BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 10, 6 October 1927, Page 5

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

ATTITUDE OF THE TEACHERS STATEMENT BY EX-CHIEF INSPECTOR CHURCHES’ SUPPORT FOR BILL Evidence in support of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill was given before the Education Committee of the House of Representatives yesterday-hy the late Chief Inspector of Schools and prominent ministers of the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Congregational Churches. Replying to Mr. 11. Holland, idle Rev. E. O. Bhimires, who gave evidence on Tuesday, said he could not understand the suggestions of trickery that had been made in connection with the taking of a plebiscite in Otago. They were prepared for a close scrutiny of the figures, and they would welcome the closest examination of their work. Teachers and Religion. Mr. T. li. Fleming, formerly Chief Inspector of Schools, said that as an inspector he had never troubled himself regarding hte religion of any teacher. He had found that the teachers had been more oj less afraid to introduce anything like religious instruction. They had loyally supported the regulations of the Department. He endorsed the statements of Mr. Blamires regarding the attitude of the teachers to religious instruction in schools. The Bible, had been snatched out of the education system without a plebiscite by the Act of 1877. They could find no great British educationist who had expressed himself in favour of a purely secular system of education. There had been much exaggeration regarding the possibilities of proselytising children which, he maintained, was largely impossible. To shut out of the schools the Bible with its many wonderful lessons was little short of a crime. His experience in the Children’s Court showed him that there was growing up in the young pe.ople a grave lack of moral responsibility. To Mr. T. Forsyth: He had never discovered any friction worth speaking about caused by religious teaching in schools. He bad never known of any case where the religion of a teacher had been questioned in regard to appointments. There might have been isolated cases that would occur under any system. His experience showed that the feeling among teachers of the necessity for some religious teaching had been growing for ten or fifteen years. , • Replying to Mr. H. Atmore, witness said he did not say that the teachers as a whole were in favour of religious teaching in schools. If the New Zealand Educational Institute came forward and said that they represented the teachers of the Dominion as a whole they were not correct. Many of the best talkers were chosen to represent teachers in the institute. He would not affirm or deny that the institute was fully representative of th eteachers, but if they claimed to represent the views of the teachers as a whole in regard to religion they were hopelessly wrong. He did not think the delegates to the institute were in n better position to indicate the feeling of the teachers on that question to-day than they were in 1923. Ho would not claim that his opinion regarding the feelings of the teachers on the religious question wns more authoritative than that of the institute. He did. however, roly on bis long personal experience of the teachers. The Nelson System. Some discussion took place on the point as to whether the present Bill would make a continuance of the Nelson system illegal. Mr. Fleming, replying to Mr. Atmore, said if would require a. legal opinion, but he did not think the point an important ono. Mr. Atmore maintained that it was a very important ono. The Minister of Education (Hon. R. A. Wright) said it was admitted that the clause would have the effect mentioned by Mr. Atmore, but the promoters of, the Bill were agreeable to the clause being amneded. To the chairman, Mr. Fleming said he preferred the system proposed in the Bill to the Nelson system, or the system in the Sunday schools. He had no objection to the Nelson system being continued if the Bill came into force. The chairman (Mr. R. P. Hudson) declined to allow Mr. J. Caughldy to ask witness a question. Presbyterian Church Attitude.' The Rev. J. Patterson, of the Presbyterian Church, said the General Assembly of his church had by unanimous vote expressed itself in favour of the Bill. As far as he knew there was only one Presbyterian minister in New Zealand against the Bill, and he was "always against the Government.” They did not regard the Bill as ideal. What the framers desired was to get some form of Bible reading into the schools, and they had tried io meet all the objections raised. Many of the clergy desired the right of entry, but the ministers had given that idea up in deference to the views of many people, 'As far as he knew the vast majority of the ministers of the Protestant churches were in agreement regarding the Bill. They had had a most tragic experience of the Nelson system in Wanganui where, after. 18 years, the chairman of the board, without any warning, bad turned them out of the schools by his casting voto. A plebiscite which secured an overwhelming majority in favour of the restoration of the Nelson system was totally ignored. It was a complicated system to work and there was jio guarantee that the education board would not put it out. It worked well in small towns, but it would not work :n country districts. To Mr. Bellringer: In view of Iho very great cleavage between iho Protestant and Roman . Catholic Churches on this question, he thought Dr. Cleary was very optimistic in bis view that given good-will an agreement could be reached in twenty-four hours, in conference. He himself had previously invited Archbishop. Redwood (o meet them but the invitation bad not been accepted. To Mr. Atmore: The . fault of the Nelson system was that it did not put the Bible into tha education system. The inevitable effect upon children as they goi older and to know that the instruction was not compulsory was that it did not matter. The Minister of Education said the Crown Law officers had told him that the Wanganui Education . Board was strictly within its rights in acting as it had done. Mr. Zitmorc maintained that no opposite opinion had been given. Replying to the Minister of Education, Mr. Patterson said in Now South Wales it was, in his experience, not the practice to divide the children denominationally when religious instruction was being given.

The Baptist Viewpoint. The Rev. F. E. Harry, representing the Baptist denomination of New Zealand, said that as a denomination they were practically unanimous 'n favour of the Bill. He fully endorsed all that the Rev. Mr. Patterson had stated in evidence. He had found in Wellington a great deal of ignorance with regard to the Word of God. No one could afford to bo ignorant of the truths expressed in the Bible. No man could understand the great books of literature unless he had n knowledge r ‘‘ flic Bible,

which had made us what wo wore. Io bo ignorant of the Bible was to be ignorant indeed. The education system in vogue in New Zealand to-day was quite inadequate. He supported the Bill heart and soul. Congregational Support. The Rev. W. M. Holland, chairman of tho Congregational Union of New Zealand, said his churches and the ministers were solidly behind the Bill. They were anxious to sec the clement oi worship admitted into tho schools, and they wore anxious to have the Bible in the schools. Education could not bo complete without some religious instruction. Their work would be a very great deal easier if tho children had some idea ot tho Bible. Tho Nelson system could not bo worked adequately in half an hour a week outside school hours. The quarter of an hour a day provided in the Bill was far preferable, as it would reach the whole Dominion . The committee adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.

A CORRECTION Rev. E. 0. Bln mires writes: "In justice to myself and the cause I represent may I draw attention Io one or two mistakes or sentences in which,ambiguity appears in the report of my evidence before the Parliamentary Committee appearing in your paper. The sentence, "There were strong possibilities of religions strife tincier the system (Nelson system), with complete freedom to teach on the part <7 nien lacking in a sense of honour. ’ is ambiguous. Uttered after a striking tribute to the honour of the men at present carrying on the Nelson system, and with the words "who might be,’ inserted between "men” and 'Tacking, . would b* misundaa.

stood, but your report omits the tribute I paid to Protestant workers—though inserting a hearty tribute to Roman Catholic clergy a few lines lower down—and anyone reading the report would possibly believe that I recognised the work and worth of the Roman Catholic clergy and described tho Protestant clergy (who work the Nelson system) as lacking in a sense of honour. This is so easily read out of your report that 1 trust you will remove the possibility. Then I slated at the opening of my testimony that I did not officially represent the Methodist Church, but was present as representin'’ the Otago branch of the New Zealand Bible-in-Schools League, Your heading suggests I was a minister of (ho Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand. The title ‘‘Wesleyan’’ has been dropped since union with other branches of Methodism in New Zealand In 189 G. A third point: Your heading “Methodistr Minister and Crime Statistics” would lead to a belief that something of statistical value would be inserted, but the only material reported under ihis head is an answer to a question put by Mr. Fraser after all my actual material of evidential value had been put before the committee. As it involved. weeks of work it is, somewhat disappointing that no space is given to my main statement and only a brief word uttered in answer to a question a p nears.

One sentence in that report should be amended to read “There was a tendency recently for.the illegitimate birth rate to decrease in New South Wales and to lie maintained in New Zealand." To add the word "recently” and alter “increase” to bo "maintained” may seem a small matter, but as my words may be quoted against me as they stand, [ would seek, for the alteration to be made.”