SCHOOLS' DEFENCE LEAGUE

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2218, 3 August 1914, Page 10

SCHOOLS' DEFENCE LEAGUE

COMMITTEE'S REPORT,

A meeting; of tho cxecntivo of the New Zealand National Schools' Defence Leaguo was held on Friday night. Mr. John Caughiey, M.A. (of Ckristchurch), occupied tho chair. . A good deal of important business coimectod with the Religious Instruction Referendum Bill was transacted. Tho following report of the committee was unanimously adopted, and tho secretary instructed to communicate it to the Press:—

1 "Wo regret to inform you that the . Primo Minister has again broken faith .' with our league. On Saturday, July 11, lie informed our deputation that tho | Religious Instruction Referendum Bill . would bo brought beforo the House tho following week for second reading, and . that, thereafter, our league would be , afforded ample opportunity of discussing tho Bill and the question of Biblo . in schools before the Education Committee of tho House. On tho strength of this .undertaking on tho part of the ; Prime Minister, we recalled our organiser (who had' just got fairly started with the work of organisation, and who had to cancel no. fewer than 13 meetings arranged for) in order that ho ; might 'watch' tho 'measuro while'under 'discussion'ill connection with the' second reading and also help us in preparing our case for the Education Committee. The Primo Minister obviously • from pressure of some kind (presum- ■ ably exerted in the interests of the Bible-in-Scliools' League) has failed to redeem his promise, entailing great inconvonienco and much unnecessary oxpenso to our league. The same kind of opposing influences seem to bo exerted in connection with the 'proceedings before tho Education Committee. We were, to. begin with, called upon, on little mora than '24 hours' notice, to , appear before the Committee, arid, again, when a second day was appointed (at an interval of 10 days) for taking evidence by the Committee, we were, again, 011 little moro than 24 hours' notice, apprised of tho factjtliat 110 evidenco would bo taken on, the day . appointed, and that tho taking of evidence would be postpone'd indefinitely. Surely all this is in the highest l degree inconsiderate and 1 unfair. We learn ■that the cause of the. delay is. that tho Education Committee desires to proceed with tile taking of -evidence in connection with the Education Bill, which has been definitely referred to the Committee, wliilo only the petitions on the Bible-ill-schools question (and not the Religious Instruction Referendum Bill itself) have been definitely referred to tho Committee. Why, wo may reasonably ask, is. tbe sqoond reading of the Religious Instruction Referendum Bill not. proceeded with as the Prime Minister promised w;ould be'done a fortnight ago.' 1 In view of tho fact that the father of tho Bill, tho Minister of Education, is reported to have assured a deputation, that waited on him a Aveek ago, that his mind would not be influenced by any evidenco (against the Bill) submitted to tlio Committee, the delay'in taking the'second heading is significant. Members .of < tho league must have noticed that grossly misleading and] absolutely false, statements regarding the league have been published ' "by arrangement" m Tnii Dominion newspaper,' and, what Is almost incredible, in, this connection, is the fact that wo are called upon to pay for the privilege of "specifically" contradicting in .that • paper the said grossly misleading and absolutely false statements! Your however, proposes to appeal to tho directors of. Thf, Dominion in this matter, as it cannot conceive impossible-that they could be parties to such an injustice. Here is a characteristic example of how the absolutely false is suggested by agents' of tho Biblo-in-Scheols Leaguo:— In Tub Dominion 011 'Wednesday last (July 29) we find the following:—"Ono of the most incredible utterances over made by educated citizens was made in April last in Wellington, when it was solemnly agreed at the meeting of the Opposition Leaguo (i.e., tho National Schools' Defence League),- by Messrs. Mackenzie, Hunter, , Caughiey, and othei's: 'That every 'National Schools' Defence League in the Dominion is irreconoilably opposed- to making Biblereadihg or religious instruction part and parcel of the' State , Schools' curriculum.' lhe Bible is, thus, put on m index prohibitorius by this extraordinary leaguo -as regards its use ill tho public school life of the nation." . . . . And again: "The National Schools' Defence League singles out 110 other book 111 tho whole. world of literature for attack save the. Bible." ......

''The antagonism of Professors Mackenzie, Hunter, and others to tho Bible-m-scliools simply fills with amazement nsitors to Now Zealand." Now, all this unscrupulous, misstatement is due'to dishonest suppression of tlie context to the passage cited above from the report-submitted, by our National Executive at: our annual'meeting held m April last. Here is tho passage in its proper setting: .■"Now, wc, your'.National Executive, tako it that, while. overv National Schools Defence League in the Doirreconcilably opposed to .making Bible-reading or religious instruction part and parcel of the State schools' curriculum (as : :.ho Bible-in-Schools Party propose), not , a single Defence League (as a league) is opposed to a Purely voluntary system of Bibla-in-schools (supplementing the National secular system),, provided no State school teacher is. under compulsion to take part in. such teaching, no pupil under compulsion to be present while such instruction is imparted, and no payment is made by the State for any services rendered in connection with such a voluntary system. In other words, while our leagues would offer no .opposition to tho Government's granting tho use of schoolrooms, before or after the hours ordinarily allocated l.to thc secular syllabus,-'to accredited representatives of the various rolHous ! denominations (wofking jointly or°sev- i erally), so long as no denomination ; is denied equal- facilities, they (our j leagues). emphatically protest against | providing religious teaching securing the I approval-of a Protestant, or anv other i majority, at the expense of all the tax- ' payers of the. Dominion, irrespective of their religious convictions." Tho attitude toward tlie . Bible-in-schools' movement indicated by the foregoing, passage (from our report to tho annual meeting) has been again and again publicly affirmed, yet unscrupulous agents of the Bible-in-Schools i Party porsist in representing us us ! "anti-Bible," "antagonistic to Bible-in-Vdwols," .noiT-CliL'ist'ian, anti-British, "attacking" tho Bible, etc,, etc., etc. Surely this is not playing tlie game? Surely it is uu-Christian and un-Brit-isli! That men calling themselves Christians, or gentlemen, could indulge in such barcfaccd-slanders seems positively incredible.

[The point at issue between, tho Defenco Loaguo aw] tho liiblc-iii-Scliuols League is a simple one. Tho Defencc League says it is not fair to charge it with being opposed .to Bible-in-schools because it objects to Biljle lessons being included in the school curriculum. It is agreeable to Bible!. lessons before or after school hours, provided there is no compulsion of any kind on teachers or children. Tho liiblc-in-Schools League claims that the Defence League is opposed to Bible-in-schools because it objects to' the Bible lessons being made a recognised part of the school work. In other words, the Biblo-in-Sehools League contends that what the Defence Leaguo and its supporters arc- agreeable to is not Bible lessons in schools, but Bible lessons out of school (that is to sny, out of' tho regular school hours, and apart from, the regular scliool work). The. fact that Bibift lessons arc given in school buildings does not make them Bible lessons in schools, if tlioy are given before or after 'lie recognised' school work is begun or ended. Wo have explained tho position oil a number of,

occasions, and we have no doubt that our readers know quite well that when the members of the Defence L*»gue are charged with being opposed to . Biblo lessons in the schools, it is meant that tiiev are opposed to Bible lessons being made a part of tho school syllabus.!