“BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.”

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 214, 24 August 1927, Page 9

“BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.”

(To the Editor). Sir. —May 1 be permitted to inform “Mother” that personal abuse carries no weight in a controversy. If she cares to ascertain my name and address from you, and investigate, she will apparently be thunderstruck when she finds that 1 am not a licentious, depraved creature, but, on the contrary, have not a stain upon my character, do not drink intoxicating liquors, smoke, play cards, gamble or nance, and am highly esteemed for my moral integrity by those who know me personally, Christians included. .\iu<: r. forbids me enlarge on my virtues. One tloes ~m need to be a Christian m order i.o possess those virtues said to be Christian, or to respect .the law of the land. A “Parliamentary report of the Status of Society in England and Wales” at the latter end of last century informs us that, of the total population, about 16,000,000 were Christians, and about 7,000,000 infideis. About 145,000 criminals in gaol professed the Christian faith, and about 350 were infidels. This gives us, roughly, a proportion ot 1 criminal in every 160 Christians as compared to 1 criminal in every 20,000 infidels. This report speaks for itself. There is no reason to believe that modern investigations would reveal any evidence of depravity among non-Christians. “Mother” says that "New Zealand is a Christian country therefore it is imperative that her children have Christian teaching in the schools.” The weakness of this argument is obvious. New Zealand is not governed by religion. Religion and polities are entirely separate. In theory, if not in fact .the State is absolutely impartial in its treatment of the subjects of the King, no matter what their beliefs may be. Religious inoierance must not be permitted to enter into secular affairs. Many of us have our rational powers crippled in childhood by some form of Christian dogmatism. We are taught that the Bible is infallible and that it is sinful to question its teachings when comparing them with the findings of science.’ AU criticism is of the devil, and the reason is the devil’s gift to man. I do not condemn all branches of the Church but only those which teach irrational absurdities. Those who have realised the harm done by irrational dogmatism take care to rear their children according to rational rules. They teach morals without promising a rewcvl in heaven or threatening their children with a fiery hell for disobedience. For the doctrine of future rewards and punishments is substituted that of moral obligation. When those children are old enough to studv religions they can choose or reject without having their opinions swayed to any extent by irrational prejudice or by emotion. As T said in my first letter, if moral insetruction is all that the Bible in Schools supporters wish to have introduced into our schools nobody ought to object. But there are innumerable books existant from which subject matter for the inculcation of social virtues can be obtained, many quite excellent ones written even hr agnostics. Why, then, pick upon the Bible for the title of the Act—a book which is the subject of unending controversy? Ts it not natural that non-Christian parents suspect the protagonists of the Act of attempting child proselytism? I am. etc.. COMMONSENSE. Hastings, 23/8/27.