SO SIMPLE.

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

SO SIMPLE.

To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir, —Your correspondent, " Parents' ■ Right," puts the claim of the Bible-in-State-Schools League ao siiiipiy in Friday's SUN that one wonders.why; peoplo' do not hail the movement with delight. A body of 140,000 electors is alleged to have asked for a referendum, and "&very house in New Zealand has been canvassed. The 140,000, even if genuine supporters, is the limit of the league's - effort. But 460,000 electors have not aiked for a referendum —most of them h&ve refused to sign for a referendum. Where, then> is "Parent's" sixso.venths of the people? Is 140,000 sixf;tvenths of 600,000? The Bible-in-Schools League in Queensland claimed six-sevenths but could only gather to the poll about one quarter of .the electort.. ,

Again, the 140,000 alleged supporters contains a large namber of girls under age; a large-number who have since revoked by signing the opposition cards; a still larger number who have jio notion what they signed for, except thajk it meant Bible-in-Schools. Why is not that petition lodged before Parliament for scrutinv?. . '

"Parent" talks of consistency. j.f, as he claims, a majority has, the right to say what shall be taught" in the schools, why is his IcagW opposed to allowing electors to show a ma'jority ior o against taking the Right; of; Entry .if Sectarian teaehingMnto schools, and a separate vote- for or against the State Bible teaching? Why does an alleged 140,000, reducible to perhaps 300,000, presume to dictate that 6.00,000 electors; vote for both Bible teaching and Right .shall vote for both Bible teaching and Right of Entry being introduced into State Schols, or vote against both? "Parent," will surely acknowledge | that if his scheme is unjust, it cannot

I;e. adopted ,to further Bible teaching or religion. Canon Garland declared at the opening of the campaign that '' if the movement would inflict injustice on any section of the community, he would have nothing to do with it." "Par. ent" will no doubt be aj>le to answei tJve following questions:— : • (1) Is it just that a.form <jf. religious instruction, acceptable to peopie, shall be given at State cost, ; while others who cannot conscientiously use this.system, would be refused any Stategiven equivalent, but would have to pay tor the one they could not use? (2) Is it jusf 'that teachers should be darned *a conscience clause concerning Ihe .very lessons for whl-.:h a conscience clause is giA-en to parents? (3) Is it just that a question involving acute denominational differences of belief should be determined by a count of heads irrespective of the justice or injustice of the decision,? % (4) Is it just that even 140,000 alleged electors shall determine that a doubles-barrelled issue shall be put just ar- they want it, and thus tie the hands of 600,000 electors who may wjsjh one thing to become part of our school system and not the other?—l am, etc., .. JOHN CAUGHLEY.