The Press. MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1904. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 11876, 25 April 1904, Page 6

The Press. MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1904. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Little has been heard lately of the Bible-in-schools agitation, the supporters of the movement apparently having decided to

postpone further public work until the introduction of another Bill into Parliament this year. In the meantime, the Roman Catholic Bishops of New Zealand have issued a manifesto, which must have the inevitable result of imparting fresh vigour to the approaching discussion on the subject. With some of what the Bishops say —notably their assertion as to the necessity for ihe religious and moral training of the young—most people will agree, while their lordships do" not overstate their case in referring to the self-sacrificing zeal which has impelled the Catholic community to equip and maintain its own schools. After this opening, the Bishops begin to unfold the real business of the manifesto, which is, of course, their strong opposition to the proposal to introduce a system of undenominational religious instruction into the State school curriculum, with a conecience clause for both pupils and teachers, and the submission of the proposal to a referendum of the electors. They are in sympathy, they say, "with "every effort made to impart religious "instruction to non-Cutholic children in "the State schools after working hours," so long as Catholic children are first permitted to retire, but they "'strenuously ob"ject to the introduction of Scriptural or "other religious lessons or exercises in "public schools as part and parcel of the " programme of education." Having taken this preliminary and vital objection the Bishops give in detail their reasons for their attitude. Perusal ot these will show the impossibility of dealing at all fully with them in a lay paper, including, as they do, great questions of church policy and doctrine. One may, however, agree that "the religious educa- " tion of youth is a fundamental duty of "parents and of the Christian ministry," without admitting that teachers should therefore be prevented from inculcating that knowledge of the Bible without which no education can be complete. The assertion that the proposals as to Bible reading in school are " an attempt on tho "part of a number of clergymen of " various denominations to renounce one " of the most hallowed obligations of their "calling," is quite unwarranted. It is really an attempt to increase the importance of Bible instruction by embodying it in the curriculum, and there is no suggestion that if the proposals are carried the Protestant Sunday Schools will he closed forthwith, nor that the clergymen of the various Protectant denominations will cease their work so far as the youthful members of their congregations are concerned. To say that, if the proposals are carried, they will mean the establishment by the State of "a bureau of " religious teaching" is a striking exaggeration of the position that will mislead no unprejudiced person. We do not believe that " unsectarian religious teaching "is a mental fiction," nor that it is an impossibility. Tho suggested form of the teaching may possibly be revised with advantage, though the scheme put forward last year w~a the most workable that had so far been placed before the public. It may be mentioned, by the way, that it is by* no means certain that the hymns and prayers which formed part of the Scriptural lesson books drawn up four years ago by the Victorian Royal Commission, will be included in the lessons, even if the approaching referendum in that State decides that some knowledge of the Scriptures shall form a portion of the State school curriculum. The fears entertained by the Bishops as to the effect of the conecience clause are,' wo believe, groundless, and so far as the appointment of teachers is concerned, we do not think the religious question would enter any more largely into the question than it does now. As a general principle we are no more enamoured with tffe referendum than are the Bishops, but this particular question stands out by itself as one on which probably every elector in the colony has formed an opinion, and one on which a direct appeal may safely be allowed. The last clause in the manifesto seems at first to offer a hope which a moment's reflection shows to be illusory, so far as tho likelihood of any agreement being arrived at between the Protestant churches and the Roman Catholics on the subject of religious instruction. Tlie differences of opinion are so essential that it is difficult to imagine how they could to smoothed away by any workable modifications of the Education Act agreeable to both sides. We have on a previous occasion expre£ssd our conviction as to the value of the Bible as a factor in education. The difficulty in the way of its introduction into the State school curriculum, caused by the doctrinal objection of tlie Catholic Church, could best be I surmounted by the conscience claus?, and with this safeguard we fail to see on what grounds tho Catholics can logically oppose the reading of the Bible in our schools.