BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2217, 1 August 1914, Page 6

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

TEACHERS' INSTITUTE AGAINST

PROPOSAL

PROFESSOR FINDLAY'S BOOK

The New Zealand Educational Institute discussed the Bible-in-Schools question yesterday. : i Mr. J. Caughley (North Canterbury) opened the discussion by moving :— "That tho New Zealand Educational Institute strongly reaffirms the resolution passed at the last annual meeting in opposition to .the programme of the Bible-in-SchooJs League." The resolution passed laet year was: —"That the Now Zealand Educational Institute, while recognising the value of Bible teaching and of religion, is opposed to tho Bible-in-Schools League's programme." ■ ■ Mr. Caughley said that he thought, the resolution fairly expressed tho feel-" ing of theteachera. Teachers were not against the Bible, but were against a' system which was unfair. He criticised a pamphlet issued by the 'Bible-in-Schools League under the name of Mr. N. M. M'Kenzie. Mr. M'Kenzie, he said, was too decent and'lionest a man to own the statements which wore attributed to him if he knew the facts of the matters he touched on. It had been said that the institute did not speak for the teachers, but that was incorrect. On the other hand the. Presbyterian Church (to which he belonged) was,supposed to have been thrown wholly into the movement, but the members of the church had never been asked to vote on the question.. The teachers should demand that a conscience clause should be inserted in the Bill, because the teachr ers would havo to teach religion if the measure was carried.

Mr. A. N. Burns (Wellington) seconded tho motion. .1 :

Mr. J. Duggan (Hawke's: Bay) suggested the following addition .to the motion, and Mr. Caughley accepted it: "That the N.Z.E.1., representing 95 per cent, of Hie certificated teachers of New Zealand, appeals to. Parliament against the -unjust proposal of a boaV of petitioners-to compel teachers to give religions instruction, to which, some, object in conscience, and for which parents require a conscience clause."

Mr. . Duggan said that Professor Kndlay had been quoted as favouring the Bible-in-Schools, whereas in reality a thorough perusal; of ■ the Professor's book/would create a strong ■ impression that the author was opposed to the aims of the. Bible-in-Schools League:; Mr. Duggau the motion, and said, that if the league movement were carried into effect, a teacher's religion would become an asset to him— if he were of the right colour. The whole movement wae a flagrant contradiction'of tho_ justice of,that .'.God to. WHiom the ministers who advocated it owed allegiance. There were not- wantr ing teachers in New. Zealand who were prepared to commit.prpfessiprial suicide rather than prostitute-their consciences. (Applause.) . : ' Mr. B. F. de Berry (Westlaiid)'spoke in favour'of the' Bible-in-Schools, movement.' As the State had. taken .over the bodily and.mental education-of: the, children, he wished to' know, why. it had not taken over, the religious educa-: tion also.; No system; of" .education could be complete without religious education.. The present schome was the best' yet put forward, and he was prepaTed.to supportit. He did not think that Professor Findlay was against the Bible-in-Schools,. and he had / read the Professor'.s book several times.- . '~-;-;[■• Messrs. D. AV. Low (Wanganui) and Hewitt (Southland) also opposed the motion. . ■ .' .

A division, resulted in the. adoption of the.motion by 27; votes t0,.4. . .: '

It, was announced \ that the Education Committee of the House had invited the institute to be represented at its-sit-tings to deal with the Referendum Bill. Mr. J. Ciuighley was elected to sent the.institute. ~ ~ >■■' ■■. '

A good deal of unnecessary. heat has ibeen generaijed in connection /with*the Bible-in-schools controversy by the use of terms which are regarded by one -side or the othor n objectionable.' We have received, for instance, /quite a number of letters denying .that, -the Schools Defence League is correctly described as the Anti-Bible League, or that it is in any,way opposed to the Bible. Any confusion which may have existed on this point, should have been cleared away .long ere this by the publicity given to the matter. : The Defence League's objection is to Bible lessons being made part of the 'school syllabus ; that: is to say, it objects to it being made a recognised part of the school routine. , It, of course,, also objects to the "right of entry" of minis-' ters of religion during school hours. The league and its supporters, we may explain- once more, do not object to voluntary Bible lessons' in the schools after or before the' regular school hours. '■'.■'■ ' :