BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVII, Issue 10570, 11 February 1913, Page 7

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

SIR.-—Some two months ago I answered a leading article of yours deprecating the Bible in Schools movement. I think I fairly answered your objections and you subsequently stated you were not going to follow unthe subject. Since then, however, you have, whenever possible, published matter deprecating the movement, and in yuor issue of February Ist you refer to insidious attacks on our excellent educational system and publish Professor McKenzie’s address given in Wanganui. Well, Sir, I am here again, able and fit, and prepared to meet the question fairly and squarely, and therefore ask your space to controvert Professor McKenzie’s statements, which I will take in the order yon give his. 1. The Bible in Schools movement does not iu any way involve the princhuo of a State church, nor has it ever proposed to interfere with the neutrality of our school system towards all forms of Christian religion Perhaps the Professor prefers Paganism ; this wo do not, 3. If, as die Professor says, our schools are now under strict moral discipline Bible in schools will not lessen it, but make it more easy to maintain. The League always maintains ; that “onr "State schools should

observe an attitude of strict ueutrala ifcy, protecting all, favouring inone. ’; All the League wants is freedom to have religious instruction or not as the parents of the J children may desire. | 4. The State is simply the execu- | five of the people, and if the people I desire it, it is their duty _to supply | such education as is required. I 5. The Professor maintains that

the children’s time is only occupied for one-fourth of their waking hours in our schools, so there is plenty of time for religious teaching or other

luxuries. So there may be, but for ordinary parents such teaching is impossible! You might as well ask them to teach arithmetic as a luxury, besides to teach out of school hours is a punishment not likely to make children love any subject. (I We believe there is an alternative between “the free, secular and compulsory system, or denorninatiouulism subsidised by the State.” We have an example of it in Australia, whore it is at work, and I should like the Professor to show that it does not work satisfactorily. Wc have evidence to show that it does from School Irsnectors’ reports. 7. Professor McKenzie --ays it would produce sectarian f-mtion. The result in Australia has proved otherwise: on the contrary it appears to have created a better feeling towards cue another of the various denominations. Why should it be otherwise here?

S. The Professor gsays'the teachers are against it. It may be so here, although it is not so in Queensland. However, with all due respect to the teachers, I must say that the teachers like other civil servants of the State must accommodate themselves to the requirements of their employers. 10. Professor McKenzie says our ethics are not based on the Bible or apparently on Christianity. If not bow does he account for people of other religious having other standards of ethics?

11. There is no reason why the

Bible reading lesson given by the State schoolmaster should add to the cost of the State school system; it

is simply a reading lesson taken from the Bible instead of some other book. Religious instruction will only be given by teachers accredited by the Churches and at their cost. 13. The League believes that the teachers are an honourable body of men and women, and as tbair dutv will be confined to the reading lesson unfair denominational treatment will not oicur. Here again practice in Australia has been quite satisfactory—surely the practical result is better than mere theory. 14. Without the context it |is difficult to say what the Englsh Educational Settlement Committee were alluding to when they stated that “English sentiment has for centuries shown a strong preference for allowing great freedom in the utterance of nnrsonal conviction. ” We have no desire to stop the utterance of personal conviction, but I do not for a moment suppose that the committee intended to imply that all teachers were to have complete liberty to teach other people’s children according to their personal con- i viotion only. { 15. It is a pure assumption of the | Professor to say that the people who I want the Bible lesson do not themselves read the Bible. 10. The Professor says there is invaribly sectarian influence at work in denominationally mixed schools ( whore Bible teaching is given and that it causes, sectarian friction amongts both children and parents. This also. I take, to be a pure assumption, and it he would be good enough to call at the Wellington office of “The Bible in Schools” he can obtain a quantity of testimony from the highest authorities and teachers of long experience that it - is not so. As to'tho; objective of the Bible in Schools; — 1. The Professor says our problematic test book is a pig in a poke. If he will apply for oue of the New South Wales or Queensland test books he will see exactly what they are like. The League only wants a similar one authorised by our educational authorities hero. 3, He says the right of entry” to the representatives of a clerical combine, as ho calls it, would be unfair because some deuominations would be unable to take advantage of it, He might as well say the present Education .let war, unfair because there are some children so placed as to bo unable to attend school. 3. I have already shown that the Bible reading lesson would involve no extra payment of ..'rates, therefore there is no reason vvliy a majority' should object on the score of expense. 4. We do not ignore the font that teachers have consciences. Professor McKenzie can -road for himself the i universal testimony of the teachers i in all those countries where the | New South Wales system is at work. Nowhere do the teachers object to j the Bible reading lee son. { 5. The accusation against the j | clergy that “they assume a jiatro-j fusing top-dog attitude towards the I teachers” is, lam sure, absolutely I unwarranted, and is a fiction he- | gotten of his ow T n attitude towards j ' them.

Objections to the Referendum 1. The Professor objects to the Referendum because “religious isj res are involved.” We, on the contrary, say that for that very reason we desire a direct mandate from the parents. As in the temperance question it is felt that the ordinary political representation does not serve. 2. He does not object to majority rule in political or social issues, but does when the Bible comes iu. We consider that the Bible is of very great social importance to the community ; nor has it, as he affirms, “invariably proved disastrous.” On the contrary the Bible has had the greatest influence in building up our best national characteristics. We, therefore, consider that the, majority has a perfect right to ask for Bible reading and oppor unity of religious instruction, provided it is not forced on those who do not desire it. At present il is the other way round, the minority has been forcing its secularism on us. 3. Is hardly worthy of an answer. Wo do not propose to snborne a hooting crowd. 4. The last thing iu the world our League desires to do, should the Referendum be carried, would be to dictate to Professor McKenzie or anyone else in the matter of. religious belief or as to the claims or authority of the Bible.” Such fear is an absurd phantom. Wo only want freedom all round in the matter of religious education, from which at present we are debarred, and that the secularists may no longer dictate to us. 5 lam glad that _ the Professor after all has to end with a text from < the Bible. lam willing to abide by that text —“Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them. ” We wish for nothing better. —I am, etc., W. J. BIRCH. 7th February, 1913*