SCHOOL DANGER

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 152, 29 June 1914, Page 9

SCHOOL DANGER

THE BIBLE QUESTION DEFENCE LEAGUE'S DEMONSTRATIONS REFERENDUM— A POLITICAL KITE. GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE CRITICISED. It was estimated that between two and three thousand people attended the demonstration in the Basin Reserve yesterday afternoon' against the proposals of the Government in regard to the Bible-in-schools movement. The meeting appeared to bo heartily with the speakers, and four resolutions were carried on a show of hands, with very few dissentients. The Waterside Workers' Band played selections at both demon- i jtrations POLITICIANS—AND THE BACK DOOR. Mr. John Hutcheson had charge of the afternoon meeting, the preparations )'or which had been carefully made by villing workers Mr. Hutcheson, mounting the platform at 3 p.m., said that iboufc'a year ago a deputation from the National Schools Defence League had .aited upon Mr. Massey to lay its views oeforo him and to get, iF possible, his views. On that deputation was represented all the expert skill and knowledge of every grade of education, from the kindergarten to the university college. The deputation wished to demonstrate to Mr. Massey that the putting of religious teaching in the curriculum of the State schools must inevitably destroy the free, compulsory, and secular system of education ; that it must be a gross injustice to the teachers; that it must result in the breaking of those bonds of brotherly love and life friendships formed all over the Dominion; and bring dissention into the schools themselves. When Mr. Massey had risen to reply the first impression he gave him (Mr Hutcheson) was that of unfavourable irritation, Mr. Massey practically saM it was' unkind to ask him so beastly embarrassing a question. (Laughter.) Later Mr. Massey had said : " I have always been in favour of the present system and will not do anything to injure it " ; the Government would not bring in a Bill that session Many of the generousminded, highly-educated people who had formed the deputation rubbed their hands with pleasure. But politicians always leave a back door open — and what had they to-day ? Worse than they anticipated. The Bible-in-Schools Bill, and nothing but the Bill, was to be the referendum. Also, they would have to vote while yet in ignorance of what textbook they were to have for the schools. It was k> be a book prepared by "some people." And still Mr. Massey might say he is not doing anything to injure the education system ; he is just trusting the people more. (Laughter.) " It is the same old dodge." (Laughter.' The _ danger vyas imminent of the introduction of bitter sectarian hatred and all uncharitableness if they did not declare with a loud and unanimous voice "it shall . not be !" (Applause.) A POLITICAL QUESTION. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh, M.P., moved : " That this meeting believes that our State Constitution should guarantee the free exercise and enjoyment of religions profession and worship without discrimination, and, therefore, most emphatically protests against the proposal to introduce a particular form I of religious instruction into our State, schools by means of a plebiscite oi referendum. Mr. Hindmarsh said the question ha-Jt now become a political one. It was the first time since 1877, when the Education Act was passed, that the present 6ystem had been really threatened. The men who fought for it, Sir George Grey, Sir Robert Stout, Sir Charles Bowen, and' -Major 'Atkinson and others, had known from experience in England the need there was in this young country for keening out sectarian bitterness. To a certain extent this aim had succeeded. Was all this good work_ to be undone? It was the aim of the aristocracy of Europe always to excite a sectarian spirit among the masses, well-knowing that when sections of the masses are set against each other they (the aristocratic party) wild rule. No evidence had been produced that a change from our secular syitem was wanted. Queensland and New '&onth Wales were no examples. He didn't deny that many people were genuine in Sheir expressions. But many consider it mereiy from its political aspect. He appealed to the men and women who had gone through the schools to defend them now for their, children. (Applause.) Mr P. C. Webb, MJ?., seconded the motion. As a democrat he believed in the referendum, initiative, and power of recall in questions of politics ; but he would rather walk out of the House to morrow than support a referendum on a religious question. A religioua question should^ not be decided by a majority vote. Religious convictions shoukl not be_ assailed by the State. He would be doing one of the greatest crimes to his own people if he supported the Bill. (Applause.) In New South Wales there was greater sectarian bitterness militating against cohesion than in any other part of Australasia. .The working classes should seek to combat sectarianism and keep closely knit together. (Applause.) The teachers ako should be defended. He hoped many would rally behind the League. ' (Applause.) The resolution was carried. DEFEND THE TEACHERS. Mrs. A. R. Atkinson moved ; — "As the teachers of our primary schools have entered the service of the State, subject to no religious test, this meeting considers it a gross injustice and deliberate breachof faith to compel them to conduct religious lessons unnccentable to the people .us a whole — denying to thorn aa teachers what is ronced«tl to them ac parents." Mrs. Atkinson said she believed that the Bill was to bo used ak a kite to see which way the wind Wow, and she hoped the present meeting would demonstrate plainly to Iho House what the public feeling was. (Applause.) She objected lo the referendum on questions such as this. The liquor question was quite different. She objected to the right of entry of tho clergy to the schools, and avowed it was wrong that . under ths system proposed teachers .•should havo to ask a child in what faith he had been brought up. It was no concern of tho State or tcaHier. What would bo the position or the children of a small or unfashionable Bi-ct? They would be jeered at, because thej/ would be in a small excluded minority. She cotild speak with feeling, because of personal experiences as a child at school. Then, also, the spirit of national patriotism growing up in the schools would be killed, and merit, would cease to be the only thing dividing them. No Statepaid servant should have to give religious lessons. Certain sections could nob conscientiously send their children to school if the Bill were carried, and under those conditions- taxes paid by all should not be used to tho advantage of a part of the people; It was absurd to say religion would not be taught by the tgacher, because, tg bg ftflj^ yee at all,

there must be explanations and teaching. The league, also, wa-s not using fair tactics, by misleading the public a-s to the methods and results in Australia. There were facts they did not .give, Mrs. Atkinson also criticised members of the league in regard to a controversy over a- portion of one of Mr. Atkinson's speeches. As for the teachers, the proposals of the Bill would amount to a religious test, and this would be wrong. She valued the Bible more perhaps than those people who wanted to shovel off the churches' job on to the teacher — (applause) — and had always been connected with the instruction of the young. In conclusion, Mrs. Atkinson advocated the Nelson system, under which the cooperation of the teachers would be easily obtained. The Government should compromise on that system. (Applause.) A SCHOOL TEACHER'S OPINION. Mr. W. Foster (head teacher at Petone District High School) seconded the motion. He was not there officially aa a teachers' representative, but he was sure 80 per cent, of the teachers felt as ho did. The objections to the Bill were that there was no conscience clause for teachers. No religions test had been imposed on teachers for forty years, and all shades of opinion were in their ranks, and they should not now be suddenly compelled to teach religion. (Applause.) They could not merely supervise tho reading of a religious text-book as any other book. They could not teach Bible literature and Bible history and morals without teacl'ing leligion A teacher also could claim exemption for his children, and' yet have to teach other people's children. The effect of many clergy attending might also be bad on the school routine. He appealed also for deep consideration of the question for national • reasons, for a sound, educated, democracy, and because the Government proposed to put the education clock back forty years. The motion was carried unanimously. BITTERNESS AND STRIFE. The Rev. Knowles Smith (Dunedin) delivered an interesting speech, punctuated with amusing illustrations. He moved : — " As the proposals of the Bible-in- ' Sohools League involve (1) compulsion on minorities to contribute to the religious instruction of the children of majorities; (2) the right of entry for the clergy during the hours of compulsory attendance, and consequent introduction of sectarian differences and strife into our State schools; and (3) the assumption of a right to compel attendance at religious lessons (by demanding from parents a written request for exemption of their chil- , dren), this meeting strongly protests against such unjust proposals. Mr. Smith said he was not present as a representative of the Methodist Church, but_ merely as a Methodist minister voicing his own feelings. He opposed the proposals, after some years of school teaching and management at Home. It was not the Bible but the priests that the league wanted to introduce into the schools. The Bible, he proceeded, was one thing, and the interpretation of it another. (Applause.) No one sect had the right to foist on another its interpretation of the Bible— not under the British flag ! Each interpretation of the Bible was a matter of Church or conscience, and no Church had a right to make s its standard of conscience apply to someone else. In England he had been a passive resister to the Education Act. He supported the Nelson system. He taxed the Bible-in-Schools League with wilfully misleading the public on various points, but the people would wake up and they would find that honesty was the best policy after all. They would find the door locked against old denominational shibboleths, and tllat even so great a man as Mr. Massey would not oe able to open it. (Applause.) Pastor Meyers seconded the resolution. He said a State must eitheMbe neutral in regard to religion or else become partial in the exercise of its prerogatives and support religion, but of necessity only that religion that is acceptable to some of its elements. There was no middle course. Neutrality on the part of of civic governments in matters pertaining to religion was an inherent principle in the good old Book. (Applause.) The step now proposed was entirely retrograde. The conscience clause was a sham. The real position should be that children could attend only on handing in a written request from the parent. (Applause.) The motion was carried unanimously, j and Mr. Hutcheson then moved: — < "That this meeting of Wellington | citizens, in public assembled, emphatically protests against the passage through Parliament of the Religious Instruction in Schools Referendum Bill, on tho ground that the merging of the Church and State is alien to the whole spirit of the Constitution and the people." Dr. Hughes (Berhampore) seconded this, and it was carried.