RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22326, 28 July 1934, Page 9

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS BILL

TEACHERS’ OBJECTIONS (Communicated by the New Zealand Educational Institute.) ' I. TEACHERS AND THE BILL. Over 60 years ago our national education system was. made secular by people having a bitter memory of the servitude education had had to submit: to from denominationalism in the Homeland. It is safe to say that far more of these secularists ; in education were staunch churchgoers than is- the- case to-day. As they saw it .two things were essential; —(1) That religion should not be officialised—become a mere, subject of instruction under the control and direction of, a Government -department that avowed no faith and could not uphold any sacred sanctions. This then seemed to nonconformists ; in good; standing a, prostitution of real religion. (2) That.the individual conscience should not be trammelled—that, since British institutions stand or fall on freedom of opinion, religious opinion above all others -should be free. Here was a province the most/impdrt’ant of many with, which the-State had no right to meddle. A. general education acceptable to all it could give to all a»d charge ,upon all. It had no right to tax either- to teach to children a religion/ unacceptable to particular parents nor'yet to teach it to those of other pafonta to whom it was acceptable. To - do the latter was; to rob Peter to pay. Paul. The “Secularists” of the eighteen seventies also faced realities and admitted that religion was either denominational Or intensely exclusively private and individual. The State, they argued, bad neither the means nor ’the. right to provide ’ for teaching in a sphere in which individuals or groups, of individual* had gained a liberty, dearly bought, of being a Taw unto themselves'. ’ Has there in essentials been any change 'since those day*!, _ Do not denomination* still exist and fail to coalesce, even to federate, because of'conflicting tenets in their Creeds? Is there not even a measure of rivalry' and 'criticism; among these denomihations as among all organisations, claiming (but in various ways);, to fulfil the same function? . Has not, individual liberty of religion* thought increased in the last half-century -till ,even in friendly, conversation people ' a'fe guarded* in intruding upon the, religious views of friends and acquaintances? ■■ Yet, in spite of this growth of the Protestant regard for, the .widest liberty of. the individual conscience, a Bill, ia this year brought; down ■to foeu* some kind, of generalised and uniformatised religious in-; struction in, of all places, the schools. It haa,'strong,denominational backing. The very,; denominations' who have never reconciled -their ‘differences to the. extent even 'of deciding, that, certain matters are things indifferent,’claim that it is ,po»; eible. for the school to do what they admit they 1 cannot do. DenominationaHsm i* as rife as ever. Yet the teacher in the school, whether Agnostic, Catholic, Anglican', Presbyterian, Baptist,, or,-honest unbeliever, is expected to, be utterly and completely undenominational. To the ‘trained. ’theologian there; are pitfalls in every other text-of. Holy Writ-. The inexpert teacher i* expected, avoiding these; to give an instruction universally acceptable/ Hi* instruction i* to go to the root lof ; vital r.elijgibn, oY we completely miss the intent and ’ purpose: bf. the present measure. If nobody or almost nobody cares about: religious instruction it; mhy be possible for the teacher to fall into daily, errors, without, arousing protest and acrimonious conflict. But the measure, we venture to say, is not consciously founded on a modern, Laodicean' indifference.-. On,the contrary,-it ia- ,a cause in which they have had to assure themselve* that they are 100 per cent, in earnest. This being so,, they., hare shown more concern for. their ownconscience* than for . that bf the-teacher, though v from their own; .peculiar, standpoint .the .conscience of the/latter- ha*, not been disregarded. /The most - vital part of the .Bill- is . tlie “daily observances,” which are religious in intent and: feeling;or they: are nothing. The . teacher who is unprepared to snare in' directing these must notify the chairman of the committee (not bis legal'employer) in writing. How will this operate? Take an average instance. A given .teacher ha* been for 15 year* in hi*;-board’s employ; He ha* fulfilled the spirit of a pretty exacting contract; He is now called upon to do, or overt y refuse- to do, Bomethjng -a* completely foreign to that .contract as if , he were asked to practise medically or surgically upon the child’s body.- If with - unquestionable jdevoutnes* lie cannot participate in these obeervances, yet does bo, ,nc should be aummarily dismissed. Is this intended? No. So long a_s he givM external lip-«ervice he is quite acccpthe will not do *o, upon him is placed the odium of objecting, thus in many cases incurring, if i« reasonable} to argue, an odium which will oppress his mind and militate against his influence. (It is surely no mere theoretical contention ■ that reugious rivalries will enter inter the election of school-committee of f< the right colouf once the Bill i* passed.) A teacher so placed, however clean; his record, will know that his every act - and word are laid . open to question by those . honestly prejudiced against’ the stand ,he has taken. Is he to blame for not‘ Having .foreseen that when he was-appointed a teacher he could be called upon- for a/brief period every day to (we use the word advisedly) become a clergyman too? Blameworthy or not, he will pay the penalty. _ As regards; giving religious instruction (i.e./ studying.a sacred text and extract-' ing its sacred meaning) the teacher is called upon to “notify his desire to participate. Suppose he does not, is ms position any different from that of a teacher who refuses to direct religious observances? Are not teachers justified in stigmatising such provisions a* insidious? The institute' submits -that in the worst sense of the word it is unßritish thus to constrain consciences }of professional workers- who’ had a right to think that their teims of service afforded ;a guarantee against inquisition into their most private lives arid opinons. . We have considered an average instance. Consider an extreme, but-by no .means unusual one—that of thousand* of young teachers, male and female, in little country schools., Their refusal to function under the provisions of this Bill will, it is reasonable to 1 foresee, quite often arouse strong hostility., Their /position to-day is.a ■ delicate one, making great demands Upon their tact,. 1 It will indeed become thankless whether, as acceptors, they make themselves liable to the animus of jarring sects, or, as objectors, to the opposition of a community that prefers a denominationally minded appointee. Yet the worst fate that could befall religion and the schools is' passive acceptance on the part of, those prepared to give it a discreet, but superficial,’ adhesion. This.can mean nothing but a mocking of religion and a . betrayal of conviction. If as the institute believes most teachers, and therefore the profession as a whole, will refuse to “ volunteer ” under the provisions of the Bill, it cannot be got to T ' With all respect to that section of its supporters who are devout and sincere, the institute hopes this will happen. It does so because it shrinks from the alternative, the godless alternative as it , secs it. of widespread, though perhaps unconscious, hypocrisy, humbug and sham,—perpetrated. of all things heinous,, at the expense of the unformed, trusting, and innocent mind of the child.