BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Star, Issue 19025, 21 August 1925, Page 2

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

HR ISITT’S BILL DEFEATED HOUSE SITS TILL SUNRISE [Pee United Peess Association.] WELLINGTON, August 20. Mr Isitt, in moving in the House of Representatives the second reading of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill, said he had been criticised because he had at one time opposed a measure for religious exercises in schools; but that was because that measure provided no conscience clauses. He pointed out that this was a Protestant country, and its present system of State schools practically killed all hut a few private schools in which religious instruction was given. Two-thirds of the people of the dominion desired religious teaching in schools. It surely was the duty of Parliament to protect the moral and religions welfare of the people, which was threatened through the absence of religious teaching in’ schools. Circulars sent throughout the country asked school committees to express their views upon this Bill. He quoted replies from 820 committees, 600 of which favored it. The one harrier against the passage of a measure such ns this was the opposition of the Roman Catholic block vote. If the Roman Catholic Church favored the Bill Mr Isitt ventured to say it would he passed at once. He declared it was going too ' ,r that we should ba told that the Roman Catholics ware to dominate the manner in which the children of the Protestant majority in the country should ho educated, Protestants had made many concessions in the past in order to placate the Roman Catholics and to reach a •working agreement on this subject, but they were not satisfied with anything but the right of entry to teach their own particular religious tenets. He wished in fairness to say ho knew that not all Roman Catholic laymen were opposed to the objects of this Bill. The clergy were, of course, and the reason was not far to seek, to his mind, for once a Bill of this character got on the Statute Rook all chance of securing State grants for denominational schools would bo gone. Mr Isitt said the people had twitted him with being bigoted in bis opinion. There was no one more bigoted than secularists. Many agnostics—Huxley, for instance —had expressed regret at the exclusion of the Bible from literature included in the course of study for the youth of the nation. Religious exercises, as a matter of fact, wore even now hold in certain secondary schools, and all that was desired was to give such exercises full legal sanction. He declared that the conscience clause provided the fullest protection to teachers. The Bill had the wholehearted support of all Protestant churches and provided for nothing in the nature of denominational training unless a teacher deliberately violated the law. No nation could continue to ignore religion without paying the penalty through depriving the rising generations of the influence of the Bible.

Mr Potter, in .supporting the Bill, quoted from Bishop Cleary’s book, ‘ God or no God in Schools.’ He denounced the present New Zealand education system because it excluded God from the schools. Mr Holland said that the Labor members would oppose the Bill because they were pledged to support tho present free secular compulsory system of education. The Bill meant the introduction of State religion. It did not matter to him what that religion might be. The fact that its outcome would be some form of State religion was enough to condemn it. No majority had the right to dictate to the minority on the question of religion, which should bo a matter for personal decision. Tho introduction of religions instruction in schools could only have one effect, which was to foment sectarian strife between the children of the different denominations. The conscience clause would bo useless to protect the teachers who were not prepared to take tho teaching required under this Bill. It would simply operate as a religious test. If the Bill became law there would bo no logical ground to deny State subsidies to Roman Catholic schools. The place for teaching religion was the church, the Sunday school, and tho homo. Sir James Parr said that education to-day was not now a question merely of cramming children with facts. It must embrace all sides—mental and physical. The position of our present system was somewhat anomalous inasmuch as some 25,000 children in opr high and technical schools wero_ receiving just the kind of religious instruction provided for in this Bill, and that without the slightest protest from the parents of the children. Yofc when it was proposed to do the same for the primary schools it was said it would lead to a great national disaster. This anomaly must be removed. He quoted conditions prevailing in most countries in the world with a view to showing that religious instruction was given in their schools. This was the proposal made in the original Bill introduced hero by Sir 0. 0. Bowen in 1877, but owing to sectional differences that part of the Bill was dropped, much to Sir C. C. Bowen’s regret. Since then a great change had taken place in religious opinion, and to-day, instead of. Protestant churches being divided, they were absolutely unanimous in favor of this Bill. Singularly enough, the people who opposed this Bill were those who in one breath said our schools were Godless, pud yet who, refusing to send their children to our schools, claimed tho right to say what should be taught in those schools. Our education system must in future embrace tho moral as well as the mental side. At present wo were excluding from our schools the greatest Book of poetry and philosohpy in the English language, and this source of pure English' should be, brought within reach of our children.

Mr Atmore opposed the Bill. He said if the clergy had not shirkcd_ their duty there would be no difficulty in the matter. It was most unfair to expect school teachers to undertake tho work for which the clergy were specially trained and the teachers were not.

Mr Witty said that religion had caused more wars than any other cause of strife, and if tho Bill were passed it would have the effect of creating strife and destroying friendships made at school. He regretted that in the dying hours of his political life Mr Tsitt should have brought down a Bill which could only have the effect of creating sectarian conflicts. There was no real demand for the Bill by the people of New Zealand.

The Hon. Mr Nosworthy said he supported tho Bill last year, and he would do so again. 'The abolition of the Bible from schools was, in his opinion, one blot on our education system established in 1877.

Mr Forbes said ho could not understand tho Reform Party supporting the Bill when its platform distinctly declared for free secular and compulsory education. If that were the Reformers’ idea of keeping pledges he was sorry for them. It was not his ideal of political morality. The Hon. Mr M‘Leod said he was guardian of his own political honor, and when the. Leader of the Opposition twitted the Reform Party with breaking political pledges he was not on very safe ground, since he was elected as a Liberal-Labor member, and was now leading a National Party. Ho itho speaker) had always favored Bible reading in schools, because he knew of what service tho Bible had been to 1 is own country, and he knew that when a country forgot its God its end was not far off. | The debate was continued by Mr Dangstone, who opposed the Bill, and

by Messrs Harris, Buddo, ami Lysnar, who supported it. Continuing the debate after 1 o'clock, Messrs M‘Combs and Armstrong op-, posed tlio Bill, while Messrs _Rolleston (Waitomo), Edie, and ]\l‘Millan supported it. LOST BY S!K VOTES . [Pur United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, August 21. -After the Telegraph Office dosed the debate was continued by Mr Lyo, who deprecated any attempt to destroy the harmony of our national system ot education by the introduction, of sectarian rivalries and strife. The most impressive place for the imparting of religious instruction was in the church, the Sunday school, and in the homo. Mr Sullivan said Mr Usitt was guilty of extreme political timidity in waiting till ho was retiring from politics before he introduced a Bill such as this. .In a community with mixed religions there was no alternative hut to teach all religions in the State schools or none. It was not possible, as the supporters of the Bill supposed, to find any common ground on which all denominations could meet. The mover of the Bill would have to show how it was just to make the people pay through taxation to support brands of religions to which they wore conscientiously opposed. Mr Murdoch opposed the Bill because he was pledged to support the present .secular system, which so far had kept religions bitterness out of our schools. Air Savage said Parliament should pot interfere with the religious belief of individuals, and therefore ho would oppose the Bill. Mr Parrv declared that the Bill aimed at destroying the secular character of our education system. He knew the appalling effect of the sectarian system in New South Wales, and he would not think of introducing that system into this country. The Bill would have his implacable opposition. Mr Bar tram said, although it was 3 a.m., an hour when all good Christians should be in bed, he must enter his emphatic protest against this wretched Bin.” ' , Mr Fraser argued that our present duration system came through the ordeal triumphantly, and as the Bdl ..-s an attack on that system he must opnose it. If this Bill passed there conul he no logical reason why Roman Catholics should be refused State aid to their schools, and then what would become of our national system ? Mr Jordan declared that the Bill was just a'political “ put up.” Practically every member was pledged to maintain the present national system of education, and they all knew that if the Bill were allowed'to pass its second reading it would be killed in committee; As there was no referendum clause in the Bill ho would oppose it. Mr Dickson (Parnell) contended that the debate was nothing but a struggle between the remnant of the old Liberal Party and the Labor Party as to which was to get the Roman Catholic vote. After 3 a.m. the Bill was opposed by Messrs M'llvride, Howard, Smith, Rolleston (Timaru), Montoith, O'Brien, and MTveen. The latter opposed the Bill mainly on the ground that it was a danger to the present system ol education; while Sir John Luke and Mr Dickson (Chalmers) indicated that they would support it. At 6,15 a.m. Mr Isitt rose to reply. Ho said the debate had been remarkable for the torrent of abuse showered upon him personally. Ho ridiculed the charge of cowardice made against him. Ho had not introduced the Bill before because it had not been possible earlier to come to agreement upon the terms of the Bill. It had been said that the clergy and not the teachers should give religions teaching, but how was it possible for 1,500 clergy to attend live days in the week at 4,000 schools? The talk of religious hatred between children or of the punishment of teachers who did not care to give religious instruction was so much nonsense. They were only two of the bogies which were being constantly put up against the Biff.' At 6.45 a division was taken, the second reading being lost by 32 to 26. The Prime Minister intimated that the Estimates would be gone on with this afternoon, and to facilitate this the Eduaction Report was tabled. The House rose at 7 a.m. till 2.30 p.m.