BIBLE LESSONS IN STATE SCHOOLS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXII, Issue 13574, 21 October 1904, Page 2

BIBLE LESSONS IN STATE SCHOOLS.

TO THE EDITOB. Sir, —One of the chief objections offered by opponents of Bible lessons in the State schools of this colony is that the kicro- ! duction of the Bible will turn these institutions into hotbe-de of sectarian rivalry and strife. The Bible-in-Schoo*;s party affirms that the-se fears are a, figment of imagination. They ask for evidence of the mischief wrought by Bible teaching in the schools of those countries which provide such teaching as a part of the ordinary curriculum. But they ask for this in vain. Reference has indeed been mads to tb<i struggle now going on in England over the Education. Act; but in reality that is an entirely different matter. Dr Clifford, the leader of the passive resistance movement, recently proposed a resolution in the Free Church Council (of England) in favour of unsectarian Bible lessons in schools. In supporting his motion, which was carried by an overwhelming majority, be said: "They must always bear in mind that in the State schools they regarded the child solely as a prospective 'citizen, and it was from this point of view that they desired Biblical instruction, the Bible being the best citizen-making literature in the world. Let them give such teaching as they had had in tie past. The people wanted it, and if the people wanted it why should the State refuse it?" If our opponents find no fade to justify their fears wo find many to justify our confidence. New South Wales is a, case in point. Many of your readers may not ba aware- that Tasmania ako strengthens cur contention. In a recent issue of the " Victorian Independent," the Rev A. Isaac, of Melbourne, recounts his experiences wien on a visit to tlie colony in question. He visited a, school in Devonport, of which Mr F. Solomon is the headmaster, from whom he received very full information on the subject. The clause in the>vTasmani&n Education Act dealing with' religious instruction is as follows : " The first half-hour of morning school or stated portion thereof shall be appropriated to instruction in sacred history. The teaching on the subject shall be strictly unsectarian and no children may be allowed to receive instruction in sacred history contrary to the objection of their parents or guardians." Mr Solomon's comment on the last sentence is worth repeating. "I have been teaching," he said, " sixteen years, and have bad no objections raised with the exception of a few by Roman Catholics." The sacred' history leesons are given in all the classes, and— Mr Solomon being witness—"the children eeem to enjoy them more than any of the other lessons." The teacher ia allowed liberty to enlarge on tbs aspect and importance of these .historic events, and no complaints are made of teachers misusing their liberty. The examinations on the subject are as thorough and searching as on any other parts of the State so'hooV curriculum. Mr Isaacs gives details of the examination papers submitted to both teachers and scholars, and wa»s present at the Devonport school whilo the head/master put three classes through, a Bible lesson. "It was a good illustration of what may be done in schools without offending the" sfcraitest of the sects." The thing can be done, it seems, in Tasmania without heart-burning and discord. Why not, I ask, in this colony also? I do not happen to have noticed whether any of the New Zealand papers hare referred to the compromise which so noted a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church as Cardinal Moran recently suggested to an educational conference in Sydney. He is reported as having proposed that the four gospels in the revised version should be read in the State sehoote of Australia. Comment is superfluous.—l am. etc., JAMES GIBB, President Bibk-in-School's conference. Wellington October 19, 1904.