BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 23, 27 July 1934, Page 14

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

THE NEW BILL

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

(New Zealand Educational Institute.)

Over sixty years ago our national education system was made secular by people having a bitter memory of the servitude:education had had to submit to from denominationalism in the Home Land. ;It is safe to say that far more of these secularists in education were staunch: churchgoers than is the case today.- As they saw it two things were essential: — 1. That religion should not be offi-cialised—r-become a mere subject of instruction under the control and direction of a .government department that avowed no faith and could not uphold a-ny sacred sanctions. This then seemed to non-conformists in good standing a prostitution of real religion. .2. That the individual conscience should not be trammelled—-that since British institutions stand or fall on freedom of opinion and religious opinion above all others should be free; here was a'province the most important of many, .with which the State had no right'to meddle. A general education acceptable to all it could give to all and charge upon all., It had no right to tax, .either tojteach to children a religion unacceptable to particular parents-nor yet to teachit to those of other parents to whom it was accept.able. To do the latter was to rob Peter to pay Paul. -• .■ . ■ ■ The " Secularists'' of the eighteen seventies also faced realities and admitted' that religion was either denominational or intensely exclusively private: and individual. !;. The State, they argued, had neither the means nor the rightito provide for ■ teaching in a sphere in-which individuals or groups of individual's had gained a liberty dearly; bought of being a law unto themselves. : ' Has there in essentials been any change-since those days? Do not denominations still exist and fail to. coalesce," even to federate, because of conflicting tenets in their creeds? Is there 'not even a measure of rivalry and criticism among these denominations.as among all organisations claiming (but in varioiis ways) to fulfilthe, same- function? Has not individual liberty of religious thought increased in the last' half-century till even in friendly conversation people are guarded'in intruding upon the religious views of friends and acquaintances? Yet in spite of this growth of the Protestant regard for the widest liberty of the individual conscience a Bill is this year brought down to focus some kind of generalised and uniformatised religious instruction in, of all places, the schools. It has strong denominational backing. The very denominations who have never reconciled their differences to the extent even of deciding that; certain matters are things indifferent claim that it is possible for the school to do what they admit they cannot do. Denominationalism is as rife as ever. Yet the teacher in the school, whether Agnostic,' Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, or honest unbeliever, is expected'to be utterly and completely undenominational. To the trained theologian there are pitfalls in every other test of Holy Writ. The inexpert teacher is expected, avoiding these, to give an instruction universally acceptable. Hig instruction is to go to the root of vital religion, or we com-oletely-miss the intent and purpose of

the present measure. If nobody or almost nobody cares about religious instruction it may be possible for the teacher to fall into daily errors without arousing protest and acrimonious conflict. But the measure we venture to say is not consciously founded on a modern Laodicean indifference. On the contrary it is a cause in which they have had to assure themselves that they are 100 per cent, in earnest. This being so they have shown more concern for their own consciences than for that of the teacher, though from their own peculiar standpoint the conscience of the latter has not been disregarded. The most vital part of the Bill is the "Daily Observances," which are religious in intent and feeling, or they are nothing. The teacher who. is unprepared to share in directing these must notify the chairman of tho committee (not his legal employer) in writing. How will this operate? Take an average instance. A given teacher has been for fifteen years in his board's employ. He has fulfilled the spirit of a pretty exacting contract. He .is now called upon to do or overtly refuse to do something as completely foreign to that contract as if lie wero'asked to practise medically or .surgically upon the child's bodj\ If with unquestionable devoutness he cannot participate in these observances yet does so he should be summarily dismissed. Is this intended? No. So long as he gives external lip-service he is quite acceptable. If he will not do so upon him is placed the odium .of objecting, thus in many cases incurring, 'it is reasonable to argue, an odium, which will oppress his mind and militate against his influence. (It is surely no mere theoretical contention that religious rivalries will enter into the election of school committees of the right colour once the Bill is passed.) A;teacher so placed, however, clean his record, will know that his every apt and word is laid open to question by ; those honestly prejudiced against the.standhe: has taken. Is he to blame for not having foreseen that when he was appointed a teacher he could be called upon for a brief period every .day to>(we use the word advisedly). become a clergyman too? Blameworthy or not he. will, pay the .penalty. \ . ■ ■■ . _As regards: giving religious instruction (i.e.,-studying ,a sacred text and extracting its sacred' meaning) the teacher is called upon to "notify his desire to'participate. Suppose he does not is his position any different from that of a teacher who refuses to direct religious observances?. Are not teachers justified in stigmatising such provisions as insidious? The institute submits that v,ih , the* worst sense of the word itis un-British thus to constrain consciences of prof essiqnal workers who had a right .to think, that their terms of service afforded a guarantee against inquisition into; their most private lives and opinions. ■ : ■We have considered an' average mii stance.: Consider an extreme but by no means unusual one, that of thousands of young teachers, male and female, .in little .country schools. Their refusal to function under tho provisions of this Bill will, it is reasonable to foresee, quite often arouse'strong hostility. Their position today is a delicate one, making great demands upon their tact. It will indeed become thankless whether as acceptors they make themselves liable to the animus of jarring^ sects; or as objectors to the opposition of a community that prefers a denominationally-minded appointee. Yet the worst fate that could befall religion and the schools is passive acceptance on"the part of those prepared to give it a discreet but superficial adhesion. This can mean nothing but a mocking of religion and a betrayal of conviction. . If, as the institute "believes, most teachers and therefore the profession as a whole will refuse to "volunteer"

under the provisions of the Bill it cannot be got to work. With all respect to that.section of its supporters who are devout and sincere the instituto hopes this will happen. It does so because it shrinks-! from the alternative, the Godless alter- j native as it sees it of widespread though, perhaps unconscious hypocrisy, humbug, and sham—perpetrated of all things heinous at the expense of the unformed, trusting, and innocent mind of the child.