RELIGIOUS EXERCISES BILL

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 29, 3 August 1926, Page 7

RELIGIOUS EXERCISES BILL

■ . * (To the Editor.) Sir,—The fact that Mr. Isitt is-to move the second reading of his Religious Exer : cises Bill in the Upper House on Wednesday makes me hope that you will be able to find room in your paper to let me tell your readers why many Anglicans cannot accept the provisions of the Bill. The circumstances of the time seem to demand tome statement from us. It will make for clearness if I number the objections which many of us have:— (1) The system proposed would rob the Church of the first work her Founder gave her—viz., the teaching of His religion. We feel, therefore, that.to give our assent to it would be a surrender of first principle. . (2) Parliament in consenting to the proposal would be establishing a State religion and forcing its acceptance upon conscientious objectors. A conscience clause never works. It.would not in the present case enable the'parent to protect his children from teaching which he considers inadequate. " ... (3) We can accept no system of religious education which does not accentuate the fact that the religion of the Church is faith in a Person, not merely knowledge "of • a book. The bare exercises proposed cannot lead to a true and living faith in the Saviour of the World. We see in them only'a compromise of religious principle. (4) One of my predecessors, the first principal of this college, wrote: "Christianity without definite doctrines is a mere jellyfish, religion. We would not back it if we could; for we believe it would be utterly powerless to stand against the blasts of infidelity." We who are opposing the Bill at the present day would beg to point out that by not teaching a truth you do by that very fact teach that it is not a necessary truth. The Bill proposes | to teach religion by emasculating the faith | of its distinctive features. For us to accept it would be an abdication of principle. (5) Religious education must "draw out" from the child reverence, dependence upon <3od, faith, and prayer. This can only be done by those who value religion. We take our stand with, the Archbishop of Canterbury when he says: "Religious teaching, if it is to be worth. having, must be given by men and women who are qualified to give it, and can give it conscientiously." (6) The proposal would lead to the hand Kng of our Holy Bible in a perfunctory -and irreverant manner. Such an attitude would cheapen religion and leave a wrong impression.' The child would unconsciously catch the teacher's point of view; the name of God would be dishonoured. (7) The proposals are unfair to the teachers. A conscientious objector would stand to lose both his popularity in the district and his chanct! of being appointed to anther school. A conscience clause -is unable to make for complete freedom of the teacher. (8) The proposals are preferential. They ask the State to adopt one kind of religious teaching and one kind only. The Bill is therefore based on unsound democratic principles. (9) We see in the proposals a kind of religious tyranny. Rich parents have the opportunity of choosing their schools. Poor parents are compelled by law and other circumstances to send their children to State schools. It is not just to deprive one class of children of the kind of religion which their Church teaches and to foist upon them a colourless undenominationalism. The Bill is unfair. (10) The Bill shuts the door to any other proposals, for its supporters have told us in their printed papers that they want those State-given exercises and no more, and that their proposal is not to be- taken as the thin—end of the wedge. The Bill would therefore stop our obtaining that for which the Church of this province Las consistently asked —life and liberty for all. It would kill the work of years. It would prevent full instruction being given by the respective Christian communions to the children of their own faith and rule of life. We want to have thorough religious freedom in the educational world, and we want to co-operate with other religious j .bodies on the basis that every child shall have a good religious education in the faith of its parents. The injustice of the Bill makes it impossible for us to accept it. (11) We want religious teaching for our children. This the Religious Exercises Bill does not give us. Religious teaching can only be given by men and women who are convinced believers. We cannot support a Bill which asks for the Bible to be taught by the light of Nature. To ask men and women to teach religion who have no special equipment for it is jmfair to them, to the children of the country, and to the nation at large. The reverent teaching of the mother at home is jpqles asunder from the careless supervision which the Bill would result in. . (12) We have behind us in our opposition to the Bill:—(a) The whole record of the life of the Church o£ this pro- 1 vince up to 1925 General Sypod; (b) the unswerving policy of the Church at Home in, educational matters; (c) the voice of the Church of historic Christendom for well nigh 2000 years; (d) the New Zealand Teachers' Institute, who have lately refused to adopt the Bill by a majority of 59 to 19. : (13) Behind our loyalty to Church principle stand two things:—(a) An intense longing to bring our children to the feet of the Crucified. It is not of the interests of the Church that we are thinking, but of immortal souls; (b) a burning desire to make good citizens. We want our education system to have the weapon of rej ligion. We believe that a sincere, well-in-structed churchman is a better citizen than an indifferent one. The religious exercises given on the lines .proposed- in the Bill could never be a reality. They would not influence life and conduct. We can never accept them.—l am, etc., " J. RUSSELL WILFOBD, Principal of Christ College Collegiate Department. Christchurch, 2nd August.