BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 169, 18 July 1924, Page 9

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

A CLOSE DIVISION. MR. ISITTS BILL. LOST BY ONE VOTE. (By TeleirapU.—Specie! to "star."l WELLINGTON, Thursday. n A prolonged debate took place in the c I Rouse of Representatives this afternoon [ ( ami evening on the subject of Mr. L. - M. Is-itt's Religious Exorcises in Schools ,- Bill. There was a diversity of opinion -, amongst members, and strong speeches i y were delivered by supporters and o opponents alike. | ■■ Mr. Isitt (Christcliuruh North), in , moving the second reading, said it war * absolutely a non-party measure. He j denied a suggestion that in any sense f it was his bill, and that he waS plough- i - ing a lonely furrow, for it simply em- j c bodied resolutions of a committee of 1 - the Churches. The bill provided for i c Bible reading, not Bible teaching, and j t a conscience clause was included for ' V teachers and parents alike. He denied l - a Roman Catholic suggestion that it ~ was introducing sectarianism, and de--11 clared the bill was so framed that no one | c could introduce sectarianism without vio- ! lating its principles. He criticised Bishop Cloary'a assertion that it would cost the c State* £100.000 per annum, if the school- . children repeated the Lord's Prayer, ! '' sang a hymn, and read or listened to a j passage from Scripture each morning. 9 Mr. T. 11. Wilford said, he would not o bind his party, but it was desirable to li state liis own position on the bill. He •. had pledged himself to assist to maine tain the system of free, secular, and 0 compulsory education, which for twentyfive years he had supported. If he 1 voted for the bill he would be breaking 9 his promise. • j Education Minister's Support. ; The Hon. C. .7. Parr (Minister of - Education) announced that he would " vote for the second reading. It was '• true that fifty years ago it was wisely \ decreed that our education system should be secular. Those were days of * religious bitterness, and there would ' have been no chance of agreement s between the various denominations, but "j the situation had completely changed, practically all Protestant Churches having come to agreement on the lines of non-dogmatic teaching , . They did not c desire entry of the clergy' into the schools, and he would never agree to it, B but if New Zealand called itself a s Christian country, what was wrong c about allowing these simplo Christian !, exercises at the beginning of the day's I work in school? i Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central): i You have changed your opinion too. s Mr. Parr denied this, stating that he T had, while chairman of the Auckland c Education Board, declined to allow the i Nelson system, which meant iutroducB tion of the clergy into schools. He c would count a child unfortunate who ;> in school days was debarred from know- ■• ledge of the finest piece of literary work, * the Bible. Ho would seek to make * some verbal changes when the bill was *• in committee, and be hoped it would s be considered by the Education Commit- ' tee of the House, before which evidence would be taken. i r Labour Party's Attitude. Mr. H. Holland (Leader of the Labour 1 party) declared against the bill, as it i was not in lino with the pronouncement s of the whole Labour movement, unanir mously adopted from year to year. - Despite what the Minister of Education * had said the Churches were wholly at loggerheads over the subject. The daily Press provided constant evidence r of difference between Protestant mm- j 3 isters. | Not a Sectarian Bill. I t The Premier remarked that he did not [ - intend to record a silent vote, because t it was the duty of prominent men to i say where they stood. He intended to 3 vote for the second reading. He be- ) lieved -in the principle of the bill, but 1 recognised it was a non-party measure * on which members of Cabinet might be '" seen in different lobbies. To members I ' who talked of a pledge to maintain [ secular education, he would say tliat 1 tho Bible was not sectarian, and the bill was not sectarian. Mr. J. McCoombs (Lyttelton): Secular I ' and sectarian are different words. i x Mr. Massey declared that the bill -waa secular. It did not provide for religious I instruction. It was impossible for anyt one to be the worse for tho reading of the l Bible. He did not pretend to be an j ultra religious man. but he had gained | j great comfort on many occasions from I the reading of Scripture. There was I j little sectarian bitterness to-day, and this measure would certainly not" revive it. Render Unto Caesar. Mr. H. Atmore (Nelson), opposing the bill, said there was a clear cut division between the State and religion in the ,Bible itself, as shown by the advice ! "render unto Caesar the things that are I Caesar's." The Education Act allowed ' voluntary religious instruction, and they \ I did not need the colourless thin"- in the I 7 bill. The Hon. AY. Nbsworthy sa.id it was . peculiar that teachers were allowed to i mention Confueious, Buddha, and ' i Mahomed, while the name Jesus Christ - was forbidden. There were many chit- ; dren in New Zealand who did not know i anything about Jesns, or who He is That was a shocking state of affairs. Mr. W. Lysnar (Gisborne) pointed : out that the bill provided, not for Bible . reading, but for Bible lessons from a special manual. He did not see why any teacher should object to mechanical reading of the Lord's Prayer, a lesson and a hymn. * ' A Gloomy Forecast. Mr. F. W. Bartram (Grey Lynn) said it was impossible to give a Bible lesson ? without becoming dogmatic. Religious * strife had diminished to-day because it had not been kept in the foreground. ' The bill simply proposed a. change from one set of dogmatic teachers to another, and when it came to dogmatic teaching p there was no more dangerous person - than the Minister of Education. Mr. ' Bartram added that members of the j Labour party etood for the trinity in education—free, secular and compulsory, t He considered the measure most misf s chievous and insidious in design, and if ' r passed it would assuredly result in f school playgrounds, school committees, f and governing bodice of our Education Department sooner or later being torn ; by religious and sectarian factions. Had ' the preseet system failed to produce a good type of citizen? | Mr. Lysnar: Look at the juvenile! 3 Court records! I Mr. Bartram: Are. we worse than i. other people? The claim for the bill, he s said, was based upon an insulting innu-j \, t endo that the people-of New Zealand are

morally worse than those possessing tlie supposed boon of Bible reading in schools. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central): A slander on the children. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Manukau) said Parliament was very inconsistent. Mr. Lysnar had expressed a fear that we might get Bolshevist teachers. It was, however, only a short time ago that the Government took exception to Christian teachers being in schools beeaure they wished to put their God befori their country, and they had to give u.p their profession. One man with degrees had had to work on tlie wharf. Mr. Lysnar: The best place for him. Mr. Jordan said our practice was to start on the children, and to make out we ourselves conformed to the rules laid down. For example, last year's economies did not start with members, but! j with a reduction of the Education grant : 'and cuts in Civil servants' salaries. He ■ thought a bill that introduced Christi-1 anity into business would be of more I j use. To allow banks and mortgagees to ! force men off their farms and at the '■ j name time teach little children to recite I the Lord's Prayer was hypocrisy. He ' ! was not speaking aa an irreligious man, j ' but as one who put in many Sundays ! jin the pulpit, and who was prepared to [ 'no a long way to teach children Christi-1 anity. He feared that in country schools poor farmers would bo induced j to use the conscience clause to keep their ! already tired children an extra quarter Jof an hour to milk another cow. I Mr. H. T. Armstrong (another Labour member) said if the Master came into j the House he would drive out the Scribee and Pharisees who supported the bill. The Division List. The- division list was a3 follows:— For the Bill (31). Against tn« Bill (32). Anderson Armstrong Bitchencr At more Bollard Bartram Buddo Bell Dickson, J. S. Coates , Dickson, J. M. Corr.gan Edie Forbes I Field Fraser Girling Hanan Glenn Holland Hawken Jordan Hockly Langstone Hudson L ee Hunter Lye Isitt McCombs Lysnar Mcllvride MeLeod McKay Macznillan McKeen Massey MocPberaon Nasli Masters Nosworthy , Monteith Parr Munro Pomare Murdoch Ransom O'Brien Bi :.des, T. W. Parry Rolleston, J. C. Poland Stewart Savage I Sykos Smith Uru Sullivan Wright Wilford Young Williams Witty PAIRS. Potter Perrelle, de la Sidey Veitch Link-later Howard The debate continued until after midnight, and on a division being taken the second reading was lost by 31 votes to 32. i