TWO VIEWS OF A BILL

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 32, 7 August 1934, Page 8

TWO VIEWS OF A BILL

(To the Editor.) Sir, —By what authority is the Now Zealand Educational Institute entering into conflict with the Churches_ and parents over tho question of religion? Have all branches been consulted? The present Bill boforo the Houso is different from • one brought before branches threo years ago which was supported by some of the branches. It is a pity the writers did not more carefully guard against the mistakes they have made through not reading tho Bill before they attacked it.' The opening sentencq of their first article contains a mistake, and anyone- conversant with the- Bill can see tho haste with which tho articles Uavo been prepared. Then why use tho words "insidious" and "iin-British"? Why not give credit to foemon worthy of their steel? But why tho institute persists in treating ■ them as foemen puzzles me. Teachers might recognise tho importance of keeping on the level with men and women who in .all sincerity have tho moral and spiritual welfare of the community at heart, as well as with tho teachers of other parts of the Empire. . Such nonsense as is talked about Protestantism to Protestant clergymen belittles the institute in the eyes of the public.—l am, otc, H.M.P. Bunedin, 'August 4. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I would like to record a protost against tho Bible-in-Sohools proposal. Tho Roy. Mr. Hobcrtshawc says' tho Bill provides a safeguard) namely, only those teachers who wish to teach ami express their willingness to do so spsi fe^.jjJSSuit:Te<i-fyo gtee

As a member of the Ghurch of England I value my faith too much to allow my children to be taught religion by any willing teachers whatever their beliefs. The* Key. Mr. Bobertshawe, as president of the Bible-in-Sehools LcaguOj voices the opinion of th<i league but not the opinion of a vast number of Anglicans.—l am, etc., : P. ALLEN.