BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 101, 26 October 1927, Page 10

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

FIRST SKIRMISH

SECULAR SYSTEM

FAVOURED BY COMMITTEE

The first skirmish over the. Keligious Exercises in Schools Bill . took place in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon, when the Education Committee, which had been considering the evidence on a number of, petitions, re- , ported in favour of the continuance of the present secular system, but recommended that full opportunity should be given for the adoption of some such voluntary system of Biblical instruction as the Nelson system. The report of the Committee was as follows:— This Committee is of the opinion that the New Zealand system of free, secular, and compulsory education (under which our children have received incalculable benefits, and under which, after forty-nine yiears' experience, our people—the immense majority of whom have passed . through our schools —compare most favourably, morally, socially, and religiously, with the people of any other part of the world) should be maintained. Further, that the Committee is fully alive to the value of Biblical and religious instruction, and is of the opinion that fnll opportunity should be given for the adoption of a voluntary system, such' as that known as the Nelson system, in which the teaching is imparted outside the '■ statutory school hours, under which the State exercises no authority in religious matters, and under which there is no eompulson or violation of the rights of conscience. "PROFOUND SATISFACTION." Mr. H. Atniore (Nelson) thought the Committee's resolution would give profound satisfaction. He was not one of those who believed that opposition to Religious Exercises in Schools had come from agnostics, but rather from those who believed that the greatest disservice that could be done to true religion would be to place it in the hands of the State. Before the war, Germany had a system whereby religious instruction was given for three hours weekly, to every class, and events had shown that that system had not done Germany much good. History revealed that some of the bitterest fights for liberty had been waged against the dominating sect that was trying to dominate the State. Anything that would tead to disrupt the State had to be bitterly opposed. The resojution carried by the Committee was identical in form and substance with that carried by another Committee representing the Legislative Council last year. Thus they had* the considered opinion of two Committees, set up by the Government, and both having a majority of Government supporters, that there, should be no interference with the present secular system. Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East): "It shows the value of investigation." Mr. Atmore: "Yes, that is so." When the Committee divided that morning five members to two were in favour of the report. When an amendment was moved affirming the desirability of the Bill being allowed to proceed it was defeated by five to two. (Mr. W. B. Parry: "Hear, hear.' 3) The two members who voted in favour of the Bill expressly stated their belief in the value of the Nelson system and their dislike that any action of theirs should be interpreted to mean that they were up against that system, "which they thought was excellent, but which, perhaps, might not reach any of the baekblocks. Victoria'had had'tho right of entry, but had this in favour of the Nelson system. Speaking of the Nelson system, the Bishop of Nelson had said, "This is the beginning." Members should note that. They would be right in assuming that the Bill would be the beginning of the right of entry. Canon Wilford opposed the Bill on the ground that it was insufficient. Victoria had the right of entry of clergy only 3 per cent. 'availed themselves of their opportunities. Under the voluntary system in Nelson, which had been running very successfully for thirty years, there were 97 per cent, of attendances. There was toleration in Nelson, more so, perhaps, than in any other part of New Zealand, for'they would have the Bishop and the Baptist minister exchanging pulpits. ' THE MOST OBNOXIOUS CLAUSE. Mr. Atmore said that the most obnoxious clause of the Bill was that "which prevented any comment on the passages read from the Bible, which •was the most complex "book" in the "world. In the name of religion, the Churches of New Zealand were clamouring for legislation that would make the teachers of the State schools read the Bible to the children, irrespective of whether they were religious or not. Mr. Atmore quoted statistics to, show that in the days of the Provincial Governments Nelson, with secular schools, "had a far better record in regard to educational matters than Auckland with its. denominational schools. Nelson easily led the way in attendance at Sunday schools, and in the amount which was expended on education generally. Nelson expended £6267 on education as against £.3506 expended by Auckland. Mr. Atmore drew attention to an alteration which had been made in this year's Bill, an -amendment which, he said, would debar the continuance of the Nelson system. The State could not successfully teach religion; there "was do case in history in which it had been clone. He was quite satisfied that everything that was necessary could be achieved under the Nelson system, as was instanced by the success which had attended the operation of the system in his electorate. The onns should be thrown on the Churches, whose plain duty it was to teach religion. At last election each of the three parties had stood pledged to the present system, although in reply to a deputation the Prime Minister said that if any of his supporters introduced a Bill it would have a fair run. Mr. Isitt had said in his pamphlet that there was a majority of Eeform members in favour of the Bill. How could thai? square with the platform of the Eeform Party? The speaker opposed sectarianism, but thought that lessons could well be given from the Bible provided this was doiie by those competent to explain them. They could not have too much of the language of Shakespeare. Biblical reading without explanation must be inferior to reading with explanation. Ho hoped that members would keep their pledges and allow lessons to be given by accredited ■representatives of the Churches without trenching on the time of the State for ordinary instruction. If carried, an amendment he proposed to move to the Bill would prevent education boards from opposing the extension of the Nelson system. Should the Bill be carried there could bo no just exception taken to the demands of the Roman Catholics for denominational grants. Thoi Church should teach religion, and not the State, and Earm would be done by at-

tempting to make teachers undertake what was the Church's function. NO OTHER DECISION. Mr. P." Eraser (Wellington Central) said that while the majority of the members of the Committee were in favour of the report, all of them were not present. On the evidence submitted the Committee could come to no other decision. Mr. Isitt had once stated that he was satisfied that if any concession in the matter of education were made it would simply mean, as time progressed, a return to d'enominationalism to the ultimate destruction of the system for the establishment of which they had cause to be thankful. Mr. Isitt had held that opinion for many years, but when the time came when he was no longer intending to stand for a seat in the House, he frankly admitted that a large section of the Catholic voters of Christehurch North who previously supported Mm could now be flouted. Mr. Fraser admitted that weight must be given to the opinions of the large Churches, but the views of the smaller sects opposed to the Bill must be considered. He was a 1" staunch supporter of freedom of conscience. What member would believe the evidenco of the Key. B. O. Blamires that crime was more prevalent in New Zealand than Australia? Mr. Fraser detailed tho evidence which had been given before the Committee by educational authorities, stressing the value of the evidence that had been given by the late Director of Education (Mr. John Caughley). Admittedly, the present Director (Mr. T. B. Strong) was a suporter of Bible-reading, but he agreed with Mr. Caughley that the Bill violated ono of tho fundamental principles of education —that of comment and explanation. Mr. H. Holland (Christchureh North), the promoter of the Bill, saicl that the result of the inquiry had not altered tho mind of any one member of the Committee. Every member's mind was made up, irrespective of the evidence brought forward. Mr. Holland pointed out that when the vote was taken by the Committee several members were absent. Had they been present the voting would have been even, and it would have depended on the casting vote of the Chairman. Mr. Holland said that the evidence of those in favour of the Bill was just as good as that of those against it, and he considered Mr. Strong's evidence was superior to'that of Mr. Caughley. It was morally and physically impossible to give effect to the Nelson system in the 2600 schools in New Zealand where it required six teachers for each school. There were only 1342 ministers of all denominations in New Zealand. Further consideration of the report was interrupted by the dinner adjouriir ment.