RELIGIOUS EXERCISES IN SCHOOL BILL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 19 July 1924, Page 5

RELIGIOUS EXERCISES IN SCHOOL BILL

MR ATMORE’S REMARKS Introducing the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill, Mr L. M. Isitt said it was a non-party measure. In no real sense of the word 'was it his own Bill. The Bill did not ask for Bible teaching, but simply for Bible reading without comment other than was necessary for explanatory ptirpos is. It was carefully drawn up in such a way that no sectarian objection could bo raised against it. He admitted that there was no stronger opponent of the last Bible in Schools Bill than himself, but that was because of special reasons. For one thing, it did not contain a conscience clause, as was provided for in the present measure. If any teacher or parent wished to dissociate himself from the readings he had only to say so, ancl that would end tire matter so far as he was concerned. Speaking in the debate Mr H. Atmore (Nelson) said lie sympathised with the mover. He believed that crime to-day was duo to the lack of religious teaching in the home. lie agreed in the value of the Bible as a literary work. He disagreed with the Prime Minister that the British law was founded on the Mosaic law ; it was founded on the Roman law. The Bill suggested that the State should perform the religious teaching. The importance of religion would be lost because no interpretation could be placed by tlio teacher on the readings. Quite a wrong idea would he put- into the minds of the children as to the relative importance ol religion, geography, history, and mathematics. There \vould be no permanent ethical effect upon a young mind by .merely repeating certain words. No good had ever come to any country which

mixed religious with general education. To bar the teacher from explaining the readings and expect the child to understand, bordered on superstition. He declared emphatically that the State could never take the place of the home. The Bible itself laid’ it down clearly, “Render those things to Caesar which* are' Caesar’s, and those things to God which are God’s.” He spoke enthusiastically in favour of the Nelson system, which was carried out in accordance with the present law. He contended there was no need at all for Parliament to interfere in the matter. To say the Bill would not interfere with the secular system was absolutely wrong. If religion was so colourless that it could not be called an interference, what was the good of it? Tho mere reading of words did not count, but everything depended upon the spirit of the’teaching. In conclusion, lie said that under the law of tho Dominion the Nelson system could be introduced right throughout the country. It was reported in yesterday’s issue that the Bill was killed by 32 votes tc 31.