BIBLE TEACHING IN STATE SCHOOLS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 178, 14 July 1911, Page 11

BIBLE TEACHING IN STATE SCHOOLS

AN UP-TO-DATE REVIEW AND APPEAL. (By the Ven. Archdeacon Willis. Cambridge./ IV. THE NEED FOR A CHANGE IN THE LAW. In the thud aru ■ of p..s sei <> I showed tic* ti-e-Zt S'ties< of tnpresent tor volm.’.vv teaching in iiu- sellouts. I'ndct tiirse cirenrnstani-es if the Bible is to be taugi t :l> re is nothing else t« be done Ent t• > make a change in th« Education Law. Of course, there are objectmns made to the change, but they are all easily answered. 1 will take a few of the objection? commonly raised, setting r.ut what they are as briefly as po>.-ib!e. and then answering them in order. A Great Variety ut Objections are brought forward. It is said <•> that the State should have no thing to <t<i with teaching religion or the Bi'oh-: •?» that the re intro duction »f the J-'d>le v.ouhi be a return to denominational education : (3) that no change should be made until all parties are agreed ; (4; that a large section of the popula tion. including many Roman Catho hes. are against it : <3> that if thr State makes tsti*. concession to Pro testants, she must make some othei to Roman Catholics: (6) that many parts of the Bible are unsuitable for teaching to children : <7> that the school syllabus is already overcrowded. and there is no room to add anything more ; (8) that many of the teachers are unbelievers, and would ridicule the Bible, and thus defeat the object desired ; and so on. But these objections and many others have been again and again

All Satisfactorily Answered. The answers may be summarised as follows:—(to No. L> That the State having practically annihilated the machinery mat previouslyexisted for teaching the Bible ought in reason to set up some other in its place: (to No. 2) that the exclusion of the Bible is a pan<iering to the worst form of denominationalism. for it makes all the people suffer to please a comparatively small section ; (to No. 3) that no law could ever be amended if we had to wait for all the people to vote for the amendment ; (to No. 4/ that those who object to the proposal would be protected by a conscience clause, and be free to withdraw from Bible teaching ; (to No. 5) that the Bible is the chief basis -f -aching of Roman Catholics aw di a; Protestants, and .n teacring it there is no advantage given to one Christian body more than to another ; (to No. 6) that only passages suitable for teaching to ch;lrlren should be used, and that various compilations with this object in view have been made; (to No. 7) that if the school syllabus is already f>d! it is a simple matter to re--u. jt»ge it. As to the last objectin'! *Xo S) that teachers would ridicule the Bible, it is a gratuitous assumption. and a gross libel which is unworthy of notice, and which should be swept aside with indignation. Another Objection which demands a paragraph to itself is that the introduction of the present Bible into the school system would be the death blow to the present excellent Education Law. The reasonable answer to this is that on the contrary the change would greatly strengthen the law if only by stilling controversy, and by supplying the one great factor needed to make the New Zealand Law* complete. And yet Another. I must ask a little more space to deal with an objection by the supI»orters of what is called the “Nelson" system. Under this system teaching by ministers of religion and others is permitted by some boards and committees during school hours; and this is said to meet all requirements. That system. however, had its weaknesses exposed at the annual elections of school committees last year. Although a praiseworthy effort was made to obtain for the “Nelson" system general support throughout the Dominion, the effort resulted in lamentable failure. It met with Htern opposition in many quarters, both from board* and committees.

The “Nelson" System possesses indeed the one merit where generally supported of se-i curing that some religious teaching] shall be given during school hours. . It suffers, however, from two of the , greatest defects of the New Zealand ( Educational Law as a whole, name 6 iy these:- Firstly, that only a por tion of the schools have any chance ' whatever of such teaching being' gnen in them : and. secondlv. that ; those who have a chance are sub ] ject to a variety of treatment ac- [ cording to the varying opinions ofi those who may be in authority locally for the time being.

One Other Answer. The New South Wales System is more important than any answer which I have yet given, because it is the answer which incontrovertibly silences all objections. The N.S.W. system is no theoretical idea, but an ascertained fact. It has been at work in New South Wales since 1866. in Tasmania since 186-8. in Western Australia since 1893. and in Norfolk Island since 1906. None of the terrible evils prophesised to come to New Zealand if she should adopt it have so far come to any of these States or communities. The New South Wales system has. moreover, just commended itself to the judgment of the peopl eof another Australian State, and the Verdict of Queensland was recorded in its favour by an immens majortiy of the people at the recent State Referendum. The particular excellences of the New South Wales system I will describe in my next article.