THE BOOK THAT’S BANNED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 2 August 1924, Page 15

THE BOOK THAT’S BANNED.

A SCHOOLMASTER'S VIEW,

(By H. T. Gibson in the Auckland Herald.)

Those who would leave to parsons and parents the duty of “teaching morals” to children are radically wrong. With very few exceptions, neither parsons nor parents can teach. Careful study of special theory, long practice, close observation of the child mind, and a natural aptitude for the work, are only a few of the factors necessary to make an expert teacher. And surely the teaching of morals demands expert skill. True, liy example and precept, parsons and parents can help and support moral teaching very greatly, but it is to the school that the child looks for guidance, albeit unconsciously. The influence of the schoolmaster is incalculable, for it caniiot be defined. It makes itself felt for many years after the pupil leaves school. Many people are subject to the influunce.of their school for the remainder of their lives.

If, then, the child sees that the schoolmaster not only acknowledges Bible truths, but also teaches from the Bible, will the child not look upon that teaching as part of the very fabric or his education, and hence as part- of his very life;- At present “moral instruction” is given in the schools, but the Bible is a. thing apart ; rarely referred to. This attitude toward the foundation of our morals is about as consistent as trying to teach swimming' on the kitchen table. “But the sneers of atheist teachers might do harm!” says a critic. They might. Mrs. Partington's broom might sweep back the Atlantic. The average common-sense parent would tolerate such sneering about as long ns he would tolerate the teaching of disloyalty to the Empire. At one time I opposed Bible, reading in schools, even with the- “right of entry” denied to the clergy. But 1 was wrong, for I failed to realise the fundamental fact that education consists of three great branches—moral, mental and physical—and that these branches cannot be dissociated any more than brain, body and conscience can be dissociated.

Our civilisation is based upon Christian ethics, morals and precepts, and these ethics, morals and precepts are to be found in the Bible, and in the Bible only. Hence ■we cannot teach children ethics without using the B(ible; we may a® well attempt tlo make a •watch and leave out the mainspring. But, as the introduction of the Bible, or suitable selections from the Bible, into our pijblic schools might raise the bogey of sectarianism, should we run that risk ? Certainly, and kill the bogey. But does not that killing bristle with difficulties? Of course, it does, but did our boys at Gallipoli sit down and say, “We can’t attack, the difficulties are too great, and we fear the consequences?” How can we kill the bogey? By conscientious adherence to the spirit of the work, by explanation of words and phrases when necessary, but by refraining from colouring our explanations with even the slightest tinge of our own particular form of belief. I know full well that the overwhelming majority of our teachers are broadminded and honest- enough to Tesist any temptation to. air their own ideas. “But why should teachers undertake the parson’s job?” asks another critic. Because, even supposing the typical parson were a teacher, which he is not, he has control of a very few children for, maybe, an hour a week, whereas the schoolmaster has control of all the children for practically the whole period of their elementary education. “But is it not the. parents’ duty to teach Bible ethics?” Of course it is, but parents will not do it; they seL dom have the time to spare, and the majority cannot teach even if they would. They might tell facts, but telling is not- teaching.' No, it is the teacher’s business to educate, and if the parents and parsons cannot, or will not, supply the moral branch of education, then teachers should do so. Our present system is incomplete, for we attempt, or seriously attempt, only two of the three branches. We urgently need a standard of conduct in order to overcome the indifference and the ignorance which invariably lead to a wrong conception of’ life and its uses.

What do I mean by “wrong conception ?” The conception that pleasureseeking is man’s chief aim in life, and that materalism is its gospel; the conception that trades unionism is the panacea for all industrial troubles, and that agnostic socialism will cure all social evils; the conception that because all men are born equal, therefore, they must remain equal throughout their lives; and the conception (quoted from a party newspaper) that “the Christian God is but the God of earlier ages, made up to suit the present economic orders of society; we must banish the fcuperstitution from the minds of the youngsters if ever we intend them to be fighters for the Revolution.’’

It is of national importance that our national ethics should be taught in our schools, and a® the Bible is the repository for these ethics, the Bible is indispensable. To. ouote statistics showing that such-and-such a. State, where Bible reading is carried on in the schools, suffers from a higher percentage' of crime than does a. State where Bible reading is not carried on in the schools, and to condemn the system therefrom, is utterly false logic, inasmuch a« it attempts to argue from the particular to the general, and, moreover, it does not consider any conditions or influences affecting the issue. Because all sparrows are birds it does not follow' tliat all birds are sparrows; moreover, if one sparrow is sick it does not follow that- all .sparrow's are sick. Further, to quote the crime .statistics of countries where religion (N.B. —religion) is taught in the schools, and to compare them with the- crime statistics of countries where the Bible is not read in the schools, and then to point out that the latter countries are freer from crime than are the former countries, is a totally false comparison, and hence a totally false conclusion. To teach sectarian religion in schools is a. vastly different matter from reading the Bible in schools. We may teach a boy mathematics, but he does not learn chemistry thereby, though he must understand mathematics before he can understand chemistry. Bible ethics form part of our Christian faith, but they do not constitute a. particular religion. Briefly, either we are a Christian nation or we. are not. If we are, let us tackle this part- of the work; let u® give our children every possible chance to maintain our Christian ethics and hence our civilisation; let us not tamely say, “We are too afraid,'’ but let us circumvent obstacles, overcome idffieulties, and face our responsibilities as British people should.