BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16602, 14 July 1914, Page 5

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

THE BAPTISTS’. ATTITUDE. [From Our Correspondent.] DUNEDIN, July 13. Seven Baptist ministers in Dunedin and suburbs send the following protest to tho Press: — “ (1) Wo are strongly in favour of the first plank of the Bible in Schools League platform, which provides for the reading of simple Biblo lessons in the schools. (2) We are as strongly opposed to the second plank, which grants tho right of entry to ministers for the purpose of giving denominational teaching to their children. (3) In view of the fact that many thousands .of voters share this opinion common justice demands that if a referendum should bo taken the issues shall be', separated. To deliberately disfranchise considerable section of the community upon a vital religious question such as this seems to us distinctly immoral.” A PLEA FOR THE REFERENDUM BILL. (By tho REV ROBERT WOOD.) Tlie . so-called. National Schools Defence League has very serious objections to the people expressing their, mind on the question of the Bible in schools. In Wellington the other week a speaker at a public meeting asked: “To whom do the schools belong? Who supports them, and for what purpose? Who is to decide whether the Bible and religious instruction are to be given in them or not?” That is the question before the readers of your paper, and the answer of the average man is as plain as AB C. In the words of the Rev J. Reed Glasson, one of the most prominent Congregational ministers in New Zealand: — “ Tho answer is plain. The schools belong to the people, are supported by the people, and the people must, in the last resort, control them. ‘ Government of the people by the people for the people,’ is a sound democratic principle. The right oi the people to govern themselves and to control their own institutions lias been won at tremendous cost, and any movement that tends to undermine or curtail this right should be carefully scrutinised and strenuously resisted, lest this dearly bought right

be lost again.” . . Mr John Canghley is much m evidence in seeking to rob the people of their freedom in the matter of a referendum vote, and his methods of controversy are somewhat peculiar. He makes a statement that lie asks his ■readers to accept as an axiom something as settled as is the law of gravitation, and by a question-begging method rules out a proposed reform as utterly impossible and absurd. ror example, he lias gone up and down the country saying that it is not the. iunction of the State to have anything to do with religion, and therefore to have tho Bible in tho schools is unreasonable and absurd. Mr Caughley has on the back of his mind some absurd notion what the function of the State is, and because the Bible in schools proposal does not jump with Mr John Caughley s preconceived notions tlie proposal must be rejected., At this time of day a man is simply an intellectual fossil who rules out any reform by the application or an a priori, theory about tho function of the State. The late Principal Rainy, of Scotland, a man with a statesmanlike grasp of tilings, had to face in 18i„ in Scotland these question-begging methods of opposition, to the Biblo m schools, urged by some extreme voluntaries, and he-had to point out that it was only ladfl under twenty-one yeais of age or men'who stopped growing at twenty-one years of age who settled great practical questions such as the Biblo in schools by the application of an a. priori theory about the function of the State. In this dominion of ours, tho Government is simply the executive of the people, and the will of the people must rule. Another favourite method of trying to block the Biblo in schools reform adopted by Mr John Caughley is found in an abstract notion of justice that lie has at the back of his head. He expounds in his own peculiar way this abstract doctrine of justice, and shows conclusively that the Bible and religion should be banned in our public schools.

liife is too short to waste time on such sophistical trifling with a great and grave question. The practical question is “To whom do the schools belong, and who are controlling them?” Do our schools exist for the schoolmasters, or do the schoolmasters exist for the school? Does our postal system exist for the people or for the post office officials? Do cur railways exist for the people, or do our railways exist for the railway officials? The answers to these questions are clearly and emphatically that these great institutions exist for the people, and thepeople should have ultimately the control of them.

With regard to religious instruction in schools, the wishes of tho people must be carried out, and ‘Mr Caughley’s theories must not be allowed to block a necessary reform. What is asked for with regard to our educational system in New Zealand by the Bible in State Schools League is a change that would strengthen tlie system and make it more truly national. By the vote of the democracy in the Council schools in England Bible lessons have '•heir place nigh universally. In the Board schools of Scotland, by the votes of the democracy, the Bible has its place in the common schools. In most of the States in the Australian Commonwealth the same condition of things obtains, and now when Parliament is asked to give the people the power at the ballot box of saying that they wish our national schools of New Zealand brought into line with the national schools generally of our Empire, Mr Caughley comes on the scene and says: “This reasonable and righteous proposal is an altogether iniquitous thing.” Mr Caughley’s sophistical objections are simply absurd. Tlie request for a referendum is, I submit, one of the sanest and most reasonable requests that was ever mode to Parliament by a body of intelligent electors. It is simply a fact in the educational history of New Zealand that the Bible was fired out of the schools in spite of the wishes of Sir C. C. Bowen, then Minister of Education, by a vote in the House of Representatives, without the people ever having been consulted. The Otago Education Board, the Southland Board and tne school committees generally throughout Otago and Southland protested when the system was set up against the exclusion of the Bible. Voluntary plebiscites have been taken time and again in many places in New Zealand, and tho people in large majorities have always voted for the restoration of the

Bible. Tho Presbyterians in Otago parted with the income of their educational inheritance in the interests of tho Otago University, at a time when the Bible was in the schools of Otago, and the flinging of the Bible out of tlie public schools amounted to a betrayal of the confidence that the Presbyterians of Otago had placed in an undenominational system of education where the Bible, was recognised. Had the Presbyterians foreseen that our educational system would he reduced to such a condition as would, justify Dr Cleary saying that the “ Flag of Christ was fired down in our schools,” and that “God and His law were made as contraband as pipe opium,” they would never have parted with one penny of their education inheritance. While I quote Dr Cleary’s statement, I do not accept it as a true description of our national educational system, but the Presbyterians of New Zealand have a special, grievance, and their case has been clearly and distinctly pointed out to the Premier, and the special grievance and the special injustice meted out to the Presbyterians all go to show the righteousness of the referendum asked for at this stage. Mr John Caughley’s polemic against the Bible in schools is chiefly directed to the first plank of the platform of the League. He lias little to say against tho second plank of the League’s platform,. for the reason that he favours tho entry into our 'schools j ust now on the basis of. our present Education Act, which no more legalises ministers entering the schools to give religious instruction than it legalises the entrance of a Punch and Judy showman. Under tho so-called Nelson system tho door is opened for proselytism, but under the League’s system this evil is utterly impossible. Under Mr John Caughley’s non-legal or illegal entry of ministers into tno schools, a religious teacher who has actually no children or hardly any children in the school connected with his own denomination, may enter the school and tench children in scores. This is a sectarianism that the League’s risrht of entry makes utterly impossible. The League’s right of entry was not devised by ecclesiastics for sectarian and for proselytising ends, but it was a compromise on the religion framed by statesmen—a compromise that in New South Wal 9 s in 1880 ended denoniinationalism, and this compromise on religious teaching works without friction wherever it lias been set up, and gives satisfaction to all religious denominations, save the Boman Catholics, who in New Zealand spend their time in denouncing our secular system as a “godless” system and who want our national system smashed up and their denominational schools supported 'out of the national funds. The League’s platform removes the reproach of “godless ” fixed on our national system by Roman Catholics, and ends Bible in schools agitation on the part of religious bodies that represent 75 per cent of the population. Consideration of these facts all go to prove that, the case for the referendum is based on a strong and unshakable foundation. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —No amount of tinkering with tho Nelson system short of moulding it into the Bible in School League’s proposals will enable it to safeguard the parent's rights. Christian parents demand their right to choose thfir own children’s education especially in religion and repudiate the impertinent claim of Education Boards to grant or deny it. Besides, the primary object of the referendum is to give those who sign the initiative what they say they want. To give them what they don’t say they want is much the same as giving them what they say they don’t want. The chief rule of the game of the referendum is to stick to the text of the initiative. More than .140,000 New Zealand voters have signed the following initiative: : — (1) Lessons read m school hours by the children themselves from Scripture books provided by the Education Department. State school teachers supervising tho reading, but not giving sectarian or dogmatic teaching. (2) Visits during. school hours by ministers or accredited teachers from the churches instructing children in the faith of their fathers.

(3) Conscience clause by which the parent lias complete control of the dhild”B religious instruction in the public school. It is better to leave -amendments to each individual parent. Our system offers the choice of the follow ing four movable parts:— (1) We will call Brown’s choice. Twenty-four hejurfl a week (Secular, education, reading, writing and arithmetic, and one hour’s reading from the Bible text-book. (2) Jones’s choice. Twenty-four hours’ secular education and one hour’s teaching by his own minister. (3) Robinson’s choice. Twenty-three hours a week secular education, one hour Bible text-book and one hour minister’s visit. (4) Haeckel’s choice. Twenty-five hours a week secular education. (o) Murphy’s choice. Twenty-five hours a week Roman Catholic teaching, for this is denominational not national education. Trust the people to let Brown choose for his own children his own fancy in education. Surely this :s more democratic than insisting on amendments that would "ive Brown, Jones, Robinson, Haeckel and Murphy the power of .meddling in Brown’s business, viz., the choice of education for his own child.—l am. etc., CHURCHWARDEN. Christchurch, July 8. (With all due respect, wo cannot help thinking that such a choice of “fancies-in education” would be a menace to tho national system that, has been built up in this country. It would mean the introduction of sectarianism.—Ed. “ L.T.”)

TO THE EDXTOB. Sir, —Your correspondent H. R. Wilkinson seems filled with a great sorrow over what ho is pleased to call the misrepresentations of two headmasters of city schools. Mr Wilkinson proceeds in a self-satisfied way to expose these “ misrepresentations/* and in attempting to do so is guilty of the unpardonable sin he j so much bewails in others. Mr Wilkinson first refers to the resolution carried at the Teachers’ Institute in 1913, and says it was passed almost immediately after a vote of thanks to Mr Caughley on his retirement from and bayce its value *

must be discounted. It is easy to see | the inference; but had Mr Wilkinson wished to be credited with the possession of the “honesty” he seems tc think so lamentably wanting in those who do not exactly agree with him, lie 1 might have stated that the resolution in question was a remit to the N.Z.E.I. and that every district Institute had an opportunity of discussing it and instructing their delegates as to what action they should take respecting it at the annual conference. lie might also have stated that it originated from the North Canterbury 3>isrict Institute, of which he is a member, and that he had an opportunity of expressing his disapproval had he so wished. We are told that it is a misrepresentation to say that the present system works satisfactorily. So it does so far as religious and sectarian differences n.ro concerned, for they are entirely absent, and this is no doubt what the headmasters quoted were referring to. This has little to do with the,perfection of a system. Every teacher worthy of the name will agree with Mr Wilkinson that our system is not perfect, nor will it ever bo; but it is rather disingenuous for your correspondent to imply that the president at the January Conference was referring to the absence of some form of religious instruction as a cause of existing imperfections. As a matter of fact the president in his address, when speaking of “the loss of hope for earth beneath and for heaven beyond,” was not referring to the 300,000 children of New' Zealand, but to tho evils that afflict the community, enumerating such things as vice, drink, crime, destitution, etc. This is not a “ misrepresentation ” on tho part, of Mr Wilkinson, but merely an inadvertent misreading of the presidential address. One statement in the address is rather significant, viz. , “We are all prone to ask, if notetoo much, at least wrong things from the school. It is a mistake to expect the school to undertake the responsibilities and to bear the burdens of other institutions, but this is a mistake the Church, the home, commerce, even the State itself, are apt to make.” There is also a reference to the fact that our records - regarding vice and crime compare more than favourably with those of our sister States of the Australian Commonwealth. Though the address is an exhortation to teachers to pursue* their lofty ideals there is no suggestion that the system' advocated by the Bible and clergy iu schools party should be adopted. Mr Wilkinson complains that it is a misrepresentation to say that a vote of the Teachers’ Institute is an indication of tho unanimity of teachers on the Biblo in schools question. In any case it is at least as reliable as Mr Wilkinson’s statement that about a thousand members of the Institute are in favour of the Bible in schools. Would it be asking too much of your correspondent to inform us how lie arrives at his estimate? —I am, etc., J. J. ADAMS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Mr Caughley, in his recently published article and in the remarks he made to your interviewer a few days ago, shows all the signs of fanaticism. The comparison he made between tho Bible in schools party and a possible body of the public who might agitate for free railway passes is too silly to be worth discussing. An article you publish to-day by “Lux” shows how incapable he too is of throwing any clear light upon this subject. His method of argument is to quote extracts from speeches against the Biblo in schools made in the Queensland Parliament when the Referendum Bill was before it. If our side were to do the same thing, we could quote columns from speeches made in the same debate in support of the League. In any case, in the light of what tho Queensland Parliament did and of what the Queensland public now think about the question, it is quite evident that tho antiBible in schools supporters in Parliament were unconvincing and unjustified. But what dreadful thing is it, after all, that our League is proposing? Nothing but the restoration of parents' rights, now trodden under foot. Under the Leaguo’s system, the parent who wishes the child to have an “entirely secular ” education is met. The parent is met who is satisfied with Bible lessons without any more definite teaching. The parent who wishes his child to have definite religious teaching, but does not wish him to have Bible lessons under the State school teacher, is likewise met. The parent who wishes his child to have a knowledge of tho English Bible and definite religious teaching in, addition has his wishes complied with. The claim of tho League is, that under the present system the only parent who is satisfied is he who does not wish his child to have any Bible lesson or religious teaching in school. The League thinks that such parents are in a very small minority in New, Zealand, and considers that for over thirtyseven years a gross injustice has been inflicted upon the great majority.—l am, etc., *J. R. HEWBAND.