BIBLE IN STATE SCHOOLS

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 April 1913, Page 8

BIBLE IN STATE SCHOOLS

[to the editor-] Sir,—l had the privilege of reading “Conscience First’s” letter in your Saturday evening issue of the Star. He need not worry over his first letter failing to arouse discussion, for 1 .can assure him on good authority that no one else is. His epistle of Saturday, however, if not exactly “arousing a discussion” has moved me to devote a little time, and thought, and ink and paper to reply to it. With my friend “Conscience First ’ I agree that “ a system of religious instruction should be re-introduced to the public schools of the Dominion.” Possibly 90 per cent, of the people are agreed on this. The next question that arises is “What is the best possible system to re-introduce” the system that will give the “maximum of good” with the “maximum of ill.” Before giving an answer to that question let us state one or two facts(l) That New Zealand is, according to the last census returns ,overwhelmingly Protestant, which means that the State schools are practically sustained by Protestants. My friend speaks of “those three or four denominations.” I am sory he allows liis bigotry to eclipse his honesty. Why does’nt he act the man, and give honour where honour is due, and call things by their right names, any say “The Great Majority.” (2) That the minority must bend to the will of the majority, while so far as it is possible having their rights safeguarded. Our modern civilisation is built on this principle. It is the only workable principle is an enlightened country. The present movement for Bible-in-Schools is the outcome of that principle. At present “the minority are ruling‘the majority.” Is this fair? The majority say no. (3) Absolutely no objection could be taken, except by an Atheist or Agnostic, to the lessons which the children would be taught from the book proposed for use by the promoters of the movement. In Australia 31,000 Roman Catholic children are being taught, while during last year 7000 visits were paid by Roman Catholic clergymen. If my friend “Conscience First” will, before writing again, take the trouble to read one of those books (if he has not one I shall be happy to send him one) he will find after comI parisoii with the Protestant and Catho[lic version of the Bible, that it would he extremely difficult to tell which of the two the lessons were taken from. The priests at auyrate over .the pond use them and, according to authentic reports, find they work successfully. (4) The children read from those books as they do from their ordinary ■ reading books, and it is the duly of it? i teacher to see that they understand tin lessons as intelligently as they do tint others. The “Authorised Teacher" we found speaks of having been at work, before the books reach teacher and eliild. I have before me the Protestant and Catholic version and I find it: the easiest thing imaginable to “walk between the differences.” This is what we have in the proposed lesson books.

(5). Tlio people of this Dominion, with the exception of an insignificant in merit", are prepared to pay £IOO.OOO, and more if necessary, believing it to be of more value than a ‘‘Dreadnought.” which though conscientiously objected toliy a great number of people was built nevertheless. My friend innv argue that with religion it is different T reply that there is no difference in principle. (5),, The people of this Dominion, with the exception of an insignificant minority, claim as a British rigid, 111 at their children be taught the religion of their fathers, and that the same ho taught as a part of their aincelion. If a few object—as a few already do, to some of the things on the teachers’ schedule, but which makes no difference —they are at liberty to do so. Iml they must remember that after all they are but the minority.

The system proposed by the platform of Bible-in-Sttae Schools League is the onlv solution of this problemTHE MOSS. Kumara, April 12th, 1913.