THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18670, 20 April 1926, Page 9

THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

TO THE EDITOa OT "THE PRESS." Sir—With your permission I wishjto deal witli tho proposed' introduction into the State school of religious teaching, as set out in what is known as "The .Religious Exercises in Schools Bill." It is stated that one of the "religious exercises" is to be "The reading by the teacher or by the pupils of a'Bible lesson from a manual (compiled by tho Education Department after tion with tho representatives of the Churches), such reading to be without interpretation or comment other than is reasonably necessary tor grammatical explanation. For instance, it could bo explained that "publican" means "tax gatherer." I wish to draw attention to tho proviso, that there is to be neither interpretation nor continent on the part oi the teacher. In other words, for part of the day, the teacher is to cease to bo a teacher. Do the advocates of this measure not know that to tho child's enquiring mind "no comment" is the worst kind of comment? . Absence of explanation will plant doubt and unbelief in the minds of children. The absence of any sign of intelligent interest will give the lesson the form of a mere empty observance, and will have no relation to realities. In precisely that form of teaching which should, more than any other, be characterised by earnestness and purpose, there will be a lifeless formalism. Tho teacher can discharge bis duties efficiently only through free intercourse of mind and heart. How is that possible to him in the course of a task which requires jum-to' pretend a mental attitude which may. be wholly alien to his real life? Of course, 1 am quite aware that the Bible-in-Schools people maintain that the teacher is not asked to teach religious dogma. Do they not understand that a teacher teaches not only by word of mouth, but also by his mental attitude towards his pupils? Every thought in his mindJiasits influence upon his pupils. Children also are keen judges of character, and they intuitively recognise sham and unreality. In our. State schools we have teachers of all denominations, and of none. Protestants of all creeds, Roman Catholics, Rationalists are all found in the ranks of the State school teachers. Our schools, being State schools, should be op'en to all, and this applies . not only to the teachers, but also to the pupils. And yet the Bible-in-Schools League is so blind to the disastrous results which must follow the placing • of religious teaching, in the hands of every teacher, no matter what his religious opinions may be, that they are trying to introduce this iniquity into the State school. • . And then with regard to the so-call-ed "Conscience Clause"—docs . any teacher really believe that the "Conscience Clause" is going to.afford.him relief from a task which he may not be able conscientiously to perform? In time, the. teacher's appointment to a position will depend upon his ness to give religious instruction. Why should teachers and pupils be divided into separate sections in the State School? At present all work together in hstrmonv—sectarian differences are unknown—but let the Bible-in-Schools party have their way, and there will inevitably be sectarian bitterness and strife. An element 'of discord, which will lead to untold evil will have been introduced into the State School. To demand that there be religious instruction in the Public Schools is virtually to demand that the State shall cease to be secular, and shall establish a religion. Logically there is no stopping short of a State religion, if religious instruction is insisted upon in the Public Schools. "How can a State School teach- religion when the State itself has no religion? The State School should not only be non-sectar-ian it must also be religiously neutral. The Bible reading may be non-sectar-ian, hut if engaged in as a "religious exercise" this is contrary to the spirit and law of the secular State. Ferfunctorv Bible reading will be a formal exercise worse than useless, out of place in the State School, and this indiscriminate use of the Bible, placing it in the hands of every teacher, be he believer or unbeliever, can result only m harm to tho cause of true religion. The communication of religious instruction requires a different mode of treatment from that needed for secular instruction. The attempt to- combine the two must result in tho failure of the former. Then look at the teacher s difficulties. He must be exceedingly careful.not to wound the religious.susceptibilities of parents. He may be faced with the dilemma of hypocrisy or resignation if be happens to disbelieve in what he is asked to deal with in tho | religious exercise. • The State has urgent need that all its citizens should be grounded in the civic virtues municipal and political honesty, in that charity which will enable"them to regard their competitors ;and fellow-workers of a different religion as fellow-citizens, all equally interested in the welfare of the State. Insistence on religious differences during the school years of children tends to destroy civic character; experience has shown" that it tends to produce civic hatred and distrust. Civil discord will follow religious interference in secular education. Religion is too intimate a thing too personal a relation between the individual and God, to be submitted to State interference. The "Religious Exercises" will not only fail in their object; they, will also do incalculable harm to the cause of true religion. The Bible lesson is to be regarded as being of less importance than the school arithmetio lesson. Un-

I less religion is dealt with by the right people, in tho right manner, and in the proper surroundings, its effect on I the child's mind will be disastrous. A combination of unreality and insincerity will work untold evil. Religion in the State school will be treated by some with indifference, by others with insincerity t - and by others with hypocrisy. The State is to be asked to make it part of the duty of the teacher to teach religion. The teacher has not been trained for this work; lie did not enter the profession with the knowledge that he was to be asked to teach religion—what must follow in hundreds of cases ? ' I maintain that the only way of treating the Bible honestly and reverently as a part of the educational system is to leave it to the voluntary action of churches, Sunday schools, and other religious organisations, and to keep it absolutely free from State patronage and control. —Yours, etc., • A. C. MAXWELL, Headmaster, Phillipstown School. April 19th.