THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15251, 14 March 1913, Page 4

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Sir,— Miller in his letter in your issue of March 11 sajs: "We are not thinking of the children of other faiths in framing an objective on these lines (those approved of by the Bible in Stat® Schools . League). We are thinking of the children of our own i faith, and desiring to make due provision for their instruction." This is, doubtless, a very commendable deaire, but surely !' this due provision for the religious instruction of the children of Mr. Miller's faith 1 should be carried out at the cost of Mr. ! Miller and his co-religionists, and not, as the Bible in State Schools League proposes, • at the cost of the whole community, very ' many of whom object- conscientiously and i vehemently to the " faith," which the league » desires the State to teach in the State i schools at the public expense. March 11, 1913. A. G. Clarke. Sir,— Bishop Cleary brings forward strong evidence <hat the Australian system requires the teachers to teach religion. But," notwithstanding this, I am confident that in the actual general working of the system ' in the four States the teachers ■ give Bible--1 teaching as ' distinguished from ' religious ' teaching. There arc, no doubt, exceptions, i but this is the rule. This is, in any case, ■ what I personally have been striving • for > these many years, and I think I have had ■, the general feeling of Bible in schools advocates with trie all along. In the pamphlet ' I wrote in 1902, page two are these words: ' " The writer aims at Bible-teaching rather ' than religious teaching, though sometimes 1 quoting those who advocate the latter" > (e.g., Cecil Rhodes and Victor Hugo). In • that written in, 1911, page 12. commenting : on the New South Wales law, I say : " The > State teachers do not teach religion pro- [ perly, so called, but simply a foundation k for religion in literary and historical Bible , knowledge." Again, page 16: "Wo do | not ask that the teachers or the State teach religion, but only that reasonable facilities 1 be provided for having religion taught by " the Churches." The league itself supports 1 the same view in one at least of its publica- :• tions (that addressed to teachers), > in which these words appear (page 2): • "Since it is not intended that, the teachers should impact any denominational or even religious instruction, the State school teachers' requirements end with the literary and moral advantages to bo drawn from the [ lesson." If I have rightly interpreted the t views of the league members generally, and I think I have, the league will, I am sure, feel grateful to Bishop Cleary for forcibly drawing attention to what wo might call the mistaken use of the word "religious" in ' the letter of the Australian laws, and help ' him to see that the law of New Zealand i shall safeguard the matter for us. The law, I and the actual working of the law in Now : Zealand, should be in absolute harmony, . so that Bible-teaching, as distinguished from [ religious teaching, shall 'be all that shall be f required of the teachers. i Wm. N. dk L. Willis, A Member of the Executive Bible-in-State-Schools, League. Cambridge, March 9, 1913. Sir, —I have (1) shown how the consciences of dissident teachers are proselytised under the Bible-in-schools system. (2) I also cited statements of league pamphlets and league and State officials, which meant, " in other words," that Catholic children in Australia "have been successfully proselytised into violation of the faith and discipline of the Church of their baptism." . Catholics would be truly "proselytised" (as above) or "converted, in to far, to the Bible-in-schools "religion," or "sect," or "opinion," or "system," or "party" (a) by accepting the league sdoctrino of the moral right' of the Government to devise and impart a system of "religious instruction" (as it is termed in law); (b) by accepting the league doctrine of " private judgment" thereon; (c) by using Australian Government manuals , containing even fragments of a Catholic version of the Bible; (d) by taking part in the sectarian religious instruction and worship described by tho Rev. A. Don in a league pamphlet, " Some Notes on the Australian System." I have followed above the definition of "proselytise" given in the Century, Encyclopaedic, and other manyvolumed standard dictionaries. The league t refuses a conscience clause to conscientiously 5 objecting teachers. These are forced, as a f " duty," to impart " religious instruction j on "exactly the same footing as geography and grammar; and, of course, with " exactly ' the same" penalty (dismissal) for refusal. " As long as human nature exists, business r will bo done in this mart for the purchase 5 of objecting consciences with the bribe of 5 position, pay, and pension, arid the fear i of their loss. It is sought to justify this 6 traffic in consciences by the plea of acquiesl cence and " good results." But (a) internal acr quiescence by natural objectors is proselytism | in so far complete; _ (b) mere external ! acquiescence is hypocrisy in the service of the Lord of Truth; (c) the plea of "good results" is, in effect, a declaration of the anti-Biblical doctrine that evil may be done that good may come of it. I have already shown that Catholic teachers over wide , areas in New South Wales and Queensland > conscientiously object to State " religious i instruction." In regard to children: (a) - The league refuses a conscience clause emf bodying this obvious and natural presump- • —that if a parent wants a particular ] brand of clothing or of " religious instruct tion" for his children, he will apply for i it. (b) The league demands a conscience , clauso based upon the following flagrant • untruth:lf, say, a thousand parents of 7 State-school children fail to protest in writ--1 ing against Government " religious instruct , tion," that shall be taken as conclusive evif dence that all these parents, without excep- ; tion, demand or approve that "religious • instruction" for their . children ! And, on • that cunning false pretence, the, Govern- [ merit. religion is orammed into them, with- \ out even the pretence of ascertaining the . -wishes of any one of said parents! (c) A JLohiel letffu® **g}UBSOt for its echemo ip, »

effect, its alleged sucoew in proselytising natural opponents into acceptance of the "system." (d) It is a sad condition of the law if parents or clergy must set up -vigilance committees to prevent Government tampering with the faith and conscience of even a few children, under a false pretence. But six unwilling classes are involved, not merely some three; and the rev. secretary's statement that "a large section" of New South Wales Catholics stand apart .from their Church's protest is not supported by a scrap of evidence, and is contradicted by the testimony of those who are in a much better position to know. The league still dares not attempt proof of the fundamental doctrines of its religion—the moral right of the Government to become a religious teacher, and to force its brand of "religious instruction " on conscientiously unwilling taxpayers, parents, teachers, and pupils. , HENBT W. CLBART, D.D., March 12. Bishop of Auckland.