BIBLE-INSCHOOLS.

Press, Volume L, Issue 15018, 13 July 1914, Page 5

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

SCHOOLS DEFENCE LEAGUE

REFERENDUM OPPOSED

DEPUTATION TO PRIME MINIS-' ' TER.

ISI-KCTAL TO "TUB PKESS.'^

WELLINGTON, Jxj'y 12. A largo deputation representing tho National Schools Defence League waited upon the Prime Minister yesterday for the purpose of urging that tho Referendum Bill bo not passed. The deputation was introduced by the Hon. A. L. Herdm.in. Professor Hunter (Wellington) *aid that the League felt they had not been troateu 1 surly ami squarely by tho Government. They had believed that when their deputation saw Mr Masses in August last they bad understood clearly that he had .been utterlr opposed to do what might be called sectarianism in the schools', and further that so long a« the Government was in office nothin" would be done that was not consistent with the principle of free secular, and compulsory education. The League had thought that if the" Hill came bofore Parliament it would be a private members' Bill, and had'in consequence not organised and were thus at a great disadvantage, and tho people were not enlightened on the real issues. It was obvious that Cabinet, in introducing tho Bill,, had considered tho views of opponents of the League, not thoso of the League. Proceeding Professor Hunter said it was clear that the Bible-in-SehooLs League had information not given to tho League represented by the deputation. Tho views of the National Schools Defence League should have consideration at the first available opportunity. Tho Minister of Education, a member of the Cabinet, and head of the Education Department, had introduced a Bill framed in such a way as to facilitate the wishes-of the Bible-in-Schools League. DEPUTATION'S DEMANDS. Further, Professor Hunter said the National Schools Defonco League protested against being asked to vote on tho introduction into tho schools of a book they had never seen, that was not yet compiled. They protested against the proposal to compel State school teachers to give general religious teaching notwithstanding their conscientious objections. The League asked that if j the Bill was rtone on with:— ! (1) That Cabinet and the Education Department be completely dissociated from the Bill. (2) That if the Bill passed its eecond reading they should be given full opportunity of being heard by tho Education Committee before the Bill was considered by the House in Committee. (3) That the issues be divided and clearly stated in the way indicated above. (4) That the present national By stem be given its rightful place on the ballotpaper. (5) That no ballot be taken until the proposed text book had been compiled and the electors had a reasonable opportunity of becoming acquainted with its contents. (6) That provision be made for subsequent and regular referenda on this question as is the case on the licensing poll. (7) That in no case should any indi-. vidual, clerical or lav, bo,given the right to appoint a substitute to give lessons in the State schools within school hours. ■ (8) That a conscience clause be provided. SEPARATE OR COMBINED ISSUES? Further, the League most emphatically; protested against the oinissioa; from the balfot-paper of the present national system, -which should have its: rightful place as the first issue on the ballot-paper. They also protested against the combination of two distinct issues and asked that they bo separated and adequately described. The form of ballot-paper suggested was:— (1) I j vote for the present national system of education, free, compulsory, and secular. . ; (2) I vote that the clergy be given the right of entry into State schools within school hours to give sectarian teaching. (3) I vote that the State school teachers be compelled (without a conscience clause) to give general religious teaching in State schools. Those who desired the New South "Wales system would vote for (2), and (3). Messrs Hunter and Rosser (Labour Conference), claiming to represent 43,500 votes, in brief, remarks supported tho Defence League. PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY. Mr Masseyy in replying, said "the first speaker had found , fault with the Government, saying that the Defence League had not ■ been treated fairly. (Hear, hear.) There was another side to the story. He had taken down every word he (the Premier) had said to last year's deputation, and what he had said was: "Perhans hei might not be as good, a Christian as he to be, but he wanted to tell tho deputation this, that he believed in the Bible and stood by thY Bible every; time. In saying that he was opposed to anything that could be called sectarianism in the schools or the country." Mr Massey went on: And I say now that it is a very sorry state of affairs that in a Christian community the Christian sects 6hould combine to keep a knowledge of the Bible out of the schools. I think it is a very sorry state of affairs that tho representativee of the Christian sects do not ccc their wavto join and arrange a system by which Biblical instruction would be imparted in the public echools historically " Voices! "Out of school hours?" "Religion taught in the Stato schools? Ttlr Massev: "Don't put words into my.month. I say what 1 eaid He added that this was not the first time this matter had come before the country. Ifl 1905 a Bill was introduced providing for Bible-lessons m schools. It was introduced by a private member. The division list was very interesting. It had been said that members of the Roman Catholic Church in the community wero opposed to the referendum -inp taken, but Sir Joseph Ward and Mr Jennings (both Roman Catholics) both voted for the second reading of taat Bill, tional education. °Mr Massev: "There is no toms quibblinc over it. The cniestion was whether the public should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the referendum." : . . ~, . A voice: "The right of entry. It is very different." • . ■ ~ Mr Massey: "Everything was included in that. Look at the discussion and the Bill " Mr Massey said this was not a new subject. Dozens of letters had been sent to him from workers all over the Dominion supporting him and asking for a referendum. ~.,,„ Mr McLaren: "Aβ individuals/ KEASON FOR PRESENT BILLMr Massey: "Yes: but they are very prominent and well-known men. Cabinet was divided on the question. He considered that when tho asked for a referendum, it would not be right to stand in the way of giving an opportunity for an. oninion if Parliament was willing. . The Bill wae being prepared by Mr Allen, not as Minister for Education. No pressure had been brought to bear upon a member to vote for the Bill, and when tho division took placo.it would bo found probably that as many members of Cabinet voted "No" as "Aye." Tiey must not imagine that the tiling was

settled when the referendum was taken, because it would lay with the Government to settle the details of the Bill. A voice: "They are settled." Mr Massey: "They are not." Ho believed the term referendum was--wrong. It should be "plebiscite. , - A plebiscite dealt with legislation, that had not taken place as in this case. (Hear, hear.) If three-fourths of the people voted for the proposal—he was not saying they would—it would then be for Parliament to go into the matter. THE GOVERNMENT'S HANDS NOT TIED. The Hey. Knowles Smith: "You will find that Canon Garland has got you by the back-wool 1 ! " Mr Massey. ''I assure you my hands are not tied." It was for Parliament to say in what form the question should be submitted. As to the statement that the I3ible-in-Schools League had not held public meetings, ho was inclined to think it had. A voice: "No they have not." Mr Massey said ho had Been the report of a large meeting in Auckland. A voice: "Supporters only." Mr Maesey eaid he was not prepared to arguo that they had, hut if they had not held meetings, was it not rather an argument in their favour, for the Defence League had been holding meetings and educating tho public? A speaker: "They have been doing it for two years over the country, and we havo not." Another speaker: "They have practically been turning their churches into political meetings." In tho course of further interjections it was saia the charges were virtually political organisations, and that contributions of non-supporters of the League were used-to further its objects. r ~ £ ey : " That is a se rious statement He had been connected with enurch organisation for many years and did nofcthink this possible * ' A voice: "But separate collections aro taken. FAIJI PLAY TO BOTH SIDES. Mr Massey: "Oh, that is a different v IKL1 K L j , saul that thp petitions that had been recpivpci would ho considered by th* Education Committee of the House, and both trides would have an opportunity of giving evidence. The Government did not intend to any advantage to one side or tho other, iney proposed to give everybody a straight run and an opportunity of deciding whether there should be Biblercading m the schools or not. If they Agreed he hoped that •errangemente THE REFERENDUM BILL. MANIFESTO BY~~THE HIERARCHY OFXEW ZELVISS Tho Very Rev. F. T. Price, adminisfrator of the diocese of Christchurch, forwards to us the following, as the "Revised Draft of the Catholic Hierarchy of New Zealand," m reference to the proposal to take a referendum on the question of introducing the Bible into tho State schools:— 1. A Bill is at present before Parliament, purporting to provide for a "referendum" on "religious instruction in schools." It really does not provido for a referendum; for a true referendum is a popular vote for the purpose of ratifying or vetoing a measure already passed by the Legislature. The thing provided for in the Bill is simply a plebiscite. It is, in effect, mere bal-lot-box legislation, over the hoad of Parliament, on vexed questions of religion and personal religious conscience, which are not proper subjects for decision, either by referendum or plebiscite. The Bill is, in effect, a proposal to Parliament to reuouuee, in part, its function as maker of the country's laws. Or (in the words of Sir W. R. Nicoll, of. tho "British-.Weekly"), "it is an appeal from the incompetence of Parliament to th& wisdom of the masses." 2. It is not proposed to make either •the plebiscite or the referendum a part of tho regular legislative machinery of this Dominion. It is a question of special legislation for the special and exclusive sectarian benefit of one section of the population, at the common cost of all. For public school purposes, the'present Bill is a measure to provide for the rending of the population of this Dominion into two opposing interests, alonff a line of cleavage in religious beliefs. By ballot-box legislation, one ecclesiastical group is to be placed in a position of legalised educational ascendancy; all other sections of the people are to be penalised, for non-ac-ceptance of that group's religions views, by deprival of certain sacred and intimate personal rights of conscience which God: gave, and which neither Leagues nor Parliaments, nor electoral majorities have tha moral right to imperil or take away. . 3. Tho following are the chief immediate purposes of the Bill: —(a) To change the present educational system from "free, 'compulsory, .and secular" to "free, compulsory, and; religious" ; (b) to provide for one section of the people," at Stato cost, State Biblical teaching suited to *heir conscientious convictions; (c) to refuse to all other sections of the people any form.of Biblical teaching, at State cost, which they could conscientiously accept. Catholics they almost alone —have proved, by the crucial test of nearly forty years of sustainod and steadily-increasing personal effort and sacrifice, .the sincerity of tbeir objection to tho' divorco of religion from education. They would unite with people of other faiths in an effort to make" our education syste.n truly national—suited for tho conscientious requirements of all tho people of the nation: secular for those desiring it so, and religious, on fair conditions all round, for those desiring it to be religions. Unfortunately, in connexion with the agitation for proposod profojund educational changes, ,/ neithor we ! nor various other interested parties have been consulted or properly considered. No ono schemo of Biblical or religious instruction has ever been, ot can ever be, devised to suit,a people 60 profoundly divided in Teligious views as those of this Dominion. And we, for our part, could never cease to protect, ever with our dying breath, against the forcing of ono cast-iron scheme of Stato Biblical or religious instruction (suited for only a section of tho people) upon tho pockets and the consciences of taxpayers and teachers of every religious view in this Dorairf ion. In an age of State warfare against 'commercial trusts in restraint of trade, it eeoms passina strange that the land of advanced democratic legislation should contemplate the legislation of an Ecclesiastical Trust in restraint of religious liberty and religious equality before tho law. FORM OF REFERENCE. 4. Officially, the four proposed Ascendancy denominations teach St. Paul's doctrine, that all power is 'of God" (Romans xiii., 1, 5.) They teach (in tli© pulpit) that God's law and the principles of His justice bind Parliaments as it binds individuals, 51 per cent, of tho population, as it does 49. (But, in this long agitation, how rarely has the word —or the thing—"justice" been spoken of on the Ascendancy side!) Christianity, too. teaches that Parliaments or electoral majorities, exceed their proper limitations when they interfere with a, man, or coerce him, in liis- personal relations with conscience, and with tho Divine lawgiver at the back of conscience. Yet this is just what is proposed in the Bill here under consideration. 5. This wrong is seriously aggravated by the ballot-pap«r or form of reference provided in the Bill. This is clearly irii tended to convey what the Bible-in- [ Schools Lea£Uo oeiition terms the "sjs-

tern of religious instruction In State schools prevailing, in AutrtraLUt." If the (scheme favoured for submission to electors were sot forth '"n a simple, clear, straightforward issue, no f-tiult could be found, so far as the mero matter of reference is concerned. For it is <.«sential, in such cases, that the electors should clearly understand the issue in its true sense, and in the same, sense. This, however, is made an titter impossibility by the. absurd and bewildering form of reference provided iv the Bill. And this: (a) Because of the things which it ■wrongly takes for granted. (b) Because of tho ambiguities or misdcEcriptions contained in what :t expresses. (c) Above all, because of its controversial conceal Kieute or icinimisings. TAKEN FOR GRANTED. 6. Tho root-proposal before the country is to set asi'.e the secula; system of public instruction, and substitute therefor a" religious system. Ihe fundamental issue for electors, then, is tlus: "Shall tho system oi public instruction remain ocular, as at present r," Now, as in 1003. the ballotpaper calmly assumes one of two things: (a) That this question has been put to tho peonle: that they have vot-ed the abolition of tho secular system: and that the only thing to determine »ow is this: What -narticular scheme ot relicions inrti-uotion is to bo adopted (b) Tho other alternative assumption at the back of the ballot-paper »» ?f possibK an oven prayer misrepresentation • It is a suggestion that tho new S""-. would 1» simply -methixis added, by way of extension, to tho present secular system of public '"f traction, and not (as it really womd be) an alteration of the most radical and (as the "Outlook" kind in our Kducational Act. SIX ISSUES IN THREE. 7 Tho uallot'papor in the Bill .submits three highly complicated is*ucs, to the elector. It does not allow tLc elector to vote on thorn separately: he must combine the six separate and confused controversial issues, treat them as if they were ono plain, simple issue, and vote "a single "yes" or a siugle "no " upon them all: As a matter of iact, tho alleged "throe" issues contain no fewer than tho six set down Jiereuuder: — . ■■ ~ „ (a) The Government to provide selected Bible lessons" ; : (h) These lessons to be read ' within school hours" ; (c) teacher to 'supervise tiio reading; . (d) "No sectarian teaching to bo allowed" ; wife) Right of en try to clergy for religions instruction" ; (f) Right of parent "to withdraw his child from Biblo-readinp:, or from religious instruction, or from both. Some of the issues (as will bo seen) aro hopelessly ambiguous, misleading, or obscure. On each and every one ot them (so far as they can bo understood) opinion in New Zealand is profoundly divided. Yet tho elector is denied the opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them separately. He must pretend to regard the six hopelessly obscure and polemical issues as if they were ono clear, straightforward issue, admitting no other answer than a plain "yes" or a plain "no." AMBIGUITIES, ETC. 8. But that is not all. Tho puzzled ! elector is to be still further bewildered and confused by the seemingly studied ambiguities, minimisings, and controversial concealments oi tao ballot-paper. Let us take some only of the ambiguities first: — (a) A book of "selected Bible lessons ' is "to bo provided" (after the voting) by the Education Department. Those lessons may mean any form of sound or unsound, "mutilated" or "caricatured" Christianity, down to what a right rev. vice-president of tho Bible-in-Schools League terms "a vague sentiment," "a refined form of., agnosticism" ("New Zealand Herald,"'May 25th, 1914). A good deal depends upon iiow much the Government will "mutilate" or "caricature" tho Bible in their -work of selection. Will the selections (fxs in Australia), bo taken almost exclusively from a sectarian translation of the Bible — the Protestant Authorised Version? Will they (as in Australia) contain' the Lord's Prayer and other religious mattei, in the peculiar forms s<> intimately associated w?th Protestant worship ? Will they (hke the shameful Queensland mutilation) reject the Virgin Birth of Christ P Will they (as in Australia) carefully score out a vast mass of the Scripture texts, narratives, and incidents, to which Catholics notoriously, appeal in favour of the doctrines and practices of their faith ? By what they omit, by the form of what they include —and by the use of reformed sermon headings—will the "selected Bible lessons" be made (as they aro in Australia) as sectarian as the Thirty-nine Articles or tho Presbyterian t/onfession of Faith? Will they be like tho former Bible-in-Schools League's*lessons, which the president of the present League styled upon the Almighty," and which a bishop-member of the present League executive denounced as an •'emasculated caricature" of Bibleteachins? ("Otago Daily Times, ,, August 25th, 1905; Christchurch "Press," May 2nd, 1904). Why aro tho electors of this Dominion to be asked to sign a blank cheque thereon—to vote blindly upon an unseen and unknown book, which may even be as a shameful a caricature of Christ and of tho Bible as the Government Scripturo lessons of Queensland ? . U>) Again: What, precisely, does "supervision" of the reading, by the teachers, mean? In the agitation and Bill of 1903, there was a conscience clause for teachers. WEy not in 11M41 , Now, teachers are to Oβ compelled to conduct as yet unseen Bible lessons — grossly mutilated, perhaps, for sectarian purposes. Conscientious objectors aiiiong them must either leave their conscience outside the school doors, and act a_ part, or be driven, as if they were convicted malefactors, from the Public Service. (c) Also: What means the prohibition of "sectarian teaching"? Is this fuzzy term, "sectarian," used in the Bill (as it is in Australia) in a strictly sectarian and special. 6ense —meaning a "common" or "skeleton" or "compromise" Christianity arrived at by casting out of tho Bible everything to which the rival and antagonistic League denominations might take exception? To the Catholic, the Jew, and many others, even this colourless residuum would be "sectarian" —just as (in Mr Balfour's words) from the viewpoint of the Jew, all that is Christian is "sectarian," and from the viewpoint of the Catholic, all that is Protestant (in however watereddown,a form) is "sectarian." The simplest form of religion—belief in a spiritual Supreme Being—is sectarian to the materialist, and the non-religionist generally, just as their views on religion are, to tho Theist "sectarian/ There is no such thing as "unsectarian" or "undenominational" Biblical or re~ lirious teaching. The Rev. Dt. Waddell (Presbyterian and Leaguer) has well remarked that, in education systems, "we cannot escape from denominationalism of eorno sort" ("Onflook," JNovemlxr 11th, 1913). Pot tho reasons stated above the use of tho term tarian" in the ballot-paoer is highly calculated to confuse and mislead the voter. CONTROVERSIAL CONCEALMENTS, ETC. 9. The confusion becomes still worse confounded when we consider some of the controversial concealments, mmimisings, and other economies of fact which mark the misleading and partly unintelligible reference proposals of the Bill. Let the two following instances suffice: — (a) A distinction is made in the reference or ballot-paper of the Bill, for an obvious controversial purpose. in Australian law, and in the Leagues

own official publications, the Government Biblical instruction, conducted by the teacher, is called."religious instruction," "general religious icaching,'"etc. In the ballot-paper it is referred to as merely the "reading" o£ "selected Bible lessons.'' Tho term "religious instruc- i tion" is applied only to the denominational ism taught by visiting clergy during school hours. The obvious purpose of this verbal distinction is to meet a controversial difficulty—to lead the unsuspecting voter to believe that the Government is not being pressed to relievo the League of part of the sacred duty of "religious instruction' , which the Almighty has imposed, uot upon Governments, but upon" parents and the Christian ministry. (Deuter , yi., 6-7; Matt, xxviii.. 20; 11. Tim., iv. 2.) What are the facts? Stated zn tho most summary terms, they are as follows:—(1) In the ballot-papcf no iestnetion is placed upon the teacher in the matter of "religious instruction." except that it shall not be whateverthe Bill may mean by "sectarian." (2) The State 'Selected Bible lessons" in Australia contain a mass of (mutilated) "religious instruction," with prayers, etc., in sectarian forms. In tho laws, regulations and Departmental reports, they are described as "religious in- \ struction." "general religious teaching,' , "points of religion." ''general religion." "general truths," etc. (3) ! In two or three of the Bible-in-Schools League's publications, the teaching of the Government Biblical lessons is <le- | scribed some fifty-eight timesTiis "religious instruction" (or its equivalent), "generar religious teaching." "common Christian faith," etc. Another League publication (by Rev. A. Don) shows that "religious instruction," by the teacher, is of' the "Bible-class" type. (3) The Anglican Primate (president of the League) declared that "the terms, 'Bible-in-Schoois , and 'religious instruction,' must bo used interchangeably, because the Bible was tho sower of" religion" ("Otago Daily Times," August 25th. 1905). And numerous League orators, and tho "Outlook" (the chief organ of the League) have, in various ways, placed emphasis upon a similar view. Tho distinction between the reading of the State "Bible lessons" and "religious instruction" was obviously suggested for a controversial and sectarian purpose. It is calculated in the highest degree to confuse and mislead tho already hopelessly bewildered electors. THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE. (b) The ballot paper iv tho Bill states that "any parent" shall have the ! right, if he chooses, to withdraw his child from Bible-reading, or from religious instruction, or from both. These *iild-looking words give to tho average elector but little idea of the cunning tyrauny that is iuaskcd. in this wretched conscience clause. It is nothing less than the notorious conscience clause devised by astute* Irish proselytisers for the purpose of "weaning the Irish from the abuses bf Popery." This odious and disreputable formula requires all children to attend the Government's Biblical and so-called "non-sectarian" instruction. The Government neither consults nor ascertains tho wishes of tho parent. Tho only relief that it offers to "any parent*' , is a paltry permission to "withdraw his child. , ' And, to secure oven this contemptible "concession/ , tho wretched parent must go through the humiliating form of setting down (in Australia) in writing protests against the State religion. In other words: Under, a fair-seeming phrase, tho electors of this Dominion are asked to empower the Government to compel considerable bodies of children to receive in tho State schools forms of Biblical and religious instruction, which their parents could not in conscience give to them in the home. There is only one conscience clause that offers somo measure of protection to minorities: the conscience clause which admits to State Biblical or religious instruction only those children whose parents, in writing, demand it. And if there is a conscience clause —of a sort—for parents, why not a conscience clause also for taxpayers and teachers? Aro not their conscientious objections as sacred as those of parents—among whom many of them are numbered? 10. The following are, briefly stated, a few, of tho vital matters which the ballot-paper in the Bill conceals from the elector, or glosses over with ambiguous or fair-seeming words. , — (a) The Government is to provide "religious instruction," "general religion," "general religious teaching"—m other words, a State religion. .(b) This State religion is, admittedly, suited for the consciences of only one League or section of the people. No such provision is to be made for the conscientious requirements of any .other section of the people. • • (c) Conscientious dissenters from the State religion will be unable to derive any advantage therefrom. But they will be compelled to pay tithes (taxes) for tho compiling, printing, binding, storage, distribution, and teaching of the State religion. They will receive no such State endowment for their own religious beliefs. j (d) Conscientiously objecting teachers will be compelled to teach the new State religion, or be driven, as if they wore convicted malefactors, from the Public Service, - (c) The Irish proselytising conscience clause is embodied in the Bill. It claims, for the Government, the right to compel all children to be brbujght up in the State religion, unless specially and individually exempted. The Bill thus embodies the League's .demand.for proselytism by Act of Parliament. • CONCLUSION. 11. Wβ have touched upon only somo of the leading features of that loose, ambiguous, and largely unintelligible reference. Yet Parliament is asked to do three unjustifiable things: (a) to submit to a plebiscite sundry mtimato matters of personal religion and conscience between the individual and his Creator; (b) to confuse and bewilder electors on cix separate, involved, and highly controversial issues; and (c) to expect the electors to concentrate their views on those six tangled issues into a single "Yes" or "No." 12. For the reasons herein set forth, <re raise our voices in solemn protest against tho oppressive' "Referendum" Bill at present before Parliament. There are other aspects of this measure, to I which wo will return at an early date.

At a meeting of ladies, held under the auspices of the Ashburton branch of the Bible-in-State-Schools League in St. Stephen's Anglican Schoolroom on Thursday evening, with Miss Puglr (of Christchurch) as the principal speaker, the following resolution was carried:— "That appreciation bo expressed of the action of the Government in introducing the Referendum Bill asked for; that the member for the district bo respectfully but strongly urged to support by his 'vote the wishes of so many or his constituents, ivho desire that the whole people, whether in favour or not of tho Bible-m-State-Schools League proposalß shall have the opportunity of giving, a direct vote thereon at tho ballot-box at the next general election; and that this meeting expresses its conviction that by taking this course, tho encroachment of this subject upon tho political area wilT bey avoided. lhore was" a representative gathering ot ladies from the -different denomma : tions of the town, and the majority o. those present joined the "League oi Earnestness."