BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Evening Star, Issue 19891, 13 June 1928, Page 6

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

We admire the zeal of the Bible instate Schools leaguers, by whom another meeting was held in Dunedin yesterday. We are convinced, however, that tho goal of their Bill would make even less appeal than it does at present if they were content to define it more precisely in their attempts at propaganda. It is not a Bible in Schools Bill, but a Religious Exercises in Schools Bill — something very different —which Mr H. Holland, M.P., undeterred by past rejections of it, hopes to bring forward again next session. It is not religions teaching for which it provides, but a formal procedure from which all unction would be absent, and in which faith need not be present on the directors’ part. The league would bo rightly named if it were called tho Religious Exercises in State Schools League, but that name, it is natural to believe, would bo attractive to few. Mr Holland seems to have been as vague in his history yesterday as ho was in his description of his Bill. Ho recalled that when the present Education Act. introducing a national system, -was passed fifty years ago it contained a clause that tho teaching must be “secular” throughout, and ho added that “ how the word ‘ secular ’ had crept' in was difficult to understand.” There does not seem to have been much mystery about it. What Mr Holland did not recall was that before th%. national system was introduced religious education was provided for in greater or less degree in tho systems of education of most of tho Provincial Governments in New Zealand. And two of those had to get rid of it, owing to tho difficulties which it produced, before it was excluded from the; national Act. Auckland began by making religious instruction a matter at tho option of the local school committee, with a conscience clauso for pupils. In 1867 this provision was abolished, doubtless for good cause, and secular instruction alone obtained. When the

system was revised and improved later ths religious teaching was not restored.

Bible reading was prescribed in the first Canterbury scheme, and abolished in 1873. Tho Hawke’s Bay and Marlborough systems were entirely secular from tho first. Th© disadvantages of religious instruction in schools, therefore, were learned very early in New Zealand.

Nor is there any evidence that it was by an accident, or an oversight, or the confusing of the word “ secular ” with “non-sectarian,” as “able men” aro credited with suggesting, that tho teaching was left out of the national Act. Tho Hon. C. C, Bowen, in introducing his Bill, used tho terms “secular" and “absolutely secular” to describe its system (‘Hansard,’ vol. 2-1, page 36). Ho did indeed provide for BibJo reading, subject to a conscience clause. But that provision was deliberately struck out of tho measure in accordance, it can only bo supposed, with the experience of tho House, A sub-section of tho Bill provided - “Tho school shall be opened every morning with the reading of the Lord’s Prayer and a portion of the Holy Scriptures.” ‘Hansard,’ vol. 25, page 515, seta forth the sequel. A member moved in committee—“ That tho words ‘ Tho school shall ’ bo struck out, with a view to inserting the words ‘ The school may if tho committee think fit to direct -’ in lieu thereof.” The words were deleted. When it was moved that the new words bo inserted the motion was rejected by 35 votes to 19, and tho remainder of tho sub-section was struck out. There was no attempt to reinsert the clause at the third reading. In introducing tho Bill later to tho Upper House the Hon. Dr Pollen stated: “Tho education is proposed to bo secular, because without presuming to undervalue tho teachings of religion it is thought that tho teaching of religion forms no part of tho duty of tho State in the schools of tho State.” That is precisely tho position taken up by tho opponents of the Bible in State Schools League to-day.