THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19799, 21 November 1927, Page 12

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Sir,—lt is not very ((porting of Dr. Buxton, while dealing with. Mr. Burton's arguments, to be continuously hfuping on the " league clergy's" alleged neglect of Protestant children. If he will be good enough to confine himself to Mr. Euiton until that argument is settled or closed, some of us could then reply to the charge without butting in. J. C. Fussell. Waiuku. Sir,—l think that my best way of answering Dr. Buxton's "undocumented" tirade against the Bible-in-Schools League and its proposals is to tell the public once again what the proposals are. The Religious Exercises Bill provides that part of the school time shall be devoted to th© singing of a hymn, the saying of tha Lord's Prayer, and the reading of a passage of scripture without doctrinal comment. Out of those simple proposals (acceptable to the great majority of the people of New Zealand) Dr. Buxton's vivid imagination builds up a new hand-picked and exclusive State school religion." ... .A State-endowed, State-conducted State religion." Similar schemes to that proposed by the Biblo-in-Schools League have been in operation for years in Canada, Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia, ar.d citizens of those countries would be greatly surprised if they were informed that they had set up " a State-endowed, State-con-ducted State religion." I hardly dare refer to the conscience clause because the mention of it evokes from Dr. Buxton and his friends their shrillest shriek. And yet this conscience clause merely provides that parents who do not want their children to take pa:rt in the religious exercises have only to tell the teacher so. Could anything be more simple? The facts I have given in previous letters regarding Vatican education policy in Italy, Spain and Poland were noted down by me at various times from books and responsible newspapers. Perhaps " the rigour of strick proof" may require that I should go to Rome and examine the original Concordants. I am sure I would enjoy the trip, but I cannot get away at present. I understand, however, that Dr. Buxton has access to copies of the Concordats. He alleges that my statements are inaccurate. Why does he not support his allegation by quotations from the Concordats ? lam not sure that extracts from copies would satisfy the " rigour of strict proof," but I will waive that point for the present. Norman Burton.

Sir,—lf Canon James will favour me with an appointed call, I shall be glad to show him that official league pamphlet It was issued from the league's Dominion Executive Office, 235, Larabton Quay, Wellington, and was very widely circulated in 1914, during the league's longest and most intensive political campaign. 11 was issued in -part to defend the league's detennination to force all State teachers without exception—including conscientious objectors of any faith or none—to become in effect the parsons of the league's exclusive brand of State religion. The alternative, dismissal from the service, was frankly stated by league leaders and apologists, as shown with detailed references in the Education Committee's report of 1914, pp. 15 and 112. The "executive office" pamphlet is in bold-faced type. On p. 4 it thus defends the league's determination, at all costs, to hold the teachers' consciences in pawn: "To add a conscience clause for teachers would mean that each teacher would „bo a perpetually recurring storm centre on the subject. Mr. Smith, on going to Jonestown, would introduce the lessons and thereby incur hostility from those who did not believe in them. . . Mr. Brown, on succeeding Mr. Smith, would discontinue the lessons on his own responsibility, and of his own choice, and thereby give offence to those parents who valued the lessons." For brevity's sake, I have omitted a phrase and (at the end) a sentence which in no way affect the force of the argument. The utter worthlessness of the league's present conscience clause for teachers is thus admirably put by the league executive of 1914, which consisted of episcopal and other denominational representatives, many of whom are supposed to be still actively aiding or leading the movement. See the striking similar evidence of Mr. John Caughley, Presbyterian elder and late Director of Education, in the Petitions Committee's report (Council), 1926, p. 23. The league's quoted words, as well as their other words and acts, are quite correctly described as "merciless" to conscientiously objecting teachers, who "must either conform to the State religion and turn hypocrites, or run the risk of being driven like criminals out of the public service." St. Patrick's. L. T. Buxton.