BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 23, 27 July 1927, Page 8

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

CATHOLIC OPPOSITION

SOME PAST HISTORY

The KeW Father Mark Devoy, SJJ.,'presided at'a meeting of Catholics in-the Church of St. Francis : de Sales, Island Pay, on' Sunday evening, when, the _ following series of resolutions was passed in connection with the Bible, in Schools Bill now before Parliament: —That we .protest against the reading of Biblelessons in the public schools on the following grounds:— ■ 1. That it is no part of the functions of the, State to teach religion. ' | 2. That ,to apply public money for such a purpose is a violation of the rights of all taxpayers"who deny ithe-right of tha State to teach religion. - . , _ 3. .That the proposalinvolves_ a grave injustice to those teachers who dissent therefrom, inasmuch as (a) they have-entered .the Public. Service under no condition to teach religion, and (b) Catholic laymen, by the principles of their faith, are precluded from publicly teaching religion. 4. That one of the practical results of the system would necessarily be thatteachers who disagreed therewith, would be eliminated from the Public Service, and we refuse to believe tha.t' any legislative safeguard for conscientious objectors would give effective protection. ' ; : /5. That the real function of the State is to protect the natural rights of the "individual, 'but the promulgation of unjust' legislation means that the State itself violates the very rights which it is its duty to -.protect. . . . ,

. 6. That while yielding to no one in our reverence for the Bible and for the principle;, of religions education, we deny that it is the duty of the State to attempt the enforcement of either, and we invite those of our fellow-citizens who deplore secularity in education to found and maintain .schools' * of. their own. '

■ Speaking to the resolutions, Mr. P. J. 0 Regan said that though they did not cover all the ground, they set out clearly enough the rationale of Catholic opposition to the proposal now before Parliament. The Hon. L. M. Isitt had made himself responsible for the statement that the Catholic body were in reality responsible for, the secularity of the public schools, and it was their "daty to protest agamst a statement to which history gave a contradiction, "What." were the facts? Just fifty years ago the present system of education was before the Parliament of New Zealand. The Bill was fathered by the Hon. C. C. Bowen, in Anglican, and 2?e S£..jts most prominent supporters was Sir William Fox, also an Anglican. It was quite true that, as first introduced, the measure provided for the reading of Bible lessons in the schools, but these provisions were eliminated when the Bill was in Committee, to quote Mr. Alfred baunders, who was a Methodist and a supporter of secularism. Mr. Bowen never shed a tear for the loss of them. He might add that Mr. Bowen was a member or Parliament continuously for more than forty years afterwards, during which time ne never uttered a word in favour of Bible lessons, though he often applauded ■ the secular system. Speaking on the Bill from his place in the House of Eepresentatives in 1877, Sir William Fox, though he decrnred himself friendly to Bible lessons in ■the schools, added with equal emphasis that he had no fears whatever about a secular system, and he predicted that the Sunday schools would more than compensate for its secularity. The only surviving member of the Parliament of 1877-to-day waß the Hon. Sir Robert Stout,.who advocated a purely-secular Bysteto of education, and he was the only consistent secularist who supported the Act. He would have been powerless, however, were it not for his Anglican and Nonconformist allies. Moreover, it was a'historic fact that before 1877, the three foremost advoc?tes of secular education in the province of Wellington were "the three FV'—Peatherston, Fox, and. Fitzherbert. Yet Dr. Featherston was a Dissenter after Mr IsitfcV owni heart, and Sir William Fox aud Sir William Fitzherbert were Anglicans. In the face of these facts, however, Mr. h. M. Isitt has dared to say that the responsibility for the secular system was on the Catholic body! He had read the pronouncements of Anglican leaders ike Archbishop Averill and Bishop Sadner with, the greatest interest and respect, but when these gentlemen deplored the secularity of the schools, let them ask themselves what leaders had their church

in that past? It -rcas much easier to prevent than to cure, and the hard fact remained that representative, Anglican public men had made common cause in the battle against religious teaching. The Catholic body had given the best proof possible of the sincerity of their convictions, but they he]d that the solution of the question o£ religious teaching was not to be found by obliging teachers to recite a few Bible lessons or prayers in which they did not necessarily believe. It was resolved that copies of the resolutions be forwarded to the Hon R A Wright (the member for the district) and to the Premier. ■