RELIGION IN SCHOOLS

Southland Times, Issue 21430, 26 June 1931, Page 2

RELIGION IN SCHOOLS

NEW BILL PREPARED. TEACHERS OPPOSE MEASURE. An appeal for the support of teachers for the Religious Instruction in Schools Enabling Bill, which it is proposed to introduce into Parliament this session, was made by Archbishop Averill and the Rev. E. D. Patchett, president of the Methodist Conference, at a meeting of the Auckland branch of the New Zealand Educational Institute last week (states the Herald). The meeting also heard a criticism of the bill by the Rev. W. Jellie. A resolution opposing the measure was carried. Archbishop Averill said that, as far as it was possible, agreement had been reached between the great majority of churches in New Zealand. Recently an arrangement had been arrived at with the Roman Catholic Church, and the chief opposition to a religious exercises bill, w’hich was from Roman Catholics in Parliament, had been withdrawn. The great idea behind the bill was justice for those who believed that there should be some religious teaching in schools, the archbishop said. However, the bill made allowances for those who did not wish their children to have instruction and for those teachers who did not wish to take it. As far as the syllabus was concerned, the Education .Department would call a conference of ministers of religion and teachers to prepare a manual. The instruction would be for a maximum of two hours a week or about 20 minutes each morning. Archbishop Averill said in some cases there might not be teachers available and provision was made for a school committee to appoint an outside person after consulting the inspector. There was no. reason why any teacher would be penalized for failing to take part, as the scheme would be wholly under the Education Department. Instruction would be in school hours and those not taking it would be given a lesson in another subject. “The whole idea of the bill is to be just to everyone,” said Archbishop Averill. He said thanks were due to those teachers who had co-operated in the Nelson system of Bible reading. The main objection to that system was that children gained a wrong idea of religion in finding that it was notpermitted in the syllabus. All the Churches were conscious of the growth of materialism and it was felt that something must be done for the children. “The secular system of education arose only through the narrowness of the Churches, which have now reached agreement,” said Mr Patchett. “The outstanding point in the bill is that all the Churches are agreed.” Replying to a question whether any penalties would be imposed upon dissenting teachers, Archbishop Averill said it, was hardly possible that the department would stoop to such an action. “Will not the Roman Catholic Church demand State aid for its schools if the bill is passed?” was another question. “The Roman Catholics have asked before and they will ask again,” said the archbishop. “There is no connection between this bill and their requests.” Various clauses in the bill were dealt with by Mr Jellie, who claimed that the operation of it would mean a breakdown of the present system. “All religions are represented in the schools and there is no one professed religion; therefore, the schools are not the proper place for religious instruction,” he said. “There is no guarantee that teachers will not suffer in grading by refusing to take part in the instruction.”

Mr Jellie said a system of Protestant instruction was bound to cut the ground from the feet of those opposed to the claims for aid of the Roman Catholic schools. He believed that the present compromise between the Churches would break down and a certain section would build schools and demand State aid for them. The Roman Catholic Church must have seen the advantage to be gained or its opposition would not have been withdrawn. Mr F. A. Garry said the principal objection to the bill was that it proposed to divide the community into two classes, those who could be taxed and those who could not be taxed should increased expenditure be necessary. “There are some most extraordinary clauses in the bill,” he said. “There is a difference between supporting the bill and believing in religious instruction in schools.” A motion to oppose the bill was earned by 36 votes to 22.