PARTIES' PLEDGES

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 25, 29 July 1927, Page 8

PARTIES' PLEDGES

BIBLE W SCHOOLS

(To the Editor^

Sir,—Apparently the supporters of the Keligious Exercises in Schools Bill are of tlie opinion that that measure, which the member for Christchurch North has in hand, will be carried by both Houses of the General Assembly this session. How tar hon. members of the people's Chamber are justified in departing from the principles by which they are supposed to stand, 1 am not prepared to say; but, so tar as the Government party is concerned i. notice that, by the constitution and rules of the New Zealand Political Reform League, the organisation which is supposed to embody their platform, they are pledged

To maintain freedom of political conscience and opinion, and the approved principle of free, secular, and compulsory education.

I have always understood that the other political parties are also pledged to the similar maintenance o£ the existing educational system. The Labour Party, for instance, m its "Objective and Platform" under the heading of education is pledged to the support of "Free, secular, and compulsory primary and secondary education and free university education," and I believe I am right in saying that the Nationalists and Liberals are similarly pledged so far as primary education is "concerned. I am not now so much concerned with the controversy which has raged for so many years on the subject of the introduction of the Bible into the State schools of the Dominion, as with the disruptive effect the passing of the Bill the member ior Uiristchurch North has in hand will have upon the community generally, and it seems to me there is only one right, proper, and just course to be pursued by the Government in this matter. Ihe Prime Minister has promised to give the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill a tair run through the House, and he has been taken somewhat severely to task by tjhe opponents of that measure for giving Mr. Holland, his word in that direction.

The Bill is a private member's Bill, and has just as much r%ht to consideration aa any other measure introduced under similar auspices, and I do not see how Mr. Coates, who is, I believe, personally opposed to the measure, could have acted otherwise than he has done. There is, however, only one proper way of settling this cuestion, seeing that all parties are pledged to the maintenance of the present educational system, and that is by taking a referendum on the subject. I know of no question u, p.°° :c.h greater issues depend thau this iJible-in-Sehools business. Even the much-vexed licensing question tak<>s second place beside it, and I submit tLat th a Government would be well advised (if the promoters of the Religious Exerci .es in Schools Bill do not themselves suggest the taking of sach referendum) in slling *hat' before the measure becomes law &W lt ?ass h2 th Houses) its coming upon tha 29th Jub- T THE PEOKIE DECIDB-

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l have an uneasy feeling that Bible reading and religious exercises are likely to be introduced into State schools merely because interested individuals are trying to create the impression that there is a popular clamour for a change in our present free, secular, and compulsory system of educa> tion. ihere is no such clamour. As a matter of fact, few systems of education in any part of the world have given such satisfaction as has the State system in New Zealand.

I suggest, Sir, that if any change is to be made a Commission of some kind should be first set up and the wholes matter should be thoroughly investigated by disinterested men and women. It is well known that teachers as a body do not favour the idea of introducing into the daily routine of tho State school Bible reading and religious exercises without comment by the teachers. The introduction of such exercises will cause grave dissatisfaction on the part of the adherents of certain churches, and there will be no compensating advantage. Is this kind of thine worth while?

I led a debate on Bible reading and religious exorcises at a noting of the Wellington Branch of the N.Z.8.1. held last year. I opposed the idea of any change in our present system. A young teacher stood up and supported my vrew. She said that iv her opiuioii more good could be done by giving lessons on some of the world's heroes. She mentioned names such as Florence Nightingale and John Howard. Sbo said, "I.would like to include Christ." Now, Sir, I contend there is nothing in the present Education Act that would prevent a teacher from .telling the children something about Christ. Christ is an historical character, and it seems to me that something of His life might be told to children just as might something of the lives of such men as Jolia and Charles Wesley. It would be interesting to knew what the New Zealand Education Department has to say about this matter. In any case, Sir, it is to ha hoped that Mr. Isitt's Religious Exercises in Schools Bill will not reach ths Statute Book. If sbme change is necessary, let us be sure that the change will be a wise one. The very name of Mr. Isitt's Bill is enough to condemn it. It has been. said that what we want in the schools is not relifrious teaching but religious teachers. I believe we have such teachers. Let the children see the teachersv living as their religion teaches them to live, and what else is necessary. Does anyone seriously believe that going daily through the routine of a reliijl-us exercise is going to exercise'any great influence for cood on the lives of children growing up in our schools t—» I am etc.,

DOUGLAS BEDINGFIELB

(To the. Editor.)

Sir, —On reading the "Evening Post"' I was mystified at the attitude the Bo« man Catholics of Island Bay assumed in connection with the proposed Bible Beading in State Schools Bill, now be. fore the House. To me, Sir, this atti. tude is quite incomprehensible. The Roman Catholics should be the very ones to uphold such a measure, as all their leaders of thought here have at one time or another acclaimed the State schools "Godless schools.'" Now, Bir, when the State wishes to remove this stigma by introducing the Word of God they are immediately up in arms doing their utmost to decry and kill instead of supporting and upholding" such a proposal. The question, Sir, obtrudes itself here: Is the Bill the foundation upon which the various Christian denominations build their faitlt or is it not? To proceed: Wo will answer, this question by conceding that the Bible is their common foundation. Then, Sir, ou what grounds can a Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist; or, any other Christian sectarian desire t&, see the Bible denied to snj institution, whether State or otherwise? The Bbman Catholics, with their great reverence for the Bible, no doubt make use? of it in their schools and homes, thea tell me why in the name of commonsense and reason do they insist on debarring the State from doing exactly; what they themselves profess and ao* claim?—l am, etc, ALEX. BELI». 27th July.