DANGEROUS PROPAGANDA.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 113, 16 May 1927, Page 6

DANGEROUS PROPAGANDA.

The Bible-in-Schools League, in its desire to secure support for the Hon. L. M. Isitt's Religious Exercises, in Schools Bill, has adopted a form of propaganda which is, in our opinion, open to strong criticism and condemnation. It is endeavouring to take what it calls a "plebiscite" of parents in regard to this question of religious instruction, and both the form of this document and its method of presentation seem to us open to serious objection. But more objectionable than anything else about this remarkable documen* is the fact that it is brought under the notice of those to whom it is addressed with the prefatory assurance that "this voting paper is approved by the Minister of Education."

To take the last point first, Mr. Wright has already had to answer some very pointed questions about this circular, and his version of the case by no means corresponds with the explanation first given by Mr. Isitt. Mr. Wright insists that when the voting paper was submitted to him he merely said that so far as he could see "there was nothing objectionable in it," and it was solely on the strength of this very carefully guarded opinion Ihat the Bible-in-Schools League informed the world at large that their voting paper was "approved by the Minister of Education." In our opinion, Mr. Wright laid himself open to criticism by expressing any opinion whatever about this document, though he is careful to point out that it was only the fbrm, and not the substance, that he commented upon. But for the Bible-in-Schools League to use this personal opinion thus secured as official confirmation and support of their propaganda seems to us to show more,zeal than discretion.

As to the document itself, and the procedure adopted by the Bible-in-Schools League, criticism might easily be even more stringent. Iβ reply to the claim of the League that this is merely an attempt to get an unprejudiced opinion from parents on this question, it is only necessary to point out that the concluding sentence on the paper—"Remember, many may want more, but it is this or nothing"—is a direct incentive to purents to vote in favour of the League's • policy. As the Dunedin "Evening Star" has pointed out, the effect will be to induce those who support the League's programme to record their votes, while the majority of parents will ignore the circular, and thus the League will be able to quote this absurd "plebiscite" as evidence in its own favour. As to the questions asked, it is ridiculous to suggest that the complicated query, involving five or six alternatives which the parents are supposed to answer, could possibly extract a rational response from the majority of voters. Of course, those parents who wish to throw the responsibility for the moral training of their children upon the unfortunate teachers will vote for the League. But the teachers have still to be heard, and as the New Zealand Educational Institute has now decided unanimously to reaffirm its previous opposition Bill, we do not think that the League will * further its ends materially by the questionable-methods, that it has just employed.