BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 145, 25 July 1914, Page 8

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir,—Free compulsory education was necessitated by two facts—(l) an uneducated citizen is a danger or a loss to the State',"and (2) many parents are unwilling or unable to educate their own children. Let us-see how far the "mother's knee" system and the Nelson system supply the deficiency. First of all, note that the present free, compulsory, secular education takes careful note of the indolence; of parents, and leaves no stone unturned to counteract it in the specific arts of .reading, writing, aud arithmetic. If a child grows up illiterate, he is not necessarily a danger, but only a loss to the State. But if he grows up deficient in morals he is a danger to the State. As no religion is taught in the school, and the teachers' ' Mont's" (don't steal, don't lie, etc.) are not permanently impressive, and as ex-hypothesi the parent is unable-or unwilling to teach the child, he grows up deficient in morals and dangerous to the State. Now for the Nelson system. By free, compulsory, secular education a child is supplied with an authority higher than his father's. He is under irresistible discipline in school, but can say "No" to his father's orders. So this particular father is unable to send his boy for the weekly religious lessqn out of school hours that the Nelson system offers. The mother of another boy is careless. She ouly sends her children to school to get them out of the way of her housework, and because she is driven by the truant officer. This is an instance of the parent unwilling to avail herself of the Nelson system. The result is that the system is utterly ineffectual. Why? If you think over the instances given, it will dawn on you that in this Nelson system and in this generation so wantiug in respect to parents the conscience clause is really offered to the child, not to the parent. It is obvious, when you come to think of'it, the child is given the conscience clause in the Nelson system. Headmaster: "Dou you'object to religious teaching out of school hours?" Boy: "What, to be kept in? Why, of course I do." So,.although in the specific, arts, ignoraikce of • which causes loss to the State, indolence of the parent is irresistibly countered, in morals, deficiency in which-is a danger to the State, a system which fails ut* terly from the indolence and indulgence of parents, is favoured by thousands, who have not taken the trouble to compare the Nelson and Australian systems. Look without prejudice at the eud to be attained for the parents, the child's, aiid the State'* deepest interest. The Australian system's two clauses are really one; they are mutually complementary. The child grows familiar with the letter of the Bible by reading it with his teacher, and with the spirit of the Bible during-the .minister's visit. Parliament's business is with the conscience clause, to obviate the slightest suspicion of oppression. Every parent should be required to answer two questions printed on a card of. admission to the public school: (1) Do you object to your own child reading the Bible with his

teaehcr ? (2) Do you object to your own minister of religion visiting your child during school hours? The oligarchs ask Parliament to let the little dog with the loud bark be secured in his dominant position on the under dog. Thesa few wiseacres alone know what all other people \s children should be taught. —I am, etc., PARENT'S BIGHT. .July 24, 1914.