BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 11, 7 October 1927, Page 5

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

SUPPORT OF THE CHURCHES VIEWS OF BISHOP SADLIER THE METHODIST STANDPOINT Evidence in support of tho Religious Exercises in Schools Bill was given yesterday before the Education Committee of the House of Representatives by the Bishop of Nelson, who said that the Anglican clergy largely fav- ' oured it, and by the Rev. E. D. Patchett, who said the Methodist Church was solidly behind the Bill.

Bishop Sadlier, of Nelson, said it was difficult to imagine anything more contrary to tact than the statements widely and i>ersistently made that there was a strong division amongst clergy and laity of tho Church of England I regarding tho Bill. He understood that the Bishop of Dunedin, did not approve lof tho Bill. Archbishop Averill was president of the New Zealand League. I zrrehbishop Julius was a strong support'er of tho Bill. Tho Bishops of Christchurch atfii Wellington' and ho himself were presidents of tho Biblc-in-Schools Leagues in their respective cities. In the whole of New Zealand he knew of very few clergy of his church. "ho were opposed to the Bill. In his own diocese every clergyman was supporting tho Bill. In tho last synod the rote of the clergy was unanimous, and only one layman voted against the Bill. The Church of England as a church stood strongly in favour of tho Bill. The Nelson System. Bishop Sadlier said tho opponents of the Bill were making a great point of tho virtues' and successes of the Nelson system. They apparently forgot, or did not know, that bitter controversy was waged over its introduction. Almost every argument used against l the present Bill was levelled against the Nelson system, and the direst consequences were predicted. The failure of the Nelson system to gain any general acceptance alter being in existence for 30 years was its own condemnation. The proposal to make the Nelson system, part of tho law would hot satisfy the Church of England people. It would still be tho Bible out of schools and a definite decision of the State that while Shintoism and Mohammedanism might be taught 'in the schools Christianity must not be taught. Bishop Sadlier challenged tho arguments raised on crime and statistics. Most of the arguments raised upon statistics wore generally fallacious. Statistics of convictions in tho Courts were indicative of tho moral condition of a community, but only to a limited extent. The fundamental fallacy of estimating the moral standard of the community from, statistics of convictions was duo to the utterly false assumption that the Jaw of the land was the same thing as the moral standard. Replying to Mr. 11. Holland, witness said there would be no danger whatsoever of proselytising the children.

Objection to Bill. The Rev. It. Wood, retired Presbyterian Minister, objected to the Bill as an altogether inadequate'soluh tion of tho Bible in schools problem. Tho “Tsitt Party” had no right to say that their Bill was the Bill of tho Bible in Schools League. It was his painful duty as'an advocate of the Bible in schools to point out the deficiencies which made the Bill unsuitable as a solution of the problem. One black spot of tho Bill was its undemocratic character. Tho demand of the Bible-in-Sehools League was that tho people 'should be consulted. Tho Bill ignored the people, and proposed to work a revolution in the State system of education.

Mr. Holland raised a point of order. Mr. Wood had told him that he was in favour of the Bill, and he was now quoting Statements and figures that he had been supplied with confidentially. The chairman said the committee preferred that the witness should leave oiit anything confidential. As a parent he was grateful that in the secondary schools sound, solid religious teaching had been given, and the Bill would inflict a-deadly blow at the freedom of those schools to give that teaching. He strongly criticised the proposed method of compiling the manual to be used. There was a great lack of straightforwardness in the Bill. Its promoters profcs-<d to stand by the secular clause in tho Act, but the Bill was of a “Yes-No"

character in proposing a "moderate dose” of religion in schools. The compact of tho Bible-iu-Schools League was broken by tho ‘Tsitt Bill.” To the Minister of Education: He knew that the manual would be agreed upon by representatives of tho churches, and submitted to the Education Department, which would havo the responsibility of revising it to avoid auy possibility of friction. The knowledge of tho Bishop of Nelson regarding the attitude of the Anglican clergy was imperfect. He claimed that Archbishop Averill, in supporting the building of a Church school in Wellington, showed himself in favour of a system of denominational schools. He hail heard scathing comment from Anglican laymen of the proposal. To Mr. Holland : He did not believe in a conscience clause. Mr. Holland: Is uot your falling out with the Bible-in-Schools League the reason of your opposition to tbc Bill ? Mr. Wood said that was an ugly innuendo. and ho contended that it was grossly unfair to attempt to bring in auy internal differences of the league. Methodist Church Solidly Behind Bill. The Rev. E. D. Patchett, representing the Methodist Church, assured the Committee that bis church was solidly behind the Bill. The Church, through its Conference, had frequently affirmed its determination to see that the Bible was restored to the State schools. It was wholly united on that issue. That coutention was strengthened by the fact that the Conference was the direct expression of the opinion and thought of the Church generally. .Practically no voice had been raised against the Bill in the “Jxiwer Courts” of the Church. Tho Methodist Church stood for the Bible in schools as a matter of conscience. They held it to be the undeniable right of every child to have a knowledge of the truths of the Bible. The interests of the children and the State iu that respect were identical. Tho history ot tho centuries proved that the Bible had been the bulwark of the national liberty. Many .parents were indifferent, to the. Church, but there was a deep-rooted conviction of tho need for somo Biblical instruction for their children. The Methodist Church was united in demanding that the Bible should be added to the school curriculum. He denied that there was any danger of sectarian strife or bitterness. Ho strongly, urged the Committee to recommend to the House the adoption of the Bill.

To Mr. Holland: Ho preferred the Bill to the Nelson system because it would provide a more adequate recognition of the place the Bible should occupy in the schools. Mr. H. Atmore intimated that Sir Robert Stout would give evidence regarding the crime statistics and the tendencies revealed by them in New Zealand and New South Wales. The Committee adjourned to 10 a.m. on Tuesday next.

MR. ATMORE AND A PETITION ,

There is a touch of irony about a petition presented "to Parliament yesterday by Mr. 11. Atmore (Nelson). Tho petitioners, who number 1612 and who are described as members of the Nelson constituency, 'state that they are desirous that the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill should be passed this session. They request Mr. Atmore, as their member, to vote in favour of the measure I

VIEWS OF ENGLISH EDUCATIONISTS

A questionnaire asking opinions on Biblo reading in schools was sent by the Citizen Bible in Schools Propaganda Committee of Wellington, on March 2, 1927. to those representative educationists in England who werp'called to give evidence at the British Government’s Departmental Committee set up by the Right Hon. A. L. Fisher, British Minister of Education, which sat in London to inquire into the teaching of English in the educational system of England. The following are some of tho comments received with further replies:— Mr. S. A. Richards, M.A. (London), Assistant Master, Hackney Downs School, London, E. 5, says:— “Religious instruction cannot be left to the home. The Bible, wisely used, tho right passages being selected, forms an incomparable basis for moral teaching and the building up of a healthy conscience. As a monument of literature and pure English alone, the Bible cannot be omitted. It educates the ear to the appreciation of impressive, rhythmical prose." Mr. Richards further comments:—“The superstitious veneration of the Bible as one book, verbally inspired, must be frankly abandoned. _ The vupils should be taught to regard it as a col lection of books of widely different character and varying age. Bible lessons, above all others, need to be given with intelligence and discrimination." Mr. J. IL Fowler, member of the Goveminent Departmental Education Com mitteo on the teaching of English, formerly chief English Master at Clifton College. Bristol, states as follows: — “The nineteenth-century movement in England for secularising the schoo’s, and profounding modern universities on purely secular lines, is how. widely recognised to have been a mistake. Dr. Arnold, the greatAst name in English public school education during the century, opposed tno movement earnestly, though lie was a Liberal in politics and his partv took the other side. I believe that all leaders in education in England, whose judgment counts for any thing at all, wish t 0 see,the Biblo taught in schools of every class."

Mr. L. A. Lowe, M.A., Leeds Girls’ High School, a member of the Government Departmental Education Committee on the teaching of English, wrote:—

“I feel, from long experience, absolutely sure of the supremo value of tho study of the Bible during the school-life of boys and girls. Nothing can possibly take its place, but it is of course necessary to study it in the lisrht of modern research. Most children readily appreciate it as literature, but I think that many are genuinely interested too, in the spiritual and ethical side. But in teaching the Biblo at tho present day one canuot presuppose a general knowledge through hojne-training, though some children still are fortunate enough to hear the Bible stories from their parents when they are little."