BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 5558, 8 April 1905, Page 12

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

(To the Editor “ N.Z. Times.”) Sir,—Tho stand which the “New Zealand Times” has tairen, and is taking, upon the question of the introduction of Bible-reading in our State schools has common-sense and pure justice to recommend it, and is commendable also for its sound logic; and so long as tho community generally views tho subject from tho standpoint of reason and common-sense, little danger is to be apprehended from the attempted invasion of the domain of secular education by well-meaning bub shortsighted loaders of religious denominations. The danger, however, lies in tho spurious cry for democratic decision on the point at issue, and in the fact 'I hat: the extension of the franchise to women has placed a power in the hands of the denominational leaders which, in matters of sentiment largely controls the House of Representatives. We have a sufficient exemplification of this fact in connection with the liquor question. I know several members of the House who are cither averse to prohibition altogether, or to prohibition without compensation,, who yet vote for it, because if they did not the women’s vote would, they declare, result in their exclusion from Parliament. The same “ moral suasion ” will be found, to operate largely in thoicoming battle between the of secular instruction and the advocates of religious teaching in Slate schdbls. This evil would,not bo so formidable were- it not for the apathy of the electors outside the particular sphere of influence referred to. Hence it becomes necessary that those who have disregarded their electoral privileges in the past should bo awakened to the importance to themselves and their fellow-colonists of exercising tire franchise on all groat public questions. Tho attitude assumed by tiro Biblo-in-schools League, as enunciated by Dr Gibb on Sunday last, is pre-eminently illogical. The why and wherefore of the demand of tho league is not apparent from Dr Gibb’s address; nor is there any attempt made to explain away the manifest neglect of duty on the part of ministers of religion to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by law to instruct children of their denominations at the State schools before or after school hours. Instead of doing this, they would place tho duty of imparting Biblical instruction in the hoards of secular teachers. In.the face of the scandalous neglect of the ministers, their mouthpiece, Dr Gibb, has the hardihood to declare;— “ I hold it a crying shame and scandal to us as a Christian nation that the Bible is excluded from our schools!” The shame of exclusion, then, rests upon the shoulders of Dr Gibb and his colleagues of the “ cloth,” for the Bible is not excluded by law from schools, so long as its reading and exposition do not interfere with tho regular school hours. The ministers of religion would appear content to abrogate their privileges of expounding as well as reading tho Scriptures to the children of their denominations at the State schools in favour of valueless Bible texts (valueless because unexplained) being placed before the children by teachers who may he Jews, Atheists, Theosophists, Roman Catholics, or members of twenty other denominations.

The fact is that the league, relying upon the very extended franchise which this colony enjoys, and its exercise ‘‘en bloc” by' a large section of the voters more or loss under the domination of the leaders of the various religious organisations in matters where sentiment may bo relied upon to ignore public policy, is making an insiduous attempt to get the thin edge of the wedge of sectarianism into our public schools. The sample text given by Dr Gibb indicate? tin's. Hie takes the sentence, “In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so I would have told you”; a ad the teacher is expected to put these questions said this?” ‘‘Where did He say there were many mansions ?” “If there were no mansions in His Father’s house, what did he say bo would have done?” The answers ex pected are “Jesus Christ” (though the text does not mention the name), 'Tn His Father’s house,” and “He would have told them so ” Without explanation, all this i.s puerility and a was f e of time. It would he a mighty puzzle to uninitiated children to understand how there could he many mansions in a single house. Once such texts were admitted, it would not he long before “stronger food” would he insisted upon by some faddists, i and hy and hy the forces which a-re now comh’nod for the specific purpose of getting "Bible-read*no into the school curriculum would find themselves wrangling over the question of dogmatic religion, and the whole State school system would tumble down like a house of cards. I/et us avoid this, and the general religions strife that would ensue, hy making a deter- . mined stand against the vcry thought

of introducing Biblical instruction into our school curriculum.—l am, etc., J. OAKLEY BROWNE. April 3rd.