WHOSE JOB IS IT ?

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 36, 11 August 1934, Page 8

WHOSE JOB IS IT ?

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Your correspondence column has been occupied with letters for and against the Bible-in-Schools Bill. Tho supporters of this measure appear to overlook two important points. Tho first is "Shan the State teach religion1?" and the second' "Shall the State teach the Protestant religion?" It* might bo pointed out that the Presbyterian Church, which is interested in this Bill, is the one church above all others which has suffered in past ages for .liberty to hold and teach its own beliefs without any. State interference. One has only to read a. little of the early history of the Scotch Churches to find out what bitter wars have been waged over the interference of rulers, either King or Parliaments, with the religious life of tho people. Seeing that the Catholic members of the State are taxed to educate the children, why should they not have a say in what is to be taught in the way of religion? Would the Bible-in-Schools League bo prepared to accept such a modification of the proposed teaching that Catholic^ parents could allow their children to participate? Another point that is overlooked is that the system with its various "conscience clauses" will be mighty inefficient to the end which it is meant to achieve. If in a school of twelve teachers eight of them claim and'obtain exemption, who is to do the work? Is tho work of instructing tho 450 children to bo left to the other- four toiichcrsj^md .how arc they to copo with it efficiently1? Wo-have tho machinery in existence for tho adequate teaching of all tho religion that is necessary for the school to teach, in the Nelson system. Ono would think that the 'opponents of this Bill were all antagonists of religion. I for ono do not think a child is properly educated without a good deal of religious training. Where I differ from the supporters of this Bill is in the question of whose job it is. If children are growing up irreligious, and no doubt some are, then it is the fault of their parents first, the churches next, and tho State not at all.

1 agree with ' every word that has been written by tho New Zealand Educational Institute. I have no interest in the teaching profession ono way or the other on the matter, but if as a teacher I were asked to teach as truth something I felt vory doubtful about in my own secret mind, I should strongly object. As a parent I strongly object to. my children being taught i religion by thoso who do not profess i any other than a vory casual interest in tho matter. —I, am, etc., FRANCES E. ROBERTS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The church party says it desires some form of Scripture toaching in the State schools in order to introduce tho Word of God. If the,patient, conscientious instruction of the good men and women teachers who are scattered up and down this country is not the Word of God whoso word can it bo? If tho children are taught to observe and to reflect upon the wonders of the heavens, the' majesty of the sea, the wonderful productivity of the earth, the beauty and the order of Nature's laws operating throughout all existence, the marvellous mystery of birth and consequent dovclopnient—if they* arc taught these things and ard. encouraged to think about them, what is this but the Word of God! .

If the children are taught and en: couraged to be good' and true, brave and gentle, to bo sweet-natured and chivalrous, courageous and sincere, and are discouraged to be mean and false and everything that is "unworthy, why bother to introduce the ever-contentious Bible into the State schools? If tho lovers of the Bible honestly believe it to be what they say it is surely they could easily see that it would bo road and taught in their own homes. —I "am, °. C GERALD TUENEE. j Nelson.