BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16431, 24 December 1913, Page 14

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

TO THEEDITOR. Hot S R HetvfontTs letter sri l ! tiesday i 3 J -' : anothor illustration of the-incapacity of .even a thoughtful minister' "to realise the ground of protest nsninst the injustice of the Bible in 'ethbols scheme;'" What" then .can be said for the 125,000 much j Joss informed and mostly indifferent | peoplo who have signed the League's pledge cards, without .considering the issuo-'ntair!*"' J ~~r '"" Though several other denominations would bo treated unjustly by the League's scheme, let. us take the concrete ease of the Roman Catholics as discussed by the Rev J. Hewland. Let us suppose-' the Leagtie's scheme to bo in *6ree.' This schbnio consists of two parts—the voluntary '"'right of entry V instruction by the ministers, for which the State is \hot responsible,* and the Scriptural instruction, for';which . the State, in-responsible, silica it' is drawn / up and .controlled by tho State and j given by State teachers. - "We may hero | assume that under, the right of entry j each'denomination has tho same privileges, so that this part of the scheme need not'concern us in the matter of! injustice. .1 Now for the State's part of the I work, for which the State is directly ; responsible. .The State, we assume, is' now giving, through its State teachers, a form of Scriptural instruction, whioh is acceptable to four Christian denominations.. This form" of .Scriptural instruction is totally opposed 10 Roman Catholic' teaching : and beliefs. They - cannot, on religious grounds, accept it. Yet the State puts it into the public schools at public cost, and thus provides acceptable Scriptural instruction for these' four denominations. -The public • schools have been thus made. Protestant schools, 1 with Protestant Scriptural instruction, paid' for by the State. Will the Rev J. R. Hewlund please show how, under these conditions, the State] could justly refuse grants in aid of Roman Catholic schools? Can the State justly refuse to provide ac- 1 ceptable religious education to Roman Catholics 'or any other denomination, seeing they have, as'wo assume, provided acceptable religious education for four other denominations? Dean Fitchett, who is described as a "masterly and trenchant" speaker in favour of the' Bible in schools movement, declared: "If Ihe Nelson system were made legal and«part of our education system, the schools would be impossible to Roman Catholics, and their claim for grante in aid would be irresistible.'' Why? The Nelson system provides for purely, undenominational Bible teaching given by one instructor to children of all denominations grouped together. This is exactly what tho Statergiven Bible teaching under the League'* soheine would provide. Tho ' State teacher would give undenominational Bible teaching, to children of all denominations, grouped together. And it would be legalised and part of our

system. Therefore,, according to Dean Fitchett's own declaration, the Stategiven Bible teaching under the League's scheme vwould "make the State schools impossible for Roman Catholics, and their claim for grants would become ■irresistible." That is if justice were done. •

I hop© to see tho Rev J. Hewland face the question of injustice I have raised, remembering that we at,-■ pre-: sent assume the right of entry visits to be equally fair to all,' and therefore" discuss the other part, which:' is "' the; only part the. State provides,, and. which is tho part that could involvo the State in injustice. Remember also that it is the refusal to provide acceptable religious instruction to one while providing acceptable religious instruction for others that would constitute the injustice.—l am, etc., ~ - - - JOHN CAUGHLEY.