BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16327, 25 August 1913, Page 9

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITIES QUOTED. ADDRESS BY CANON GARLAND. The statement that educational authorities were opposed to tho introduction of tlio Bible into State schools was the subject of an address delivered by Canon Garland at an afternoon meeting at tho Grand Theatre yesterday, undor the auspices of tho Central Methodist Mission’s “Pleasant Sunday Afternoons” in tho theatre. The Rev J. Cocker presided. In opening his address Canon Garland said that after twelve months of existence it could not bo denied that the Biblo in State Schools League had made considerable progress, the credit for which he ascribed largely to the League’s opponents, who had by the issues they had raised aroused a deep sentiment in defence of the Bible as tho best English book for Englishspoaking countries. Ho wished it to bo made cloar that tlio League’s path would not be diverted to the right or

to the left, but it would continue straight to the sovereign tribunal of tho land, tho peoplo—tho "five hundred and ninety thousand freo electors of tho dominion. The League did not appeal to any particular section, class or profession in the dominion, but. to tlio whole community, and it. wished to leave the important question of religious teaching in the State schools to tho verdict of tho people.

INEW FJjXMUirm UUJND’JUatiIii'NUjC/. One of tlie issues raised against tlio Leaguo’s movement was that tho educational authorities were opposed to religious teaching in State schools, and another point was that at a recent conference of tho Teachers’ Institute in New Plymouth a motion declaring against tho Leaguo’s platform had been carried by 42 votes to 6. It was also urged that University profossors in the dominion were speaking against the movement. That the movement was clerical was another favourite gibe made by the Leaguo’s opponents, but it was the opposition that wished to confine it to a clerical movement, by preventing tho question going before tho peoplo of the dominion. BRITISH AUTHORITIES. Turning to Hie opinions of educational authorities. Canon Garland said that first he would quote the opinions expressed by Thomas Huxley, who had not been by any means a member of any Christian church, and had opposed Christian doctrines. Huxley had said that if he were compelled to choose whether he would send liis children, to a school in which religious instruction was given or’one without it he would send them to tlio former, though they would have to tako a good deal of theology with it. Ho was in favour of secular education, but agreed that religious training was an essential basis for the maintenance of national character. For three centuries the Bible had been the best book in the English history. It was written in the noblest language. Ho did not think that the race could dispense with the Bible. As a member of the London School Board ■ Huxley had fought for the retention of I tho Bible. Going on to name other I authorities, Canon Garland mentioned | Professor Sir Michael Sadler, who .he characterised as the greatest living authority on education; Mr Cyril Jackson, who had been in Australia as a director of education and was later on the London School Board, and Profes--1 sor Quiller-Couch, Professor of English at the Oxford University, who had declared that he had never ceased to wonder that the course never included tliei Bible, which intrinsically and historically was the greatest book of English prose. _ OF TR ANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE. • Some timo ago the New South Wales Government had sent Mr G. -u..

Knibbs, now Commonwealth Statistician, as a commissioner to tour the world and study the education systems, and Mr Knibbs, when reporting to the Government, had stated that the question of religious teaching in State schools was' considered to be of transcendental importance by every country, he had visited. Every country had considered it to bo tho duty of the State to present to its people tho best ideas of human nature capable of building up the national character and that the host means of preserving that was to train tho children in a Christian education. Ho said that the national character could not bo built up without inculcating religious ideas. “ In view of these statements,” said Canon Garland, “ how can we take any notice of tho local authorities who say that the educational authorities arc against us? It might be said, of course, that tho men I have mentioned knew nothing of the special conditions in New Zealand. Arc we to say that New Zealand is to he different from the rest of the world ? We are proud of leading the world; hut in the face of the authorities should we have something different unless we are sure it is better ? And I think it would require a hold man in New Zealand to say that tho rest of the world is absolutely wrong. But the education authorities in New Zealand are not wholly against ns. Even if we do not have a majority of them with us, there is no doubt that we have a respectable majority.” NEW ZEALAND AUTHORITIES. Dr Laisbley, of Auckland, he went on, who was sent Home in the ’seventies or ’eighties to report on the education systems of Europe and the United States of America, recommended to the New Zealand Government of tho day that the Bible should he included. He could not understand why the churches then had not followed up that recommendation. Mr Do Berry, headmaster of the Hokitika High School, had said recently that ho was longing to see tho Bible in the State schools. He had questioned whether tho New Plymouth conference could ho taken as representative of the teachers of New Zealand, especially since only about half of the teachers were members of the Institute. Mr James Deane, of Waihi, a head teacher, had characterised the decision of the New Plymouth Conference as a piece of impertinence, remarking that the delegates had 110 right to decide the nuostion—that “those wlro paid the piper should call the time.” Another teacher of the Otago branch of the Institute had stated that at tho conference, while pamphlets by Bishop Cleary and Professor ' Mackenzie . had been placed before each delegate, a paper written by the speaker in favour of j the League, had been left on the ! table. He had also stated that 110 I bad been prevented from writing to J.

tho “ Education Journal ” in favour of tho movement, because his views were opposed to the Institute’s policy. Under the circumstances, added Canon Garland, it could not be said that the New Plymouth vote could be taken as repre(sentative. Another teacher from the Great Barrier had declared that the curriculum was crowded by rubbish, such as brush work, which could ho cut out to make way for tho Bible.. He had also stated that in the sixth “ Pacific ” readers teachers were forced to teach Darwinian theories. Canon Garland said that he applauded the Southland Institute, which had refused | to take part in a deputation against the movement on the ground that the question was a matter for parents and not for teachers. Among those who supported tho League, Canon Garland added, were Mias Butler, of the Auckland Grammer School, Miss Allen, of Dunedin, and Professor Easterfield, of Wellington. CHRIST AND MAHOMET. In conclusion, Canon Garland said that in Now Zealand, which prided itself on its love of the democracy, the League was pleading for the liberty to allow the democracy to settle the question. Referring to the “ School Journal,” he said that in a recent number four pages had been devoted to tho lifo and teaching of Mahomet, and space was also given to Confucius, but no snace was given for the Saviour of the Christian nations, no space was given for the Benefactor of mankind. Tho League was only pleading in the year of graco nineteen hundred and tliirtocn to place Jesus Christ on terms with Mahomet and Confucius in tho schools of a Christian nation.