RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19416, 26 August 1926, Page 6

RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY.

Sir, —Most of "A.E.C. \s" answer to my letter regarding the teaching of evolution in our State schools and university colleges is irrelevant. . lie misses tho point. His not very accurate explanation of the difference between religious and secular subjects- has . hardly any bearing on the point at issue. He is quite wrong in inferring that the doctrine of evolution can he demonstrated. It is only an illuminating theory—a wonderfully fruitful working hypothesis. But that in not the point. The real point is this: The theory of evolution flatly contradicts the religious beliefs of many thousands of people, who regard it as positively anti-Christian. It is an affront to all those who believe in the verbal inspiration of tho Biblii. Is it right that these people should be taxed for tho teaching of this theory, to which they strongly object on religious and conscientious * grounds ? To teach t heir children to disbelieve the first chapter of the Book of Genesis is certainly a violation of the principle of religious neutrality in our State schools. To put into the minds of university .students ideas which contradict tho biblical account of creation is a direct attack on the religious beliefs of a large section of the community. It is certainly not religious neutrality. Br. Giles says quiio a number of interesting things in his pleasant letter; but his suggestions would not remove the objections of parents who hold that evolution in all its form's is atheistic. The Row J. W Kemp, of the Baptist Tabernacle, and other Auckland ministers have vehemently declared that evolution is an atheistic doctrine. I do not think it is atheistic, but I must confess that the people who agree with Mr. Ksmp havo a right to protest against the teaching of evolution in State-supported educational institutions. I would not be surprised if they organised a campaign against it as a violation of tho neutrality of tho State in matters of leligion. Will the teachers and professors who signed the petition .- against the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill explain how they can consistently object to Bible lessons (even with a conscience clause) and at the same time flout the consciences of those who regard evolution, as the. enemy of religion? Norman Bvrtom.