RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 33, 8 August 1934, Page 4

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION

THE LEAGUE'S REPLY •

TEACHERS' UNFETTERED CHOICE

Implying to the statements of the New Zealand Educational .Institutes on the Eeligious Instruction Bill introduced in Parliament, the Eev. N. P. E. Robertshawc, chairman of the Blble-in-Schools League Executive, Wellington, writes:— "After reading the third and fourth articles from tho Kew Zealand Educational Institute, I feel that tho objections in the mind of the writer of the whole series are based on two main j theories^ The first is that many teachers, having been trained to teach only secular subjects, do not wish to , have thrust upon them a new subjoct such as religious instvuetionj or religious observances as provided in tho Bill, e.g., the singing of a hymn, tho saying of tho Lord's Prayer, and the reading of n portion from the Bible. It is here that tho N.Z.E.I. has made its chief misrepresentation of tho terms of the Bill. This Bill proposes to leave to the teachers a full and unfettered choice as to whether/they will take part in the roligious'observances andinstruction or not. Surely tho Institute does not make the 'insidious' suggestion that the teachers will be afraid to exercise this choice honestly. By this provision tho whole question of a wrong j atmosphere in tho classroom is avoided,! and all this talk about 'hypocrisy, sham,! and humbug' is refuted. I COST OF BELHHOUS TRAINING. '' Secondly, in the fourth article, much play is mado about the expensive cost of giving this roligious training, As a matter of fact, tho secular-minded teachers, as described in the Institute's article, will be giving tho children of those parents who desire it secular teaching, while the teachers who arc willing to do so will bo giving religious j instruction to the children of those.parents who desire such instruction for their ehildron. Thus tho time of school hours would be used in the interests of 1 both sections of the community. ,

"The real moaning of the statementj that 'not a penny of taxation will bo added to the cost of education 3 lies in .the fact that any expenses, say, for books necessary for religious instruction, or observances, will be at tho-cost of the supporters of the Bible-in-Setiools League. To use tho statement" of the fourth articlS, 'The price of this, wo believe the most precious of things, will be nothing,' is unworthy of tho writer. To base upon it an argument of the immense cost to the State in tho time expended by teachers on religious observances is to !avoid the fact that many taxpayers strongly desire their children to receive religious training during school hours^ As to the argument that there are many hours outside school hours for giving this instruction, surely it-is evident that if religious observances and instruction are shut out of school hours, then religion in the eyes of to'achors and scholars becomes something less important than the subjects included in school hours. EXPERIENCE IN OTHER COUNTRIES. ''In: the reply on August i to my former'statcment, the N.Z.E.I. have con-| veniently ■■ failed to. refer to my con-tention-that in none ,of tho countries where some recognition of religious lifo is admitted into the school curriculum has thoro been any desire to got rid of it. The teachers in New South Wales, Canada, England, and elsflwhero enter into the religious teaching and observances wholeheartedly, and we do not hear •of complaints about lack of promotion, sectarian strife, or undue hardships because of religious convictions. The clergy, in those countries still ontcr the schools, and many of the clergy in New Zealand will still avail themselves of the privileges of the Nelson system. The real desire of the Bible-in-Schools League is that religion should bo recognised as part of the school life. "If we are to believe tho .N.Z.E.I. most of tho teachers in Now Zealand schools are agnostics. ' Has the N.Z.E.I. been able to impose a. religious test upon teachers of which wo arq unaware; and of which we would utterly dis-, approve? But I believe that'this charge against tho teachers is not true. If it were tvne, it would bo gravely disquieting to tho minds of the majority of the parents of schoolchildren. "Again, if there is any truth in the Institute's charge that the Bill is «iusidious,' then the only 'insidious' desire on tho part of tho promoters of the Bill is that after a period of, .say, ten years' trial there will be fewer andj fewer teachers who will object to thoj working of this system of religious training. True, educators will not dosiro to train body and mind, and leave untouched tho highest part of our human nature. Surely there are many teachers, as likowiso many clergy, who can sink their denominational interests to give wholehearted allegiance to the system of religious training as providod in the Bill. 'fin conclusion, many problems have found thoir solution during the period of actual trial. It is my belief that the difficulties stated by the N.Z.E.I. will be solved as tho system is worked out in practice." /