BIBLE TEACHING IN STATE SCHOOLS.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 143550, 15 July 1911, Page 6

BIBLE TEACHING IN STATE SCHOOLS.

AN UP-TO-DATE REVIEW AND APPEAL Bv the VEN. ARCHDEACON WILLIS, CAMBRIDGE. ARTICLE IV. THE NEED FOR A CHANGE IN THE LAW. ■> • In the third article of this series I showed the uselessness of the present facilities for voluntary teaching in the schools. Under these circumstances if tho Bible is to be taught there is nothing else to be done but to make a change in the Education Law. Of course, there arc objections made to the change/ but they are all easily answered. I will take a few of the objections commonly raised, setting out what they are as briefly as possible, and then answering them in order. a Great variety of objections are brought forward. It is said (1) that the State should have nothing to do .with ‘ teaching religion ppl the Bible; (H) that the re-introduction of the Bible would bo a return,to denominational education; (3) that'no change should be made until all parties are agreed; (-1) that a large section of tho population, including many Roman Catholics, are against it; (5) that if the State makes this concession to Protestants, she must make some other to Roman Catholics; (6) that many part’s of the Bible are unsuitable lor teaclAig to children , (7) that the school syllabus is already overcrowded, and there is no room to add anything more; (8) that many of the teachers are unbelievers, anti would ridicule the Bible, and thus defeat the object desired; and so on. But these objections and many- others have’'been again and again ALL SATISFACTORILY ANSWERED. ! The answers may be summarised ns follows;—(To No. I) That the State, having practically annihilated the machinery that previously existed for teaching the Bible, ought in reason to set up-some other in its place (to No. 2) that the exclusion of the Bible is a pandering to the worst form of denominationalism, for it makes all the people suffer to please a comparatively small section; (to No. 3) that no law could ever be amended if we had; to wait for all the people to vote for the amendment; (to No. 4) that those who object to, the proposal would be protected by a conscience clause, and be free to withdraw from Bible teaching; (to No. S) that the Bible is the chief basis of teaching of Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, and in teaching it there is no advantage given to one Christian body more than to another; (to No. 6)’ that only passages suitable ■for teaching to children shoujd .be used, arid that various compilations with this object in view have been made; (to No. .7.) that if the school syllabus is already full it is a simple matter to re-arrange it. As to the last objection (No. 8) that teachers would ridicule the Bible, it is gratuitous assumption and a gross ■libel, which is unworthy of notice, and which should be swept aside with indignation. ANOTHER OBJECTION which demands a paragraph to itself is that the introduction of the Bible into the school system would be the death-blow to the present excellent Education Law. The reasonable answer to this is.that, on the contrary, the change would greatly strengthen the law if only by stilling controversy; and by supplying the one great factor, needed to make the New Zealand Education. Law complete. \* AND YET ANOTHER. , I must, ask a little more space to deal with an objection by the supporters of; what is called the “Nelson” system. Under this system teaching by ministers of religion and others is permitted by some boards and committees during school hours ; and this is said to meet all requiromentsj That system, however, had its weaknesses exposed at the annual elections of school committees last year. Although a praiseworthy effort was made to obtain for the “Nelson” system general support throughout the Dominion.' the effort, resulted in lamentable failure. It met with stern opposition in many quarters, both from boards and committees. THE “NELSON”,SYSTEM possesses, indeed, the ono merit where generally supported of securing that some religious teaching shall be given during school hours It suffers, however, from two of the greatest defects of the New Zealand Education Law as a whole, namely, these: Firstly, that only a- portion of the schools have any chance whatever of such teaching being given in them; and, secondly, that those who have a chance are subject to a variety of treatment according to the varying opinions of those who may be in authority locally 'for the time being. ONE OTHER ANSWER. THE NEW SOUTH WALES SYSTEM is “more important than any answer which I have yet given, because it is' the answer which. incontrovertibly silences all, objections. The New South Wales system is no theoretical idea, but an ascertained fact. It has been at work in New South Wales since , 1866, in Tasmania since 1868, in Western Australia, since 1893, and, in Norfolk Island since 1906. None of the terrible evils prophesied to come to New Zealand if die should adopt it have so far come to any of these Stales or communities. The, New South Wales system has, moreover, just commended itself to the judgment of the people of another’Australian State, and THE VERDICT OF QUEENSLAND was recorded in its favour by an immense majority of the people at Hhe recent State referendum. The particular excellences of the New South Wales system 1 will describe in my next article.