BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 296, 13 September 1927, Page 10

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Sir, —I do not think it will serve any good purpose io continue a controversy which I feel is conducted by Bishop Clearv with a personal acrimony and unfairness that he persistently attributes to me I am quite content that the readers of our letters should form their own opinion as to which of us is fhe guilty party so far as sectarian bitterness is concerned. I shall content myself, therefore, with restating our position. (a) We know that it is impossible for the Government to arrange for the various religious views of the children attending the schools to be taught by the teachers. (b) That it is equally impossible for the churches to undertake such teaching 'in the two thousand six hundred schools scattered over the country unless State grants are given enabling the larger denominations to build and support their own schools, and this would leave the children belonging to the smaller churches untaught. (c) That while Bishop Cleary talks of a conference he must know that the granting of the demands of his church would make State grants inevitable. Thfit would mean the breaking up of the whole educational system—a thing that no Government will consider.

(d) This means that it is either a case of the churches agreeing together in order to secure some measure of religious knowledge for the children of the Dominion or the continuance of the secular system.

(e) The great majority of the Christian churches . recognise this, and are therefore willing to make sacrifices in order that the bovs and girls of New Zealand shall not grow up in absolute ignorance of the Bible, of a God of goodness and love, of prayer, and the life and teaching of Christ. Of the larger denominations the Roman Catholic is the only one that, despite the fact that a full conscience clause is offered to its children and teachers (a clause that Bishop Clearv endeavours vainly to distort into a proselytising clause), says we will make no sacrifice. We will have the full teachings of our church by our own ecclesiastic or State grants, and failing this we will keep vour Protestant children in religious darkness until our demands are conceded.

All Bishop Cleary’s skill as. a controversialist cannot disguise this fact; and it remains for the people of this Protestant country to decide whether a great majority of our New Zealand boys and girls shall be religiously sacrificed to the impossible demands of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics.—l am, etc., LEONARD AL ISITT. Wellington, September 8.

Sir,—A suggestion appeared in your journal from Mr. G. C. Stewart, who suggests that a national referendum be taken on Bible or no Bible in the schools. - He instances several countries, viz., Australia, Switzerland and California, which settled the Bible in school question by general referendums, but, Sir, permit me to point out that several States in America, viz., Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida, which have initiative referendum laws, have in recent years passed laws in their Legislatures providing for Bible reading in State schools without takng a vote of the people. A Bible in Schools Bill is coming before the British Columbia Provincial Legislature, which has no provision for a referendum. Also, taking a Dominion referendum will cost a great deal of money.—l am, etc., A NEW ZEALANDER.

P.S.: In 1870 the British Government passed a regulation providing for Bible reading in schools of England without taking a vote of the people. Also, the Labour Party and New Zealand Educational Institute are against a vote of the people on this question. Wellington, September 10.

Sir,—Mr. L. R. Harvey states I am narrow minded because I thought his previous letter could be boiled down to the effect “that if Seventh Dav doc. trines are not taught in the -.schools, the children should be left to grow up in ignorance of the Bible, as at present.” On reading his letter again I am still of the same opinion; other readers may judge for themselves. I notice he cannot suggest any other method to accomplish the work that an overwhelming majority of the people think necessary. Mr. Harvev states that his previous letters showe’d that Christ taught that the Church and State are two separate realms. Ido not think he proved his case by any means; in fact, quite the reverse Against the arguments brought by him is the fact that when God established a kingdom on earth (the Jewish) Church and State were one, inseparate; also, when God, through Christ, sets up His next lingtlom on earth Church and State will be one, over all the earth. .The principle is good and sound, ana the more the Bible teachings are incorporated in national life the more we will elevate, the nation. Bible teaching in schools is a step towards this desirable attainment Mr. Harvey wants us to believe that Bible reading in schools is a menace to religious freedom. This is a fallacy. Britain has as much, or more, freedom in this respect than other countries, yet has had not only the Bible in schools, but religions teachings, doctrinal and otherwise.' Britons are freer today than ever Mr Harvey knows that at one time no person dared to think for himself without grave risks, bnt because of the freedom which comes of reading the Bible one can not only think but shout it at the street corners if they wish. . .

It is evident that a growing majority of peonlo in New Zealand recognise the good Bible knowledge has done and what this knowledge ha® done to uplift the individual and nation. and therefore want the children taught An atheist told me a few days ago that though he was an atheist he wanted his children to have their cb-we and was in favour of the Bible in schools.

Mr. Harvey says, if the family refuses to do its duty end the Church confesses itself a failure, the task is hopeless—there is no remedy We don’t think the task hopeless or that there is no remedy. Bible reading in schools will do the work. Very few can read the Bible without it making a lasting impression for their good and the good of our nation. . . . Mr. Harvey wishes to know if it is a commendation or otherwise when I say it is a colossal narrow-minded statement for him to make, saying he questioned very much if the present conditions would be improved if, as servants of the State Jews. Catholics. Anglicans. Presbyterians, Weslcyans. Baptists, Congregationnlists, Spiritualists, Agnostics or Atheists were to give Bible lessons in the schools. On my part it is not commendation, and I doubt if Mr. Harvey would find many to commend. He seems to forget or ignore the fact that all these peoples had their part in the reformation which has made it possible for him to express his views so freely, proving incidentally that the reading' of the Bible makes for freedom and religious liberty. Thanking vou in anticipation.—l am, etc.. J.W.W. Lower Hutt, September 11.