BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16492, 6 March 1914, Page 8

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

DISCUSSED BY METHODISE CONFERENCE.

LEAGUE’S PLATFORM UPHELD (From a Correspondent.) DUNEDIN, March 5.

Considerable interest attached to this evening’s meeting of the Methodist Conference by reason of the fact that the Conference was to discuss the Bible in State Schools question.

The Rev J. J. Lewis moved:—“That this Conference affirms its adherence to the platform and objects of the Bible in State Schools League and congratulates the League on the success which has attended its eSorts during the past year, and urges the Govern? ment- to pass the necessary legislation to enable the people' of tlie nonunion to express their will concerning this important question^t tne next general elections.'’ In speaking to his motion Mr Lewis said he could not waste one minute of the time of the Confer-, ence by dwelling upon the question of tho necessity ot instruction from the Bible, on which they were all agreed. His duty was to show reason why the motion before the Conference should be supported by everyono present, lie expressed the opinion that as Methodist people they should stand firm. It : was .-unbelievable that any'Methodist conference in the world would reject a motion in favour of the introduction of the Bible into the State schools, and it was a mystery to* him that the Conference should oppovse anything so much in harmony with. the traditions and aims of Methodism. No English conference had ever degraded itself by accepting, a merely secular system of education, but the Australasian Conference afforded ample testimony and was an invaluable example of the vast amount of good accomplished- by the introduction of- the Bible into the schools. Their own Conference year after year had passed resolutions in favour of this system, and they were not going to turn their backs upon the glorious traditions of the past. A referendum on this question had been taken in Queensland and had resulted in 74,228 people voting for it and 56,681 voting against it, leaving a. majority of 17,000 for the introduction of the Bible into the State schools. Now, in regard to this question they had been asked if 'it would be workable and the Conference- appointed a committee to collect all .available evidence in connection with it. Some of those appointed to that committee were hostile to the proposal, but upon seeing the abundant evidence in its favour they came round and supported it. He had heard it said- that it would .be unfair to the teachers to require them to supervise lessons in ?. book in which they might not believe. He> said that -if he were in Turkey and he were asked to teach, the' Koran it would not be any violation of his beliefs. He -could consistently say that the Koran was so interwoven with usages and customs that it was imperative that- if the Turkish boys were to discharge their, duties as .citizens they should be made familiar with 'it. How. much lighter would the yoke be on the necks of their day school teachers. . Would the , reading of a Pea no about the beautiful stars or the corn or a chapter from the Sermon oh the Mount be auv shock to anyone’s principles or beliefs? The Church of Rome was against tho proposal, but then it was not satisfied with the present system- of education, and therefore they (the League) did not create any difficulty. It already existed. Under this system the priests of the Church of Rome could enter day schools and, give the children of their denomination religious instruction. ■ Sir Robertson Nicoll had told the English people that the Australians would have difficulties with, their -education question, and he had said tliat he did not' believe that it. would succeed.. Sir Robertson Nicoll did not ignore the fact that, in England they had an established church of hoary antiquity. They had their cathedrals, their landed aristocracy, and their squire-archy. Dr Youngman had given better proof of the system in Australia, and his opinion was far more interesting to the people of New Zealand. The Methodist Church, Mr Lewis added, had joined with the. other Churches on the platform of the League, and this union lay deeper than all human laws, oral or written, and they could not- withdraw from - the stand they,had taken. Mr Flesher seconded ■ the motion without comment. Tho Rev J. W. Burton moved as. an amendment. “ That -this Conference regards- the proposed referendum on the Bible in State Schools question in its prsent form as distinctly unfair, in that .it disfranchises so many members of tho community who, while agreeing with the first- section of the' proposal which aims at the introduction of the Bible into our State schools, cannot conscientiously vote for the section which seeks to introduce' an odious form of sectarian instruction to our children.” Mr Burton said a referendum upon the question "as at present suggested would be distinctly unfair, as it would have the effect of disfranchising him or any one else who, although not opposed to the introduction-of the Bible into State schools, was not in favour of the proposal as at. present constituted. This was a question he could not say yes or no to. He thought they had had too much experience of the referendum in the past in New Zealand to allow any confused issue to go before the people. The prohibition party had, asked for a sharply defined issue, and had got it, and in such a question as'this the same clearness should be given. He believed that. they should face the major question, which would yet be the great question in their Church. It had been said that- some,.thousands of people had signed cards, but he asked if these people knew what they were signing. He mentioned tho case of a man he had. met in New Plymouth who had' signed one of these cards firmly believing that it was a requisition to have tne Bible introduced into the State schools. Wheu he had mentioned the fact- that- it was in favour of the introduction ■' of sectarianism the man had disputed' it, and it whs not until he had sent- for his card and seen the tiling for himself that he had been convinced. There were hundreds; of people who had been misled in the name way. If only the name of the League had been changed to that of the “Sectarian Instruction in .State Schools League’’ it would' have' been nil right, because then the people would not have been misled. He felt just as strongly on this question as did Mr Lewis, but he would not bo a Turk, nor could lie teach the Koran, but he could teach the Bible, which was a higher book than the Koran, and he could teach it with confidence.

The Rev A. J. Senmer seconded the amendment and pointed out that they had been struggling against misrepresentation ever since the inception of the Bible, in State Schools League. While they opposed sectarianism in State schools they were in favour"' of the Bible in State schools.

The Rev C. H. Laws said that Mr Burton had raised tho bogey that the people did not know what they were asking for and also that there should bo a definite issue. A large majority of the people were prepared 'to vote for file platform of the Bible in State Schools League. These and like bogies had been raised in opposition to the proposal from the time of its inception, but the majority of the noriole knew exactly what they ro-

quired, and he had no fear that any counter policy put forward by , the opposition would take one' vote from the League.

The Rev H. Ranston said he did not believe in the right to enter the State schools.

Tho Rev W. Slade quoted instances where children were allowed to run wild without being taught the Word of God. Ho put in a special plea for those children.

The Rev J. J. Lewis, in replying, said the opponents of the League were afraid of the Anglican clergy, but there was no occasion for this as they were not such' weaklings that they could not stand up for their' church. He honoured the church he mentioned and could greet tlie clergy belonging to it as fellow-labourers. The amendment was defeated by. 86 votes to 15. and tlie motion upon being put was carried by 95 votes to 14. . . .