Hawke's Bay Herald MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1879.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5403, 9 June 1879, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1879.

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. "When speaking at the pleasant meeting which brought to a conclusion the fortnight's technical training in which our school teachers have been engaged, both the Rev. D. Sidey and Mr Hill expressed regret at the interdiction by the Legislature of the Bible in our State schools. We can sympathise with both gentlemen, for our personal wishes would lead us to a similar expression of regret, but on other grounds we should strongly oppose any such innovation in schools supported by the State. Those who would have Bible lessons form a portion of the day's work in every school would, in perhaps the great majority of cases, object to any denominational training being undertaken or even countenanced in our national educational institutions. We say it with all deference, but the two views seem to us inconsistent. Granting, for the sake of argument, that the lesson could be freed •from any denominational bias, and that Protestant and Roman Catholic could take the same teaching, there are still others to be considered. There are Jews, to whom the teaching of the New Testament would be an abomination ; there are free-thinkers and infidels who, wisely or unwisely, object to their children being trained in the belief in a God; there are others who, though professing Christianity, look upon both Old and New Testaments from very different standpoints, accejDting one part but rejecting the other as fabulous or as merely figurative. Who is to say what part of the Book shall be, and which part shall not be, read? The Roman Catholics accept what is commonly known as the Apocryphal New Testament as having equal authority with the four gospels. Are these additional books to be taught? If not, even thoughffche Scripture lesson be free from bias, violence is done to the feelings and wishes of our Catholic fellowcountrymen. These objections, it may be urged, can be met by a " conscience clause," similar to that in the English Act, which provides that no child shall be forced or in any way coerced to attend the school during the half-hour allotted for the Bible lesson. Those who urge such an argument, however 1 , too often lose sight of the fact that this is opening the door to denominationalism, of which they often are the most vehement opponents. A "conscience clause " was one of the features of Mr Ourtis's bill. It would apply equally well to denominationalism as to simple Bible teaching. If all objections to the latter can be removed by a conscience clause, so can all to the farmer be obviated by the same means. The Eoman Catholics, if Bible teaching were admitted in State schools, could with, justice say, "Only give State aid to our schools and we will not oblige any children to attend during the hours when we give religious ti-aining. We will rigidly abstain from anything but secular teaching during fixedhonrs." It was, in fact, on precisely these conditions that Mr Curtis and his supporters sought to give State aid to denominational schools. There is then the cry raised immediately by the opposing Protestants " But. we cannot even accept profane history as taught by the Roman Catholics, and there are many ways in which their peculiar dogmas might be indirectly conveyed to the minds of children, who are not capable of discriminating in such matters." This argument again plays into the hands of the denominationalists, who in fact use it as one of their strongest weapons. They would turn the tables by saying that Catholics, for precisely the same reason, cannot send their children to Protosfcant schools. The histories written by Protestants arc not less one sided than those commonly used in Catholic schools, and each party has aii equal abhorance of the book adopted by the other. Some advocates of Scriptural, as opposed to denominational, instruction go so far as to adroit

their inconsistency, tilt point to England, Vh^ro, they allege, a .cbh-scietifce-olause has been found to work admirably. Those who have recently left Home, or who hare cattily watched the under-currGnts of English politics since Ml* ■ Fafster''s Act b'ecame law, know that the conscience-elaus^ has led to th'e ntosfc bitter/ Strife between 3?fotestants and Catholics — strife all the more- bitter because it has its origin in the best and highest part of man's nature — his veneration for the T>lety. Each party thinks the other mi&tdieil, and from zeal in. the <3attse of that which they believe to be right put forth 'evety effort to carry their views. It is not too much to say that School Board elections are in many English towns provocative of ten times the ill-feeling which is caused by the election of a member of Parliament. Mr J'oMe^s experiment has Wii anything but satisfactory in England, and we do not se& any reason for believing that a simihvr system would in tH.6 dolonies meet with more general acceptance; Then there is &n additional reason why those unconnected with either the Roman Catholic or English Episcopal 'Ohtirches should oppose the intrddiictton of Scriptural teaching £Afc6 schools. It has evet been one of the principles of the descendants of the Puritans to oppose the union of Church and State — in other words, the aiding of religion by the State. If Bible lessons were allowed in our public schools, the State would be indirectly supporting religion, and those who in ; England called 'themfeelVes (liss&ttteifs could not coiisisfee^tly advocate even that, inttiUeefc. aid.. One other objection, unfortunately of a somewhafe delicate nature, Mist be urged, for it is an important point. It ip not' all . school teachers wfco & r e fitted to . impart Scriptural instruction. • . None know better than those who have tried it the difficulty of. teaching the young even the simplest; precepts of our Saviour, without importing into the lesson some teaching more or less dogmatic and denominational in its character. There is one such teacher found here and there, but it is not everyone who is endowed with .Mr Hill's capacity for explaining the beautiful lessons taught by the Bible without trenching upon denominational ground. The majority are not so well-fitted for the delicate and difficult task, and there are some — happily few — who are wholly incapable of handling the pure and beautiful flowers culled from the sayings and the actions of Christ, without crushing and mangling the flower, until it loses all its loveliness, and presents but a mass of bruised leaves on a stalk. The reverse of profitable to the children would be the lessons of such a one, for they would be repelled instead of attracted by the simple and, when properly told, interesting history, of the life of our Saviour on earth, or of the good men who preceded or followed His advent. Even of those more sympathetic, and themselves embued with the deep religious feeling they aim at imparting to the young committed to their care, there are many who, notwithstanding every effort to free themselves from bias, would unconsciously import into their teaching some threads of denorninationalism — of the belief in particular dogmas in which they were brought up, and in which they become more confirmed as they have arrived at maturer age. It is not without regret that we place ourselves in antagonism to Mr Sidey and Mr Hill, and the many who ardently wish to see the Bible taught in our State schools. We should like to see the Word of God in every school throughout the length and breadth of the land, but experience teaches us that the difficulties in the way are insurmountable if we would do, no violence to those co-religionists whose views are different to ours. The feeling of the colony is most undoubtedly in favor of secular education in State-supported schools, and those who are wise will not risk raising bitter strife by reach-, ing after the unattainable, but will seek to make the most of "those agencies which remain to them," as ,Mr Sidey puts it, "in the instincts of the children, and the accepted views of their parents on these subjects, and especially in the thorough sympathy which animates them all with the virtuous training of the young, Earnest teachers may make very much of these things."