SCHOOLS’ DEFENCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8738, 21 May 1914, Page 6

SCHOOLS’ DEFENCE

MEETING OF LEAGUE’S EXECUTIVE A full mooting of the executive of the New Zealand National Schools’ Defence League was hold last night. Professor Hunter occupied the chair. The secretary read tho committee’s report, as follows: — 1 ‘The committee is g.ad to be able to inform the general executive that the Rev. T. A. Williams, of Christchurch, has accepted Uie position, of organiser for tho Deionce League, and wiM enter on his auties next month. The Rev. Mr Waiiia3is needs’ no introduction to those who wish to keep our national schools free from sectarian influence and bitterness, and it is confidently expected that, as soon as he begins his work, friends of the people’s cause in he different centres will rally to has aid in his endeavour to lay faithfully before the people the objective of the Bibledn-fichoois League, and the real .ssues involved, and will contribute dborally to the coat of the campaign. Our opponents have behind them some wealthy church organisations that are free from taxation ; we con hut reij for support on the righteousness ot our cause, and we confidently expect it. The National Schools’ Defence League exists to oppose:—(1) The submission of a religious issue to a referendum; (2) the right of entry for the clergy into our schools, with the sectarian issues and conflicts that must result; (3) the attempt to force teachers to give general religious teaching irrespective of their religious convic tions; (4) the proposal that the State should, out of the taxes of all, pay to promulgate the religious opinions of some.

“The league again affirms that it will offer no objection to a purely voluntary system that does not involve the State in the impossible task of taking sides in matters of religious belief. This attitude is not anti-Bible, not non-Christian, not anti-national, and not anti-British. If such attri butes describe our present primary system of"education, they must also describe other departments of State effort, e.g., old ago pensions and hos pital and charitable aid work. Are these non-Christian and antiBritish ? The Defence League cards are being freely signed. When our organiser gets into the field, there is little doubt that we shall soon top the score of the' other side. Our canvassers get many signatures of those who

have already signed for the Btble-in-eohools under a complete misapprehension. Others would sign our card, but feel that, though misled, they have pledged themselves to the other side We regret that our proposal to Oanon Garland that both leagues should publifeiy announce that signatures should not be held binding on those who, for any reason, hod changed their minds, was treated so discourteously. (The correspondence has been published.) The cause of the defence of out national schools is flourishing; there are obvious signs that the independent thinkers among the Nonconformist churches of the ‘combine’ are refusing to bo led into a denial of dissenting opinion by the Church party. In the Dunedin Presbytery the Rev. Mr Chisholm moved a strong motion against the Bible in schools’ unfair proposals; the motion was promptly closured, but ‘truth crushed to earth shall rise again.’ The ‘Tablet,’ too, has published a very strong condemnation of the ‘right of entry’ from the pen of the Rev. Dr Gibb. It was written some time ago; the rev. gentleman has apparently changed his nrnd. but his objections to the system that he now supports are as strong as over. In seconding a motion expressing sympathy with th© Free Churches of England in connection with the passing of the Balfour Education Bill, Dr Gibb said: ‘He had pleasure in seconding the motion. He was the more eager to do so because his name was so prominently associated with the movement for the restoration of the Bible to the schools of the colony. For that he would strenuously, and.to the very end—but he would not fight more earnestly for that than ho would against any proposal to introduce th© priest into the schools of New Zealand. If ever the time came when an attempt should be made to use the schools of this colony as the English Education Act would use the schools at Homotor tno purpose of proselytism, lor tho propagation of tho tenets of any sect —he would he found standing in the van of those who would resist that bo tho uttermost. Ho had the very deepest sympathy with the motion and with the Nonconformists of England in the stand they were taking against a measure that would strike a deadly blow at the liberty in religion, which their fathers won at so great a price. That measure was designed to foist Catholicism on the people of England. It was designed by its promoters to enable the Anglican body to indoctrinate the youth of itngland with tenets that they (tho Nonconformists) held in detestation —tenets that they believed were contrary to the plainest teachings of the Word of God. The Nonconformists did well to give battle to this insidious thing. He trusted that their efforts would bo completely successful. Bible in schools, he reiterated, was one thing; priest in schools was an other, and a very different thing. They were equally united in their determination to obtain the one and to resist the other with all their power,’ Comment is unnecessary I

“The ono thing that the agents of the Bible-in-Schook’ ’party seem to buoy themselves up with is the alleged success in Australia of the Near South Wales system of Bible in schools. A pamphlet of 3G pages has been circulated broadcast. It contains 08 opinions of State school teachers, etc. (in New South Wales, Queensland, West Australia, and Tasmania) —98 out of a possible of 10,163 —not one per cent.! Out of these 98 testimonials, only 22 refer to any mor.al improvement resulting from the system, and of these 22, eight say, ‘I am of opinion’ or ‘I think,’ etc., some moral benefit has accrued, so that only 14 confidently assert that real moral benefit has ac-

crued from tho system 1 Such is th« Voviorwiieliping testimony*' that wo hear so much about as to tho efficacy of the New South Wales system of Bible in. schools I■: Th® very fact that tho so-called ‘testimonials’ were obtained from civil servants, who are not allowed to criticise tho conditions under which they work, enables us to ■ appraise such ‘testimonials’ at their real value. The Bible-in-Schools’ Leagues’ proposed system of Bible in schools is unjust, and no referendum can make it just. The proposal to settle a question involving religious issues by referendum is tho final mockery of justice. The Bible-in-Schools’ League naively asks Parliament (whose primary consideration should bo tho safeguarding of tho rights of minorities) to ignore the question of the justice or injustjfo of the league’s proposals and to allow tho ‘combine’ of religious denominations (claiming to be in a majority) to vote itself the privileges it desires. Th® combine wishes to discharge tho double function of judge and jury. “Wo can scarcely conceive it possible that the Government of this Dominion is going to divest itself of a sense of responsibility and to shirk its duty to the extent of conceding the demand of the sectarian combine to determine such an issue by referendum. As for tho boast that 74 per cent, of tho Dominion are supporters of tho Bible-in-Schools’ League, this seems to us a grave reflection on tho energy and sincerity of the clergy, who, according to their own showing, have obviously failed to fulfil their heaven-, appointed obligations to the 74 per cent, of tho people who constitute their flock.”

Tho report was unanimously adopted, and arrangements made for a vigorous campaign.