Bible in Schools

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 239, 6 July 1931, Page 11

Bible in Schools

Sir, —A recent correspondent on the abfiye subject draws the attention of the public to the fact that in certain European countries, whose population is largely Lutheran, religion is taught in the public schools, and draws the conclusion, “and why not New Zealand?” That fact does not alter the principle on which we are opposed to such instruction being introduced into our public schools. There is this difference between the countries mentioned and New Zealand—these countries have an official State religion, and it is this religion that is taught in the public schools. New Zealand, thank God, has no official State religion, and therefore it is out of place for the State to introduce into its schools any particular form of religious instruction. We might just as well argue, why not a State religion for New Zealand? It might be quite acceptable to certain New Zealand clergy, if they could draw their stipends from the public purse, as is done in these countries. “Some educators, therefore, are alarmed at the results of the non-religious education of the public school. Realising that education without religion must prove a dismal failure, they hope to remedy matters by advocating Bible-reading, religious and ethical instruction in the public schools. But while the State may have a legitimate interest in the secular instruction and education of its future citizens, it has absolutely no right to teach any form of religion, this being a right and duty of the parents and churches; and because of the many different religious denominations, against none of whose adherents our Government may discriminate by teaching this or that set of religious doctrines, it is impossible for the public school to teach a definite form of religion. If the State were still to do so, this would be tantamount to the establishment of religion, forbidden in the Federal Constitution, and it would also have to require a religious test or examination of the public school teacher, which is likewise prohibited. . . . Because of the lack of a religious' basis the results of the prevailing moral or ethical education are far from gratifying; hence the demand for religious instruction in the public schools. But the principle of a secular school controlled by a secular State and the difficulty in determining which religious system should be taught, make this impossible. The solution is the Christian day school (Concordia Cyclopaedia, Art. Public School. This by the way is an official publication of our church published 1927.) Written of American conditions, it applies to New Zealand, whose constitution, I believe, is fundamentally the same.

It is proposed to introduce a hybrid religion acceptable to all, offensive to none. The religious differences are too pronounced to make even this possible. I presume that it is proposed to introduce the Christian religion, though the proposed Act leaves this open. At the present time all the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion are controversial subjects, and there is a strong division of opinion as to the nature of the definition of the Christian religion amongst "those who profess to follow it. It is useless trying to close our eyes to this fact. Let us but take the broad division between fundamentalists and modernists, leaving aside denominational differences. The true fundamentalist will not be satisfied with any religious instruction that is not definitely Christian according to his conception of the Christian religion, and the modernist will certainly not be agreeable to this. Thus what is acceptable to the fundamentalist will be offensive to the modernist, and vice versa. Under those conditions it is impossible to introduce a system of religious instruction which will not be offensive to the consciences of certain sections of the community. Liber-ty-loving citizens will not stand for this. In passing I might remark that it would be only fair to the public at large, if the Bible-in-Schools League were to inform them what is proposed to be taught under the Religious Instruction in Schools Enabling Bill before it is made an Act of Parliament, and not after, when a certain committee will have the legal right to introduce any kind of religious instruction that it thinks fit as long as it is not denominational. If parents knew just what it is proposed to teach, they might not be so enthusiastic in its support.

The proposed Bill is unfair and unjqst Why should a public institution supported by Roman Catholic taxpayers

be used for the propagation of the Protestant faith? If the State is to aid in propagating the Protestant faith, can it consistently refuse to aid the Roman Catholics in propagating their faith? And yet according • to published statements, . members of the Bible-in-schools League would oppose such aid being granted. I ask, is that fair play? The Bill does not contain satisfactory safeguards against teachers teaching things offensive to certain sections of the community.

If the Bill becomes law it will introduce religious divisions into the public school

life, just what the sponsors of the Bill wish to avoid. The withdrawal of Roman Catholic children and others from the religious instruction will divide the school into two parties or more, and may even destroy the harmony that now exists. Religious differences there will and must be, but they ought not to enter , public life.

The. Bill in its present proposed form has within itself the possibility of a certain kind of religious persecution. A Roman Catholic teacher applies for a vacant position. The committee that determines upon the -•i plications is strongly in favour of religious instruction in schools. Is there not the strong probability that such a committee will vote against an applicant, who for reasons.of conscience, refuses to impart such instruction? Such discrimination in a public institution would be unfair. When all is said and done the ultimate cause of irreligion and moral decay is not so much the secular nature of the public education, but father the irreligious homes in which the children grow up. And who is to blame for'this? If the modern religious leaders, as they do, teach the public to regard the Bible as a conglomeration of myths, fables, contradictions, innaccuracies, and errors, what else can they expect but that parents will show no desire to instruct their children in the teachings' of the Bible? And why should they? The churches would do much better if they paid more attention to the feeding of their flocks with the unadulterated word of God. than to meddle in polities. Luther indeed emphasised the importance of the religious side of a child’s education. But in judging the local situation it must not be forgotten that Luther regarded the schools as institutions of the church, and that the education of his day. though fostered by the secular princes and authorities, wos under the control of the church. Also, that he insisted upon the ancient orthodox Christian religion being taught, as briefly outlined in his catechisms. Teachers who believed otherwise were to be excluded. 'With him it was not merely a matter of religion being taught, but that the » nl v true Christian religion be taught. He also insisted upon a clear separation of the functions of Church and State, as laid down in the Ugsburg Confession, which to this day is the official declaration of the faith and practice of the orthodox Lutheran Church. It is therefore unfair to cite Luther in support of the introduction of a compromise religion into the public schools under the control of the secular authorities. —I am. etc.. M. R. R. HEIDRICH. Marton. June 26.