The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, JULY 5, 1907. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14416, 5 July 1907, Page 6

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, JULY 5, 1907. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

School committees in various parts of "the country hare lately expressed opinions concerning the modest, if illogical, proposals of the Wellington Bible-in-Schools League. We understand that this League is not the. clerical body "which tried to disturb the basis of our education system two or three years ago, and which was so effectually answered at the general elections. But we are a little confused as to the relations between the league and the Wellington Citizens' Bible-in-Schools Committee, and when the identity of the people seeking information is in doubt we have, unfortunately, no means of checking the results of its investigations or of estimating its competence. However, the committee or the league has issued a circular, setting out the lines on which it desires to see the Bible read in the State schools. It would have the Book read "as a classic," the lesson, to be-super-vised by the State school teacher only, and no comments to be permitted except geographical, historical and gram matioal. Conscientious objectors are to be excused. School coanimittees are invited to state whether they approve of this scheme or not. The initial objection of the public, of course, will bo to the introduction of the Bible in any shape or form as a compulsory school book. There never has been, in education or politics, a factor of more potent disturbing qualities l than this wonderful "classic," and it ie a fact of common-sense and experience that when the Bible goes in harmony goes out, so far as State schools are concerned. But if the public could bo persuaded to brush aside this prime difficulty they would at once be faced by the preposterous proposal to leave the supervision of the Bible lessons entirely in the hands of tho teachers. Clearly, if there is to be Bible reading it should be supervised by teachers from outside the regular school staffs. Even this ©mall measure of definite religion would inevitably set most of the school committees in the country inquiring into the religious beliefs of the teachers. The sectarian consideration is unfortunately prominent at times in the selection of teachers even under our strictly secular system, and it requires no very extensive knowledge of human nature to imagine what would happen if the regular school teachers had to supervise the Bible-reading yf the scholars. School committeemen are not invariably men of wide reading and broad minds. Their understanding of the significance of a " classic " would bo strictly limited, and in a Methodist community or an Anglican community br in any community where one sect predominated, the committee would be anxious that the teachers should bo "eafo." W© cannot insist too often Or too strongly on these dangers. The Bible-in-Schools League claims to have made investigations in most parts of the world as to-the relations between religion and education, and the results are summarised in this circular. How the inquiries were conducted, from whom the information was gathered, and precisely what value attaches to these " results" are questions that admit of what Sir Thomas Browne called a wide solution. We might hazard a score of conjectures, any one of them reasonable, and in no case would the " results" be worth the paper on which they aTe written. The committees have to make what they can out of such "results" as these:—

Belgium—Tiro hours are given to moral instruction per week. Prussia—Four hours'.per week. Berlin—Four hours per week. Hamburg—Two hours per week. Germany—Banished tho Bible from her schools, but has now restored it. France—Moral instruction is given

The geographical confusion is here not less marked than is the confusion of Bible reading and moral instruction. There is a long list of " results " from America, giving such information aa: " Read in part of the schools," "No law prohibiting Bible reading," " R-ead for 250 years," and 6© forth. As a matter of eitern truth, although -the New Zealand system is seoulcur, an inquiry addressed to a New Zealander might draw precisely the same fwrt of reply. There is no law prohibiting Bible reading in New Zealand schools, and the Bible is actually read in some of the schools. We should hear nothing of this agitation if the minoeters of the Gospel and pious laymen were as much im earnest as ore those of Nelson, where the provisions oi the Education Act have been utilised to afford religious instruction to the great majority of the children in the schools. It requires a little energy and enthusiasm to do as the Nelson ministers have done, and apparently the people who might be oarrying on the work m the rest of the colony prefer to leave the schools in what they are fond of calling a godless condition. From all points of view this Welliiigton agitation must be regarded as an exhibition of misguided; zeal.