BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19512, 16 December 1926, Page 17

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE, REPLY TO BISHOP CLEARY. STATEMENT BY CANON JAMES. Canon Percival James, as chait'man of the Auckland Bible-in-Schools executive, writes as follows in reply to Bishop Cleary's recent reference to the Bible-in-Schools question:— Bishop Cleary's latest attack on the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill calls for some comment. Put briefly, his position is this:—(l) The passing of the bill would mean the setting up of a State religion ; (2) the conscience clause ia intended to be used for proselytising purposes ; (3) the Roman Catholic authorities will claim from the State (if the bill becomes law) proportionate financial assistance for religious exercises which are acceptable to them. Let us first examine Dr. Cleary's State religion argument. Ho contends that the proposed religious exercises—the singing of a hymn, the saying of the Lord's Prayer aud the reading of a passage from the Bible —would mean {he creation of a State religion. But if the singing of "O. God, Our Help 113 Ages Past" means the creation of a State religion, so does the smging of the National Anthem. If the saying of the Lord's Prayer means the creation of a State religion, so does the. Speaker's prayer in Parliament, and so does the use of the oath in the Law Courts. If the intelligent reading of a Scripture passage means the creation of a State religion, so does the intelligent reading of Shakespeare's "Quality of Mercy," which refers to the existence and character of God and to the Lord's Prayer. So it seems that the State religion which, according to Dr. Cleary, would be created by the passing of the Religious Exercises Bill, has already been in existence in New Zealand for nearly a century—and no one has been aware of it. The Posiitioa in Italy. Dr. Cleary's talk " about a State religion should be regarded as a bit of rhetorical exaggeration. We would like to ask Dr. Cleary whether it is a fact that, by an agreement between the Pope and Mussolini, religious instruction has been restored in the Italian State schools '! Can this thing be right in Italy and wrong in New Zealand '! Does not Roman Catholic Spain have a State religion 7 There is no logical foundation for Dr. Cleary's statement that tho passing of the Religious Exercises Bill would mean tho creation of a "privileged class." The only privilege asked i'or is the privilege of the majority of tho people to determine the Government's educational policy. If Bishop Cleary and his friends feel inclined to challenge our claim to represent the majority, we promise them hearty support, if they want to test, the matter by means of a referendum. The Religious Exercises in Schools Bill is a side-issue from the point of view of the Roman Catholic authorities. It is the national system of education as a whole that they object to. They will have nothing to do with it. Archbishop Redwood recently said, "The Church condemns secular education and forbids her children to risk the dangers in these schools." They want State aid for their own schools. "We demand," says Dr. Cleary, "a fair proportion o;t" our Catho-lic-paid taxes for the State-certified secular results obtained in our schools.'' The Conscience Clause. They" have demanded this for years. It now seems that they intend to demand a little extra as an equivalent for the cost of t'he religious exercises. Quite apart from the I proposed Bible lessons, it .lias been the fixed policy of the Roman Catholic j authorities to keep Roman Catholic children out of the State schools. In this j policy they have been so thorough that the Roman Catholics form less than five per cent, of the State school population. Bishop Cleary fires off his usual broadside of epithetical invective against the conscience clause, which he describes as "tricky" and "odious" and "Irish" and "proselytising." But let us disregard these controversial epithets and soberly examine' the els,use as it really is. It provides that any parent who does not desire his child to take part in the religious exercises has only to tell the teacher so in writing. Could anything be more simple or more reasonable ? But Dr. Cleary perversely reads into this provision a proselytising plot. As not more than five per cent, of the children attending the State schools are Roman Cathoi• lies, there would be no difficulty in assuring that not one of them shall attend the Bible lessons against the wish of its parents. Sir James Parr, when Minister of Education, said this could and would be done. We can assure Dr. Cleary that we have not the slightest wish to turn little Romans into little Protestants. If Dr. Cleary knows of any specific case of proselytising in our schools, he ought to make it public at once and ask for an investigation. Mere generalities are valueless. THE N3SLSON SYSTEM. POSITION, AT OPOTIK7. Friction which has arisen at the Opotiki school between the school committee and the Ministers' .Association regarding religious instruction in the school caused discussion at a meeting of the Auckland Education Board yesterday. Mr. H. S, W. King said there was nothing in the regulations which might guide the committees as to the method of instruction allowed. No definite method was set out in the syllabus and consequently there was a certain amount, of latitude and elasticity. Mr. W. 11. Simms thought a definite policy should be followed' in all cases where religious instruction under the Nelson system wasi decided upon. Mrs. N, E. Perner: Does the department recognise the Nelson System? Mr. T. U. Wellsi: It wiiaks at it. It was pointed out that, in the case of the Opotiki school, the school committee had agreed to the instruction and was really the controlling body. It wai; decided to inform the Ministers' Association that the board would support the committee in its objection to undue interference from the association.