BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS ONCE MORE

Evening Star, Issue 21784, 28 July 1934, Page 3

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS ONCE MORE

TO THB EDITOR. Sir, —In an editorial in the ‘ Star ’ of October 18, 1927, nearly seven years ago, you wrote: “ We have expressed our opinion of this Bill (Religious Exercises in Schools Bill of Mr Isitt and Mr H. Holland) repeatedly as one that makes a minimum and conceivably worse than useless provision for religious education, with a maximum capacity for causing trouble, which it was the object; of its exiguousness to avoid. Now, in the midst of the discussion of it, Rev. P. B. Fraser comes forward with an alternative plan, set forth in a lengthy letter in our columns.”

And here we are, seven years later, with a new Bill before Parliament, by the. same, authorities. Of this new Bill, you express the same estimate as of the last. And with your valuation of it, I wholly agree. I am not a novice on this question. Here before mo is a letter written to me by the late Bishop Nevill, of Dunedin, who became Primate of the Church of England in New Zealand. It is dated September 4, 1905, nearly thirty years ago. He wrote: “ I have read with admiration from time to time your strong and able utterances in criticism of certain schemes for Bible teaching in schools, and I am led to ask whether you have given any close consideration to what is known as the New South Wales plan? ” And subsequently he . invited me to confer with him.

Well since then, many events and changes have taken place. We have the declaration of President Hoover, June 15, 1931:—“This; thd greatest crisis the world has ever known.” .This sentiment of statesmen, with the burden of affairs, finds an echo, and comfirmation; in all spheres of life, economic, religions, social, and international. Surely in our little world of. New Zealand the relation of religion, of Christian faith, to education, in our common schools, might.have been adjusted. Yet here we are, fifty years late, with this new Bill, a rickety aeroplane of Mr Holland’s, endorsed by the so-called Bible-in-Schools League (is it fifty ye£rs old, wjth half a million members?) on . parade once more. Language may fail to describe the feelings of: thoughtful Christian parents On the futility of Christian leadership. Is there not a profound cause, found within the leadership itself, and not in the common people or oven Parliament? , ■ '

Parliament and the people of New Zealand, in making education “ secular ” some sixty years ago, made no use of the word “ secular ” in the aggressive, agnostic, or Communist sense at present, in use, and rampant in our universities, where teachers are mismade. It meant no more than “nonsectarian” in the sense placed in the Bill of the late Hon. G. M. Thomson. The way has been open to the churches, if they were in earnest, and active, to have opportunity to teach the Bible and a measure of Christian faith, exactly as we hate had the muen-ue-gleCted opportunity to do m Otago for all these years. Like its predecessors, this new Bill violates the principle that the State shall not teacu religion, but shall leave the occasion and door open for Christian churches to teach their own, and that it'shall not require religious tests from'"jts teachers; while, at the same time, teachers shall not undermine or attack the Christian faith of their pupils. In this Bill teachers are placed in the position of voluntary teachers of “ religion ” ‘ without jtsT being known what religion they believe or teach. And that apparently is to he found by their acceptance (in what ’ sense?) of a “ manual of religious instruction ” to be_ prepared under direction of the Minister of. Education (who may bo of no religious belief), and sanctioned and endorsed by him. is not this a new State religion yet to be framed and endorsed? To read the proposal of the Bill for making this new State religion seems in these days 'wildly incredible. A religious Parliament (called “ a committee,” convened-by the Minister of Education) is to draw up this “-.manual ” of prayers and instruction. It is to be elected, not by. the votes of their respective denominations,, like members of Parliament, but anyhow. I need not describe how or what is implied. Only I see that the Teachers’ Educational Institute, which in the Bill is to have representatives in the religious parliament, has already, by unanimous vote, resolved to have nothing to do with it. Ido not hesitate to say-that if a plebiscite of the Christian people of all denominations were taken, the vast majority would refuse to endorse this Bill. Its terms and ultimate results are unknown to the people and incalculable by any of us.

The plan of mine referred to in your leader, is, as is well -known, nothing original with me; hut for long years here in Otago,, aiid in Victoria," has been in successful use—just as successful , as the churches themselves, and their prominent leadership, choose to make it. Already in Otago, under the Education Board, it has an open door; and it is- only the negligence, the apathy, of the churches themselves that prevents its being V great Christian success of untold blessing to parents amj children;and churches alike, as in good measure it is in Victoria. Compare the simplicity of principle in the Bill of Hon, G. M. Thomson with the incomprehensible and uncertain principles at vital points .of the Bill of My Holland. May I repeat the few’ clauses of Mr Thomson’s Bill, with a grateful acknowledgement to his memory? .

The following are the provisions of Mr Thomson’s Bill (1928)

2. Section 56 of the principal Act is hereby amended by inserting, after the word “ secular ” in subsection 4, the words “ in the sense of non-sectarian” ; and' by inserting, after subsection 4, the following subsections :

“ 4a. With the view of affording facilities for giving religious instruction by qualified persons approved by the Minister, half an hour on one or two school days in each week may be set apart in the morning or afternoon as the case may be.

“4b. During the time so set apart in any school no secular instruction shall he given to children not attending classes for religious instruction.

“ 4c. No child shall be required to attend for religious instruction unless his parent or guardian has signified in writing his willingness to allow his child to receive such instruction. “ 4d. No State school teacher shall be required to give religious instruction during the time set apart for. this, but he will see that order and discipline are preserved in the classrooms and school grounds.” —I am, etc., P. B. Fraser, M.A. July 27.