THE FIGHT FOR THE SCHOOLS

Evening Star, Issue 15539, 8 July 1914, Page 4

THE FIGHT FOR THE SCHOOLS

THE “SIMPLE” BALLOT PAPER

REQUIRES A SIMPLE VOTER,

[By Joh v Cavghley, M.A.]

No. 11l

The Religious Instruction, Referendum Bill contains a form of ballot paper to be put before the electors. For this ballot paper the Hon. J. Allen is, of course, not responsible. It was drawn up by the Bible-in-Schools, Clergy-in-Schools, and Compulsory Teaching of the Bible, and Sectarian Instruction League. It is almost word for word the ballot paper used in Queensland. Bishop Julius declares that it puts the issue plainly. It was shown in the previous article that on the same paper hundreds of people in Queensland did not know they .were Introducing sectarian teaching into State schools. That is what Dr Gibb, when he was free, called “an insidious thing,” which he would at any time “resist to the.uttermost.” This article will show that even after the referendum poll in Queensland, after many sections of the community upbraided themselves for their blindness in not seeing what this ballot paper let them in for—even then, in Parliament, neither friends nor foes of the Bill—not even the Government which forced it through at the demand of a quarter of the electors; nay, not even the Ministers who piloted the Bill through the Assembly and the Council—knew what this innocent-looking little ballot paper had let them in for. The statements given here are all in Queensland ‘Hansard,’ 1910 (vols. GY.. CAT., and OVID: Mr Mann, M.P. : “ People did not know the facts of the matter. He asked numbers of people after the poll, and they did not know what they had voted for.” The Hon. A. Hinchcliffe: “The taking of the referendum was little less than a farce." Mr Ryland, M.P.: “The people did not know the issues.” The Hon. Taylor: “ I do not think

they knew what they wore voting for. They did not know about tho tea'chers' part". They thought- the ministers were to do it.” Mr May, M.P.: “Most people were led to believe that it- was simply to introduce texts of Scripture into the readers—i.o., the ordinary school reader.” (Note. —Our proposed ballot paper says “Bible lesson; from a reading book.”) Mr Crawford, M.P. : “It would take a careful, calm lawyer to understand what the ballot paper involved.” Mr Allen, M.P. : “ Thousands did not know what they were voting for. They were faced with placards on the booths ‘Vole for God and the Bible.’” The Premier (Hon. W. Kideton) said : “The fact is that, like myself, the people were so much concerned about the Federal election that they let every other question stand for the time being.” —(Yol. CV..’ p. 485.) Scores of other statements,.none, of them challenged or refuted, were made by many members- of both Hoi.see. Yet it is proposed to take this referendum on the- topi of the parliamentary and No-lice rise poll. within Parliament. When the Queensland Premier, who pushed the amending Bill through the House, waiiiskcd what he expected to do, he replied* “If the teacher is a sceptic I expect him to make the children sceptics.” He showed also that ho expected teachers of every denomination to tinge their teachings with their own beliefs. “ Whether you make verbal comment or not, the almost inevitable consequences are that the opinions of the teacher will bo stumped on the minds of the children.” So said the Hon. W., Kid stem

The Hon. W. Barlow. Minister in charge of the Bill, promised in good faith when the Referendum Bill was discussed that no teacher would be compelled to give the Scripture lessons. But when a conscience clause was proposed for teachers ho was forced ro break his pledge, because that innocent-looking ballot paper did not provide for" it. Ho did not know that till too la:©. Is it any wonder the-voters did not know? He actually declared: " H a teacher had conscientious objections to teaching any religion ... he should hardly be in tho school at all. ... A teacher was not obliged to believe what h© taught. Why should not I teach the Roman Catholic catechism’ I do not- see that a man's conscience is outraged by having to teach things (i.e.. Bible lessons) he- does not believe ” (CVI.. p. 2,015) On ouch conditions was the Bible given to the children of Queensland. If a teacher did what this Minister said he could do, would ho not be teaching religion? THE PREMIER WAS CAUGHT.

During the Referendum debate the Hon. tV. Kidston ea id : ‘‘We had better leave the matter to the people, and let the representatives of the people in this House (note well) —afterwards settle what was the right thins to do.” He, the Premier, though that the House “ afterwards could do what it believed to he mht. He learned too late that the “simple, inno-cent-looking ballot paper bound and muzzled the representatives * the people on the vote of about a-quarter ot Lie electors '. ?hclock's bond I No amendments ! . . ~ The Hon. A. Barlow, in charge of the Bid, announced on Wednesday at 5 P-m. that the House would go into committee on the Bill, and must report by 5 p.m. on Thursday. He said he would accept ‘No amendments” in committee. At 5 o clock on Thursday the Chairman of Committees will say : ‘I beg to report the Bill without amendment. This before a single amendment was proposed. The Hon. Barlow said: “I regret being compelled to resist amendments.” Who compelled him? In the other House a member pointed out; “The officials on whom the Minister should rely for advice are pushed to the back, and in front we find some clerical gentleman and others connected with the Bible in' Schools League—(N.B.) —to whom the Minster alwavs refers when we want an amendment.” The Premier said : “It is too late to argue that wav now ; you should have told the people all that before tho referendum. ’ Too late' To do Justice! Too late to protect liberties I Parli&nient - w;is a k..tLrnson that had yielded to Delilah, and when it said : “ I will arise and shake myself, ’ it found its strength gone. NOT TO TEACH RELIGION?

Our “ simple ” 'ballot- paper says the rea/iin* Of the Bible lessons is to be “ conducted under the supervision of the public school teacher, but- no sectarian teaching is to be allowed. Is there no religious teaching that is not sectarian. A Queensland member moved that the teacher should make no comment or ex plAnation of tho Bible lesson, was refused by the league per the Minister, because it- was “not in the referendum. It would wreck the Bill. Why should it. If the teacher were not to give religious instruction? The Hon. A. Barlow, who was in charge of the Bill, in reply to a- statement that the ministers under the Right of Entry could bring sectarian catechisms into the State schools, said : “They cannot do it.” He was utterly •wron". Any minister under the Right of Ent-rv can do whatever he likes. He is a law unto himself. No wonder that the voters did not know that this cama undr--the simple phrase in the ballot paper : “Provision to ,be made for religious instruction in school hours . - - by a minister.” The league’s pledge card calls 1 it “ Teaching the faith of their fathers. ANOTHER. The Hon. Brentnal, who voted for the ; Bill, said : “ if 1 thought any chui‘ch was into our schools teach any peculiar texts or any special doctrine, or anything that is not proved from the Bible, I would Vote against the Bill straight away.” Another legislator voting for the Bill, and he, too, does not know what the “ simple ’ , ballot paper involved! Under the provision* of this ballot paper, a Mormon, a Mohammedan, a Spiritualist, could go into the schools and teach what he chose. Further, -all the “peculiar tenets” in Christendom claim to be “proved from the Bible.” But what does Dr Gibb, the Presbyterian champion of the scheme, say of the Right of Entry in England—“ It was de-

signed by ita promoters to enable the Anglican body- to - indoctrinate the youth of England, with tenets which we hold in detestation—tenets that we believe are contrary to the plainest teachings o£ the Word of Odd.” What would the Hon. Brentnall say to that ? Dr Gibb concludes : “Bible in’ schools is one thing : priest in the school is another, and a very different thing. We are equally united in our determination to obtain the .one and to resist the other. with all our might.” Thus even a learned man like Dr Gibb does not know that the Bight of Entry involves what he denounced so strongly above Otherwise he would be a vicepresident of the National Schools Defence League, or, in his own words : “I would be found in the van of those who would resist it (the Bight of Entry) to the uttermost.”

When the Premier of Queensland, the members who pasted the Bill, some who voted for it, even the two Ministers who took charge of the Bill, and even Dr Gibb, do not know what this “simple” ballot paper involves, what is the mere voter to clo? He is deluded with the cry for “the Bible,” and he thinks tliat is all he is voting for. Oh, Religion ! Religion ! Wiiat things are done in thy name ! Is it any wonder that our Presbyterian ministers spoke out “for the credit of rresbvterianism.”