on the Minister for Education (Mr. Hogue) on the question of Scripture lessons in schools, and also in regard to State assistance to Catholic schools, is one which arouses very keen interest in all quarters, and some interesting interviews on the subject were obtained by a "iJtar" representative thie morning. A ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW. A leading Roman Catholic authority, when interviewed on -the subject, put the case plainly nnd lucidly from bis point of view. "The school system of New South Wales, as in New Zealand, is maintained by a tax upon the people," he said. "Therefore, as the Catholics contribute their full quota of taxation to the Treasury, they have a right to say •what manner of education shall be given to their children. No Catholic can coascientiouslv accept a purely secular system of instruction, for the reason that the years which their children spend in school practically constitutes the period in which the character is formed. No amount of secular knowledge, puch as rending, writing, and arithmetic, and other purely secular sciences (whilst perfectly right in their own sphere), will form the character, or help us keep the commands of God. Nor are they an incentive to repress evil inclinations. We lay more emphasis on formation of character than upon purely secular knowledge. Therefore, the Catholic cannot conscientiously accept a purely secular system of instruction, or attend public schools in which Scripture lessons are read (thus turning them into something in the nature of Protestant Sunday-schools). To do so would be antagonistic to Catholic principles. As such, no Catholic parent can send his child to such schools. In justice, therefore, ne the Catholics provide their own schools, they demand some allowance from the Government to defray the expenses of their schools. They do not, in making this demand, nsk for compensation for religious instruction imparted, but merely for the secular instruction which is given by them under Government supervision and inspection. In New Zealand we have 12.000 children in. Catholic (schools. Taking the cost per head on a basi3 of £5, the Government is saved an expenditure of something like £0t).000 per year as a result of the Catholics running their own schools. In the Government State schools there are 141,071 children, and their instruction costs the country £740,000 per annum. When you think of it, New Zcalr,nd'"s increased naval subsidy of ffiO.OOO only represents what the Government saves as a result of the Catholics maintaining their own schools." Referring to the denial by Cardinal Moran that the lesson 'books provided for instruction wero the joint production of the Anglican nnd Catholic prelates, ArcWbUhop Whateley and Bishop Murmy, the gentleman in question points out t-h-at Cardinal Moran's knowledge of Bishop Murray in Ireland would enable him to speak authoritatively on what was thr tml truth of the matter, and ■whether the lesson books in question ever had the imprimatur of Bishop Murray.

ANGLICAN BISHOP'S OPINION. His Lordship, Bishop Neligan, when interviewed, declined to give any expression of opinion on thp question of Cnrdinal Moran's attack on the Minister for Education in New South Wales, or upon Mr. Hogue.'s remarkable reply. Dealing with the question of religious instruction, however, his Lordship said the position in New Zealand, as far as the Church of England was concerned, was now quite clear and definite, in consequence of the resolutions passed by the General Synod in Wellington last week. "The Synod was united in its three orders —bishops, clergy and laity—in urging the adoption of the New South Wales system of biblical instruction in this country," said Dr. Neligan. "It has had 30 years' trial in several of the Australian States, and from teachers, parents, and the Education Department alike there is practically universal approval. As a system of religious instruction in schools, I regard the Now South Wales system as quite the fairest and most satisfactory that can be devised. In my judgment the New South Wales S3'stem provides a reasonable basis for definite Christian teaching without interference with anyone's religious susceptibilities, and at the same time it offers opportunity for denominational teaching, which can be availed of whenever desired.

It 13 sometimes said," continued Dr. Neligan, "that the State school teachers in New Zealand are wholly opposed to religious education. In 1904 I proved the falsity of that statement. I ascertained the feeling of teacher? in the following way: Wherever I went in the Auckland dioccee I spoke to the he.idtpochors, and in the small country districts to the only teachers, uid told

them I would prefer not to know whether they were church people or Nonconformists. I told them that I wanted to know whether, if I obtained leave •from the local committee, and supplied them with a syllabus, they would give religious ins-truction every day before school "began? I cannot recollect a eingle teacher to whom I spoke who was not cordial, helpful, and sympathetic, and willing to co-operate in the scheme. Some Roman Catholic teachers were unable to give instruction themselves, but undertook to ask one or more of their assistants to give it. The attitude of the local committees was also almost as generally encouraging and sympathetic. Even the late Mr. R. J. Seddon spoke approvingly of the scheme in the House of Representatives. Well, what has been the result? In one word, it has been failure. And why? Because of the ■hour at which instruction had to be given. That was the verdict of almost every teacher who tried the plan. I made inquiries in 1907, and the result of my inquiry goes to prove that the cause of failure was as I have stated. So that it is evident that religious instruction must 'be made part of the regular school curriculum. I believe, however, that a very great step -forward has 'been made by the General Synod unanimously recommending the adoption of the New South Wales syetem, and we must now urge strongly the advisability of the people of New Zealand familiarising themselves Tvith that system. FROM -A PRESBYTERIAN STANDPOINT. The Rpv. W. Gray Dixon was the third clerical gentleman approached, and when asked his opinion replied:—"Every country has its prevailing religion. We have our prevailing religion, and it is Christianity. If the State undertakes to educate the children of the country, surely it is not a thorough education when the basis of our national civilisation —the Bible—is omitted. It is, in my opinion, possible for the Roman Catholic teacher to give a Bible lesson that would be quite acceptable to Protestant children, and it should be vice versa in teaching Roman Catholic children. We do not want denominational teaching in our schools, but we do want our children inculcated with a knowledge of the fundamental principles of Christianity. This is exactly what is being done in New South Wales. What Cardinal Moran now denies has been for years accepted on all sides as a fact —that the lesson books used have the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic bishop, the Anglican archbishop and the Presbyterian Moderator, and were introduced from Ireland into the New South Wales State schools. The system of religious instruction in the schools of State has always been looked upon as one of the most satisfactory that could be devispd, and it might well be introduced into New Zealand. If I went to a Mahommedan country, and found that the one book excluded from the national schools was the Koran, what w-ouM be my surprise? Likewise, if in a Bhuddist country I found Bhudda's 'Paths of Virtue' excluded, or in China the ethics of Confuciiis debarred, I would be greatly perplexed to understand the meaning of il. Yet here in New Zealand we have a country with its civilisation based on Christianity, and the Bible excluded from its schools."

Speaking on the subject of subsidising Roman Catholic Schools, the rev. gentleman said ho was not altogether sure it was expedient that Roman Catholic schools should be subsidise , ! according to efficiency of secular instruction thfy are giving. He had not, however, any such insuperable objection to any such subsidising of Catholic schools as would load him to keep the Bible out of public schools for fear of such ,i contingency. At the same time he could not sea that the admittance of the Bible into State schools would give the Catholics a claim to a ■subsidy, nny more than it would give the Presbyterian schools a liko claim. "Denominational teaching >s something different to broad Christian teaching," said the Rev. Gray Dixon, "and the broad Christian teaching which we desire to see brought into the State schools would be unobjectionable even to the Roman Catholics, were they not so rigid in insisting on their dogmatic teaching iis the only Christian teaching that U warrantable."