THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 305, 21 December 1912, Page 11

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

(Specially Written for the Auckland * "Star.") J ~~~~"" < (By JOHN CAUGHLEY, President of the t Xew Zealand Educational Institute.) . i Xo. IL * In a previous article we mowed rea- • eons for strong opposition to the Biblein Schools League, on the ground of the , nature of the religious instruction proposed by the League. The objectionable ' nature of the religious instruction proposed, and the consequent impotency of the scheme, should alone cause all people truly interested in religion to oppose this travesty of religious instruction. The second objection is- one which will appeal to every citizen, irrespective of his religion. The League aeks the State qua State to perpetrate a gross injustice on a considerable section of 6ur fellow-citizens. So vital is thia issue, that Canon Garland hae publicly declared that if the BiWe-jn-schools movement would result iv an injustice to any section —any section—of the com- , munity, he would have nothing more to do with it. Unfortunately, we find some people so- blinded by religious prejudice that, because in this case the section threatened with, injustice is Roman . Catholic, they speak and think as if in- , justice ceases to be injustice if offered to a people to whom they are opposed in , creed and belief. The majority of New Zealandera, however, will oppose injustice to whomsoever offered, particularly if it is offered on religious grounds. Now, with regard to religious instruction of our children, the State can take only two courses that would be fair and just to all. The State may keep to its ■ present secular system of neutralj i.y, and ■ declare that it will only provide for the secular part of education. Thus no ono denomination will bo favoured more than another. Each Church will look after the religious training of its own children. The other course, though very undesirable, would alao be a just one. The State could undertake to provide for the religious well -ac the secular instruction of the children, but recognising that no one form of such instruction could be availed of by all denominations without violating their beliefs, the State would, as a matter of justice, provide for each section of the Church the kind of religious instruction they could accept. This would, of course, mean State grants to denominational schools New Zealand will ever be oppoeed to such grants. Now, the Bible-in-Schools League oppose the eecular eystsm, which is a just one. They also oppose the second solution, which, though undesirable, would be just. They are demanding that the State provide religious instruction, but only under one set oi conditions, drawn up'by three Protestant denominations. These conditions, of course, suit the alliee who framed them, but they are such that the Roman Catholic Church at least cannot accept the rcligioue instruction offered under thesp conditions without violat ng their belief. Roman Catholics cannot "accept any edited or abridged form of the Bible that is not wholly approved by their Church. They cannot have the Bible read to and with their eluldren by people whoso belief in the Bible, and whose ability to use it aright, arc not proved satisfactorily. They cannot agree to the Bible being used ac a secular book without any power of comment or of religious teaching being drawn from ft. * They claim that the r£ ligious element should pervade the whole school day, and not be cramped either as to freedom or as to time of application So well known is this wide divergence between their beliefs and the conditions drawn up by the lsague, that th.it latter, when forming their first council did not even go through the farm of invitina Roman Catholic to be present These considerations show that the League's scheme fa essentially a Protectant «*«ne: th*t it i» ewentlally nonCatholic; that if this scheme were adopted the Catholics would b» ex eluded while the Protestant* were proviQcd for. r The questions which the league amst face are: 1. If the State takes the responsibility 0f providing for the religious training of the children, ronet not the State provide for all, in a way all can accept? 2. Suppose the State sets up in State echools "t'hfi 6yartem t>f religions instrucI tion which only Proteßtanta can. accept without violating their beliefs, and refuses to provide for a system which Roman Catholic? can accept without violating <their beliefs, would not this be flagrantly unjust? Xo unprejudiced citizen can come to any other conclusion. Yet we are asked to perpetrate injustice in the name of religion, under *he name of the Bible. A cunning attempt is made by the league +.o present their scheme as a just one. They point out that the scheme is the same for all. that there arc equal facilities for all denominations, that "there is no compulsion, tirat anyone may take it or leave it, but it is open to all. Nobbing co condemns the scheme ac the very fact thai, while religious beHefe radically differ, the conditions are the ea-me for all. This hse been the very ■basis of all the injustices of the past, when the State has attempted to secure ■uniformity and conformity of religions practice by recognising only one form when there trere many beliefs. Perhaps an illustration from history •will open ihe eyers of Presbyterians and Nonconformists at least to ifabe true nature of the equ&l facilities offered by the league. The Corporation Act of I Charles 11. declared bluntly that only | I -those who worahipped in: conformity 1 "vri-th the Established Church could receive public appointments. Had Clarendon poeseeeed the suavity and ingenuity of Canon Garland and the other spokesmen of the league, .they Tronld have put the matter bh-us: State appointments, are open, to all eitizene on exactly 6he came conditions. Anyone oan avail tahnseU of the , offer, simply by ■worshipping in the one way fchfl.t the State approree -of. • Nonconformists -would indignantly de- - c-lare thai as the conditione were such ' • that they could only be accepted by • 'N'oncon.fonntets by viola/ting their ! liefs, the conditions were flagrantly un- » just. But Canon Garland -would have replied: The conditions are -the eaine for all. =. There is no ccranpulsioin. You may take it -or leave it Onr conscience i clause permits you to go without if \ you cannot accept the conditions. & Now, <t<his is tiie guise under which th« IS league pretend that iieir echeme is just. Silt simply adde mockery to injustice. iKK course, the league points to the provfesfijon. by which any minister or priest lAj visit any school, and teach •whatevßer he likes -fco irie <rwn flock. Hare, ags&iin, the league try .to cover the tact thaMt this is jus* one of the condition* thasW Roman GaitJiolke cannot accept also ignore tbe **«* *»* *£»

•whole wctfeod el Bible reading, to*, i* quite unacceptable on religious ground*. No impartial committee of judgee could do- otherwise than declare ihait the leagne'e scheme -woirid impose . injuetice. Canon G*ri*nd stands pledged to witiidraw from th* movement if -would in<ftict injustice on any section —even on Roman Catholica. TAe opponeat* ef -the league would readily accept any fair mothcrd of teat th»i Canon GarJsnd proposes, in order that he in*y make good his pledge. Seeing that the ieague'e scheme is in Uβ very essence unjnet, the proposal to Bobmit tiie question to -a referendum is almost grotesque. No mere vote on a sectarian issue can make 'that which ie tinjaat become just »nd right.