RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3765, 11 May 1926, Page 17

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

RECENT ATTACK ON BILL. (From Our Own Correspondent.) AUCKLAND, May 3. The attack recently made on the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill by Canon Wilford, of Christchurch, was referred to by Canon P rcival James in his sermon at St. Mary’s Cathedral yesterday. Canon Wilford was' reported to have said that nothing but harm could result from the reading of passages of the Bible by teachers or pupils. Teachers did not believe in the Bible, and yet would not take advantage of the conscience clause, but would rather take part i worthless religious exercises in which it wou oe impossible for them to feign an interest. “I read these remarks of Can u Wilford with incredulous amazement,” said Canon James “«,iid I ; the light j ask him when he changed his mind. He and 1 were members of a committee o' the General Synod in 1922. and he himsc.t drew up if tei s of a motion after, ards proposed by Archbishop Julius, *;.d unanir jsly accepted by the Synod. The motion requested the bishops ‘ , confer with others to make it possible for State school teachers to give religious ii~-ruction to children in school hours. What could be plainer? That was Canon Wilford’s sentence, and he voted for the mot; in the Synod. As a result of that resolution the bishops conferred with the leaders of other religious b es and with concerned, and framed the present Religious Exercises in Schools measure. The prini des of that measure ».-jre . roved by the last General Synod of 1925. The Bill is the fruit of entire agi ~ment between the various religious bodies, who number between 70 and 80 per cent, f the population.

“ Canon Wilford has changed his mind.” proceeded the speaker, “and he is perfectly entitled to his new opinion, although he is in a tiny.and insignificant minority, but we who know that his bark is worse than his bite would have our brethren of other churches estimate his oppositio- U; its proper value. The great mass of the Anglican Church stands solidly behind the Archbishop as it stood behind Archbishop Julius in enthusiastic support of the meas re. When non Wilford com,.ln.ns that the Bill is going to take from clergy their proper work, he has apparently neglected to read the pr6visions of the Bill. It does not take anything from anybody. If there is a system of religious instruction in any school it may be continued instead of the system i the Bill. Canon Wilford charges the Bill with unfairness to teachers, children, and parents, but there could be no more effective safeguards than the conscience clause of the Bill.”

Canon James went on to say: “1 have heard from hundreds of teachers throughout New Zealand, and I believe that the number who will eagerly welcome this freedom is much greater than ie generally supposed. The demand of people for this measure will also be found overwhelmingly great, and that demand is bast on an unassailable democratic principle. The great mass of the people Tiave the'right to insist that their children shall no longer be defrauded of their birthright while their school life serves only to create at the public expense a positive presumption against religion in their minds during tlieir most impressionable years.”