BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1642, 8 January 1913, Page 8

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

VIEWS OF TEACHERS. ■ AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. There was an important discussion at tho Teachers' Coniereuco on Saturday ; with reierence lo tne question of ilioie in schools (says tho "Taranaki Herald"), and us'tnc o.uicoiuo a niution opposing . -tno proposal was carried by a large ma- . jonty. ■ . ' ■ 'i'lio subject was introduced by Miss i Chaplin, ji.A. (jNortli Canterbury), who moved: "That the New Zealand Educai tional Institute, while recognising tlio ; value or Bible-teachiiig and. religion, is opposed to tho Bible League's programme." Miss Chaplin said the quesuou of altering the wnole system ot the ! primary education was before the public aud was receiving a great deal of attention just now, and ar, a body of teachers they would hardly be doing their duty if tliey. refused' to face the question, ,and . sue therefore looked upon it as an -act of- duty in submitting tho motion, lhe subjecc under discussion was one upon which a good deal of feeling was aroused. It was a strange thing that when religion came to be a riiatter of discussion there was always a certain amount of bitterness brought into it. She hoped that in this discussion they would steer clear of this, at any rate,'that they would view the subject calmly and with a view to' doing their duty to everyone. Proceeding to deal with the propcaed'scheme, the speaker said it could be interpreted in several ways. They were told that the teacher must have the Bible read, but must not make comment upon it. Then, on 'tho other hand, "it is to be .understood as intelligently as : any other reading lesson." It was bringing the Bible down to a,position none of them would like to ; see it. If they, were to have Bible-reading at all, it'could not be passed over without comment, and' then when they came to consider'- that the teaching profession embraced men. and women of every kind of religion, how could they, sho asked, possibly deal with it from one point.of view. It was absolutely impossible. . It would not be right or just for the proposed system to be agreed to by tho conference. Another point was that the proposal/allowed thatthe conscience, clause be used in the case .of tho children. Her experience had been that where this was introduced the children who did not stay were looked down upon arid ridiculed by ' the other children. . They did not wnnt to sec that ■kind of spirit in their schools. They wanted unity. There was no conscience clause provided for the'teachers, so that they may be; called upon, no matter-to what denomination they belonged, to give the same kind of lessons. This meant that the question-would como in as a deciding factor- when 'teachers'- appoint- , mentis were'being made. Thev, hownv'er, : wanted in, the. profession followers of every.religion, so, long as the men_'and women were of a high, riioral standing. Responsibility of Parents and Churches. It was-an attempt to remove the responsibility from ■ tno shoulders of those who should take it. The responsibility .should ba with the parents and, the churches. Their special work was the teaching of religion—religion in its truest sense, was taught by the parents and the churches. Parents should be prepared to train their own children in the principles they themselves believed in. They wcro told that tho New Zealand children were morally inferior to those .of other countries. This she absolutely denied. • She had been in countries Where children were taught, under the .proposed system, arid sho had no hesitation in -saying that morally tho New Zealand child was infinitely their superior. "In Japan," she continued, "tho children.havo two. principles inculcated in theml loyalty to ,the Empire, and obedience to parents, and I think-that in that respect' we have to learn something. A good deal of. the trouble in'regard to tho.'moral training ,of our children lies in the fact that many 'parents do not realise their responsibilities." They, are. tco lax. altogether, and then when they find their children gottinv beyond their control they look around for a cause, with which, however, they are not'goitig to saddlo themselves, and so they, saw,that this' system- or that-system will affect a cure." ,- - "That Grand Old Book." Mr. F. TV Evans (North Canterbury), in seconding, said he would like at the outset to dispose of tho idea that in submitting his remit they were opposed to the Bible. They recognised the ethical and literary value of that grand.old Book,and he would further point out- that they would place no obstacle in the way of haying the Bible read in schools out of.tho ordinary school hours. Why-was it, he asked, that after thirty odd years without this, system, a particular Church—the Anglican Church—in all good 6pirit no doubt, was making such a strenuous effort to introduce,the Biblo into the schools? It was a well-known fact that the Church was losing its grip on tho great mass of the people. The working man was outside tho Church, ond in.this, way,the speaker saw some connection in trying to introduce the Bible into our schools. 'They proposed to ask'the .people whether they should have the Bible in the schools, and 60 would call upon tho StateHo tajie a part in religious matters. The State, 'he contended, however, had no right to interfere in such a matter. The State was instituted for certain things—the maintenance of law and, order. ' It had no right to go to the people and say that they roust take up this teaching whether they were in' favour of it or not. It was claimed by the Biblo-in-Schools, League that they'could not. teach morals without- the Bible, and whilst he recognised the value of tho Bible he contended that they could teach morals and had dono so for the last twenty or thirty years without introducing it into the ' schools. Such a statement as that of the Bible-in-Schools League he looked upon as a reflection upon the teaching profession. Continuing, the speaker quoted an instance where '■ a teacher—one of the best teachers in his district—had been kept back in his promotion because he was a Roman Catholic If ; sectarian bias was shown now, bow much more so would it be shown-if the Biblo-in-Schools League programme was given effect to? Elections would oven be fought out on sectarian lines, and much bitterness would ensue. . Mr. Newton said he was on the side of the previous speakers. Ho remarked that if only half the efforts made to introduce the Biblo into the schools were directed to'reading the Gospel 'on tho home, the Church would meet -with more success, and' there would be no danger. An Amendment. Mr. Templar moved as an amendment, "That it was expedient that the question of tho Bible in tho schools be submitted to a referendum of tho people of the-Do-minion." In support ot his amendment, Mr. Templar said it was not for the teachers, but for the peoplo : of the Dominion,' to say whether the Bible should be introduced. He said he wished.to avoid the necessity of the teachers misrepresenting themselves, as ho was. perfectly satisfied they would do in passing the motion. He was quite satisfied that they were acting just as strictly according to the consciences as ho was, but it was 'distinctly a question that should be referred to the people for ■ their voice. He cited cases of the difficulty of religious instruction being imparted in widespread back-blocks areas, a very largo portion of which was never visited by-a minister of the Gospel. There was a necessity for some form of instruction. By carrying his amendment thoy were not committing themselves to the introduction of tho .Biblo in schools. Miss Gray seconded the amendment. Mr. Flux supported tho ameridment. Ho was a strong supporter of tho Biblo-in-Schools League, but not in its entirety. It was said that this was an ecclesiastical movo. What people ■ would they expeot to movo in a matter of his kind if not tho churches? Those- who claimed that parents did not desire this wero just forming a false impression. They should give the parents an opportunity of 6ayiiiu themselves whether they desired the Bible in the schools or not. Ho did not believe the statements that tho desiro of tho individual churches was to make little Anglicans, littlo Weslcyans, and little Presbyterians, and so on. Ho honestlv believed that tho introduction of the Bible i in the schools would be a really good i thiiif:, and would welcome it with all ■ hi« heart. Mr. M'Nauithton thought thin waa it < Question which should ba decided, by thojj

popular vote of tho- peoplo, and therefore heartily endorsed tho amendment. Great Need for Religious Teaching, Mr. Fcatherstone also supported the amendment. He had been brought up in England under a similar system to that proposed, and the objections which had been raised to it had never'entered into his experience. There existed in thin Dominion a very great need for religious leaching among the young, a'large percentage of children growing up without knowing the elementary rules of religion. There had been a lot said about the teachers' right. The child had equal rights, and a child could not be taught morality without the Bible.'' They, as teachers, could not do their work thoroughly as charactor-buiUbrs without religion. A large number of children were growing up in tho country districts without learning one word of religion. He admitted that the New South Wales, system was not perfect, but was tho best that could be introduced for the purpose. It was a political, question as well as a religious one, and for that reason it was a wiser course for the institute la leavo it to the people of the. country. It would be far better for the institute not to pronounce any opinion on the matter. He expressed his surprise and regret that the president of tho institute, as president, should have written articles to the press on this question. ■. ■ .. . • The -president took exception to this remark, and said ho had. not done so, and would be glad if Sir. Featherstono would produce any article which appeared as written by him as president of the institute. He had written an article to a Diinedin paper on the., question, but he had merely signed his iiame "J. Caughlev," and it was not written by him as president of tho institute.' Mr. Flux produced an article from the Auckland "Star," in which Mr. Caughley was' quoted as being. president of the institute. , , , . Tho president explained that lie sad not previously seen this. When the \article appeared in the' Dunedin paper he received a letter from -the Auckland "Star" asking permission to p"rint it. He agreed, but certainly did not 1 , authorise them to do so as coming froni the president of the institute, and would immediately request this pa'per to make this explanation. < ~,.-, ■Mr; Featherstone expressed his pleasure and-satisfaction at the president's explanation, and, proceeding, quoted the remarks of the headmaster of a largo school in Brisbane, who, after two'years' 'experience, of tho system, said ho would not go back to tho old order of things, and that the tone of his school, was much improved. Previously this teacher had been opposed to the introduction of 'the Bible-in-schools. In conclusion, he said he was a lover of.'the old.Book and hadmo fear that even,if it was used in a porfiiiictory way it wpuld not do its own work and win its own way. His love of tho Book was born of the teaching ho had received in,public schools.in England. ( The President's, Views, Acting upon the expressed wish of tho conference, tho president temporarily va'cated the chair in order that he might address the delegates on tho subject. .Mr. Caughley said,that whilst c-pposed to the proposal ho was deeply occupied in the spreading of .religious knowledge among tne children, and 1 that just before coming to New Plymouth'ho had been conducting a conference of Sunday School teachers held in Palmerston North.- During the two years ho'had-been in Christchurch he, had conducted several Sunday School anniversary services. He mcroly mentioned Ihese matters to show that he was actively engaged in Sunday School, work and other proper methods of disseminating religious Knowledge ani6ng the children; Ho contended, however, that the proposed method the conference 'was now discussing was-an improper .and useless method. He instanced how the teach-, ins in Now South, Wales schools was,contrary to what tho Biblo in - tho Schools League would, have them..suppose.' In : somo of .those schools,, at any rate, the teaching was along very dogmatic lines, involving individual constructions being placed on Biblical theories.by teachers., He objected to--the''statement'that this Was a political as well as a religious question. No Teligious matter should ever be a political matter. Wherever interfered with' religion it did .harm to .somebody. AVhat would. bo. : the Rvalue \'M this referendum! 1 It would be'an un : ' 'just thing and not a truo expression'of-tho ! opinion of the people. At the best. it would be a means of shaking off somo qualms of uneasy conscience. It was not open to contradictionthat where the State puts its hand on religion it chilled'the action of religion. So many restrictions had to be brought in to. avoid this and other prejudices that by-arid-bye the religious instruction would be whittled down until it was utterly ineffective. What was:the duty of the teachers with.regard to-this matter? He was sure tluit the public of New Zealand 'were looking to them for an expression of opinion far more than to any other body, and they would bo shirking their duty if not, Igive a clear and decided,opinion. 'And so the institute should not take up a weakkneed 1 policy arid shelvd. everything -off to a referendum. ■' ,',;.'' Tho amendment was lost.. seven votes being recorded in its >favour , ; and.. 42 against. ' ' • :• . " ' ( . , , .Mr. .Patterson sought to add to', the, motion words to the effect that a mittes should Le set up to obtaiu further information, Mr. Phillips seconded, but the amendment was also negatived by a very large majority, and :the original motion car- '■ -.'