RELIGION IN SCHOOLS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 190, 13 August 1925, Page 15

RELIGION IN SCHOOLS.

MR. L M. ISITT'S BILL , CATHOLIC OPPOSITION. j STATEME>"T BY THE HIERARCHY. A statement has been issued by the six Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops of New Zealand on the Religion in State Schools Bill, introduced in Parliament by Mr. L. M. Isitt. The statement is as follows: — "For the second time the present Parliament is being asked to consider a private bill for the introduction of a measure of religion into the purely State schools of this Dominion. The bill in question is understood to embody proposals agreed upon in 1923 by the leaders of several Reformed denominations. "'lt demands, in effect, the repeal of the fundamental secular feature of the Education Act of 1877. That law excludes the knowledge and love and service of God, and the only perfect and creative personal ideals, from the most formative processes of a child's educational life. We entertain no doubts as to the sincerity and the fundamentally £ood intentions of the promoters of \\&ie and similar previous legislative proposals. But it is a matter of wonderment and grief to us that Catholics in this Dominion have been left for j nearly 50 years to sustain, almost alone, I the real sacrifices of a Christian primary | =<'hool system. The great body of our ' -fparated brethren, clergy and laity, have all along accepted in practice the erection of legal barriers between God 1 and the souls of children in the Government schools. And this is the case pven when their leaders manifest their discontent or alarm, not by the normal method of greatly increased religious j effort and sacrifice, but chiefly by long , separated spasms of political agitation, j "Over and over again we have publicly expressed our desire to see the State school system 'made religious, on fair conditions all round, for those desiring it religious,' Over and over again, we have publicly expressed our readiness to meet the representatives of other religious bodies in conference hereon.jj.nd to give fair and friendly consideration to any proposals for the restoration of religion to our State school systpm. Tv"e have attached only one condition to such a round-table conference; namely, the recojjnit.ion of the proper and equal rights of all before the law. But our offere have been as studiously ignored in the preparation of the present bill as they were in the very .similar measure which was heavily defpated by the Parliament and. jjeople of Xew Zealand in 1914. I Clergy and Laity. I The movement has been all along mainly a clerical one. Electoral results have already shown that the promoters of these types of legislation have been unable to carry with them the support of any notable percentage of the laity of their collective faiths. We cannot assume that this is due to any considered hostility, on the part of their adherent 3, to the presence of religion and it 3 beneficient influences in the school. It is more reasonably accounted for by inherent defects in the several legislative proposals that have been brought forward up to the present time. The following are the principal flaws which contributed to the rejection of the present bill during the last session, and which render it unacceptable as an attempted solution of the religion* difficulty in the State system of public instruction: — Grounds of Objection. ''The following are the principal flaws ! which contributed to the rejection of the present bill during the last session, and which render it unacceptable as an attempted solution of the religious difficulty in the State system of public instruction. ! "(1) Owing, presumably, to the persistence of certain old dissensions, the promoters of the present bill still demand that the Government shall draw up a scheme of Scripture lessons and religious worship. These are to be derived from a sectarian version of tilt? Bible and from forma of devotion which are unacceptable to the consciences of considerable sections of the tax-paying community. This bill is. in effect, an attempt to compel the Government of this Dominion to draw up a sectignal an.l exclusive established and endowed State religion for the schools. This is no part of the functions of any Government. "(2) We are well aware that the present legal facilities for religious instruction and worship in- the State schools are seriously inadequate. Yet, rightly employed, they admittedly "be of some benefit to the souls of children. The only official returns published hereon (so far as we know) show that the Catholic clergy have taken nearly eight times more proportional advantage of those facilities (such as they are) than the clergy of the denominations whose leaders support this hill. Their present measure is not in the least intended to provide increased opportunities in school for the conducting of religious instruction and worship by clergy, or by volunteer or paid agents. Preferential Treatment. "(3) On the basis of figures published during the campaign of 1911-191-*, the annual cost of the proposed established State religion would be about a quarter of a million sterling. The bill provides no exemptions for conscientiously objecting taxpayers. Its promoters thus demand a compulsory contribution, by all kinds of consciences, to satisfy the" requirements of only one kind of religious conscience. In other words, we have here a demand for exclusive preferential treatment for one only out of many different forms of religious service; and we have the further demand that Nonconformist taxpayers be compelled to contribute toward the cost of reducing themselves to a condition of legalised inferiority. The promoters of this bill thus require unequal treatment of religious consciences, and taxation without the fact or hope of benefit. "(4) The bill provides a conscience clause for teachers. It enables the teacher, on paper, to object to conducing the services of the proposed new State relteion. On well-known grounds of religious faith and discipline, no Catholic teacher may in conscience tSsieS r iiSre t oSectto! e wo I!SSl!SS at once throw, not upon the clergy promoters, but upon .the" local school authorities, the duty of providing for the State worship There is no need to emphasise tht serions amount of moral pressure in single schools— this illusory conscience clause would exert upon Catholic and other objectors to violate their convictions and seU their souls for bread and butter. In

this connection, we naturally recall the frank declarations of prominent supporter* of the scheme of 1011-1914, that conscientiously objecting teachers should be driven out of the State schools. State Proselytism. "(5) The bill also provides a conscience clause for pupils. It compels all children to attend the service of the State religion unless objecting parents go to the trouble of making out written protests and seeing that they reach their destination. . . Our objection to it is vehement and based upon a long experience of bitter wrong. And we hereby record our solemn and united protest against its admitted and illegal and improper enforcement in State secondary schools of this Dominion. "A fair conscience clause is one that would permit attendance at worship only to children whose parents request it in writing. For the rest, it is a matter of regret to us that the scheme here under consideration, like its predecessors, is lacking in the two chief elements of effective religious" education; namely, definite religious instruction and the still more vital matter of religious training. Lacking these, the present proposals would fail to leave a definite and lasting religious impression on the rising generation. "Parliament is the guardian and trustee of the people's rights, including those of religion and conscience. We look with confidence to our Legislature to protect objecting citizens of every class, once more, from the specified wrongs which the Religion in State Schools Bill would inflict upon them if j passed into law."