CORRESPONDENCE

Southland Times, Issue 21854, 3 November 1932, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. To the Editor. ' Sir,—On attending at the Waihopai School on Tuesday morning for the Scripture lesson I was disturbed to learn that the Ministers’ Association had notified the headmaster that because of the pressure of work in the schools towards the end of the year they had decided to close down the religious instruction for this year with the lesson this week. On inquiry I was assured that the Headmasters’ Association had made no request whatever for the cessation of religious instruction. It seems to me that the ministers have made a serious mistake for they have given away the case for religious instruction. If it is admitted that for six weeks religious instruction trespasses on the time of the syllabus, then it may easily be admitted that for the earlier part of the school year religious instruction is also a trespass on the time of the syllabus. But I stoutly maintain that half an hour a week spent recognizing the Bible is no trespass on time at all, but that, divided into , the daily few minutes’ periods it is spent in a most valuable, profitable

and necessary manner by. the daily reading of a portion of Scripture without comment. But if the real though unacknowledged reason for the cessation of religious instruction is the inability of the Ministers’ Association to staff the schools then the cry that anyone whose judgment is sound demands religious instruction in the schools becomes of no more value than crying for the moon, because in the first place ministers and their nominees cannot possibly fulfil the needs of country schools and secondly because they cannot deal with more than the three higher standards, so thdt, while some scholars are receiving religious instruction a large proportion of the scholars are not coming into contact with the Bible at all. All the difficulties vanish when it is realized that the school is NOT the place for religious instruction, but that it IS the place where the Bible should be recognized. There is no need to traverse again the arguments that have been, noted in previous letters in your columns in favour of a measure which will secure this suggested, timely, profitable, reverent, non-irritating, and necessary recognition of the Bible It remains to move as soon as possible on lines which will secure for it the endorsement of both parents and public and which will encourage the Government either itself to carry out the suggestion or to support instead some member of the House in such a laudable object.—l am, etc, FRANK SAMPSON.