BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19501, 3 December 1926, Page 10

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Sir, —Mr. Major's desperate attempt to extort from the comparative criminal statistics of Canada and the United States an argument against Bible in schools is really too ridiculous. Canada (with Bible in schools) has a good record as regards crime, whereas the United States (where State education is almost entirely secular) is the most lawless nation in the world. Mr. Major's contention that these facts prove the futility of religious exercises in schools ,is sheer nonsense. Nohman Burton.

Sir, —The term secular (Latin, eaecularis, from saeeulum, century) signifies primarily, "pertaining to an age or generation." Vide "Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary," et ai. This is a secular—a century—dictionary in the true sense of the term, though that does not mean that .eligious terms are not defined by it. ana all twentieth century teaching is secular >n the prime meaning of the term, irrespective of whether it is religious or not. The application of the term to certain priests in ancient usage shows that the word was not intended to convey the idea of priests without religion. It simply meant: "Not bound by monastic rules" And when the word, is used of "lay or civil, as opposed to clerical," that 'does not mean that the lay or civil servant must have or teach no religion. Of the seven meanings ascribed to this term by the dictionary quoted, the sense of "pertaining to this world, or to things not spiritual" has next to last place. Bo Dr. Giles may see that it is no "new meaning" which I am trying to foist upon this word. Nor is it different from that "generally understood," as would be more evident if I could take space for more examples of what has been taught and accepted as "secular." Take this: "The Student's Prayer," taught by the beadmaster, the late Mr. Bailey, from the duly authorised classbook. and sung by Mr. T. Well's class at Ponsonby school:— 0, Father, look upon us, . Here at Thy feet to-day; And though our words are feeble,, Ahou knowest what we would say. Mas we go on irr.i pro vine:- * The powers Thou hast given. And may we not. O Father. E er lose- the way to heaven. So far as can see, there is nothing in our Education Act prohibiting religions teaching or'exercises in oar State primary schools. If anyone can prove tlie contrary iet him do so. The strictures of the National Anthem by Messrs C E Major and F. A. de la Mare, am tmwarrantable, foolish and out of place. The ooint is that this theology, wnet'her good or bad, is taught in our secular schools National Anthem might be left out of consideration without materially affecting my argument. J. G. HUGHES!.

Sir, The advocates of Bible in schools m your columns now seem content to rest their case on a single consideration, and even Mr. Burton has deserted his unten able premises to join the chorus of claims that daily Bible readings, hymns and prayers shall be introduced in schools because the National Anthem is now occasionally sung there Let me concede for a moment to these bitter advocates of 1 Christian brotherly love in schools (or is it more correct to say dogma ?) that the ssational Anthem is purely a religions exercise. What then—it most be either legal or illegal. If illegal it is certainly in the power of those who object to test the matter in the Courts. If, however, these perverse folk persist in looking at it and appraising it from a patriotic ancle it will doubtless remain nndis turbed. If if, is legal, then, on Canon James* own showing, religious in strnction must be also legal, and we, are entitled to ask what obi pet there is in introducing a religious exercises bill, when and wider statutory powers nl roady exist Mot only is an answer required to that point, but we are also itistified in requesting a fresh definition for the term "entirely secular." The hilarious mirth professed by your corres pendents, will dotjhtloss he somewhat abated while they endeavour to extricate themselves from the above fatw pas into which they have persisted in placing themselves. Insistent reference is made to the rights of majorities. Would your correspondents support a bill backed by a majority of, say, Catholics, for the hitraduction of Catholic instruction, or a I bill by a maiority of agnostics for antiChristian instruction? The principle iin each case is identical with that of the present movement. T claim the logic of this question to be arianswarable other than by illogical minds. That some still subsist there is abundant evidence. C. E. Majob. President. {"This correspondence is closed— Ed. Emm]