BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 13428, 10 July 1914, Page 3

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

(To the Editor of the Herald.) Sir,— May 1 be allowed to offer the following remarks upon Mr F. W. Ohatterton's letter appearing m vow Wednesday's issue: 1. Moral effect of religious education. Mr ' Uhatterton says that I "contend that where religious instruction is given m the schools Of any kind, the moral results have proved that if has not been to the advantage of the children," and he goes, on to say that this is impossible to prove, either one Avay or the other-. But our position on tins moral question is simply a reply to the early assertions of the advocates of the Bible and clergy m schools party. Bishop SedgAviek asserted m Christchurch months ago that the Ncav South Wales system Avas necessary to reduce crime and improve morals. This point Avas much harped upon until it avus proved that New South Wales, Avhere this system has been in 'vogue since 1866, has' the blackest crime record m the whole of Australasia— & far worse record than the adjoining State of Victoria, Avhich has refused to accept this system. 2. Mr Cthatterton says that the opponents of the New South Wades system are blind to the good of the ciuld. We are not. We recognise ''the hateful fact that thousands of our children are groAviug up Avith no knowledge' of our Heavenly Father. But we cannot sAverve from the line of broad justice m order to do good. That the priest should be allowed to enter the State schools and teach children his own particular creed, a creed Avhich may tie obnoxious to many members, of the State, is Avsrong, and unjust if such members are compelled to agree bo it by force of numbers. To say that because all priests are to be allowed the j same right, does not make it just, but extends the injustice. We Baptists object, and always have objected, to the use of public money for teaclnng religion. I could not go into wits fctate school here to teach our own children our particular Baptist principles. It would be using State funds ■ for denominational ends. So Aye 1 object to tlie High Church Anglican gathering his own flock of children and .teaching them (as many undoubtedly would) his own particular theory of chuirchly C&ristiani'ty, that e.g. Nonconformist churches are not churches, but merely Christian societies, that our ministers art* not ministers, that our sacraments are mA 7 adid. Let them teach these things m their own. Sunday Schools, if they choose; but not at the expense of the Avhole community. T repeat, it does not make this just, if all denominations, have equal right to be unjust, and can any fair-miuded elector fail to see that to use our State schools and State funds for teaching religion ? unjust to the non-Christian section of the community? Tlie conscience clause only proves the injustice. There should be no need for a conscience clause m an optional system of education. , That the Board of Education shomld draAv up a Bible text-book and have the right to spy what passages of Scripture shall or shall not I** included, is absurd. The Board of Education would he at the mercy of the strongest religious body m "the State. That State officials, i.e., teachers, should be compelled to teach religion m our State schools is foolish, unjust, and harmful. Tt is foolish, because the State avou'c! first have to define what, must be the teachers' attitude to the Bible, Avhether the Bible be: conceived «« the literal word of God, or AA-hether, and to what I measure, the higher criticism be adopted.. Unjust, because of the compulsion, and harmful to the child, Avhere the J teacher does not regard the lesson «.« bhe highest privilege and a labor of love. — I am, etc., P. J. ; WAIN-WRIGHT.

Sir, — I notice that Mr E. G. MabtheAvs m his letter on r the above subject says that, "The next statement (that is of those opposing the Bible-in-Schools League) that 'to take a referendum on such a question would be to interfere with religious liberty" is a misstatement and is incapable of proof." etc. I Avould say that this contention of the National Schools Defence League is far from being "incapable of proof," and is therefore not misleading. The proposed referendum is obviously intended to open the door, so to speak, for the proposals of the Bible m Schools League, and therefore trenches upon religious liberty. Should these proposals become law there might perhaps be no formal interference Avith religions liberty, but there Avould bo m practice. 'I remember reading sonic years ago several loud »and indignant protests, m the National Reformer from A-arious agnostic,* and secularist parents regarding the A'irtual persecution that their little ones had to endure at the State schools because they themselves had withdraAvn them from the clerical or religious instruction by availing themselves of 'the conscience clause.' If the proposals of the present referendum became laAV I can only say that the children of those adhering to the smaller and also to the more rationalistic sects will -be bo be pitied indeed. The proposed scheme, involving as it does tlie riffht of entry of the clergy during school hours, is, m my estimation, a most unfair one. — I axti, etc., J. G. COX. (To the Editor of the Herald.) Sir, — Mr E. G., Matthews took me to task m your last night's paper for distributing to the children certain cards of the National Schools Defence League. This was done through a misunderstanding between myself and one of my •assistants, and I did not discover it bill it AA-as too late to interfere." I quite agree that our schools should not m any Avay be used by either side m the question. No injustice has been done to anybody, as the children were merely asked to carry the cards home to their parents, and, if the parents Avere Avilling to sign them, to bring them back signed. But the principle of Aising the school af all for such a purpose Avas Avrong. . So much T have said as head master of the school. Now let mp say, as a citizen, that. l think the ministers of religion have been equally guilty of misusing the organisation m which they hold office. Sermons have boon preached and the church buildings have been used for the purpose nf advancing the platform of the Bible-in-Schools League, quite disregarding the fact that many of the members and adherents, avlio arc helping Ayith money and Avith personal service m the . maintenance of the churches, are. opposed bo that platform. T do not wish to be misunderstood m this matter. This argument is no excuse ior Avhat happened m the school. Tavo wrongs do not make one right. I simply take this opportunity of pointing out the (MineKpnnding wrong that . is being done m the churches. — I am, etc., F. J. ROWLEY.