BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 144082, 29 April 1913, Page 6

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

(To the Editor.) * Sir, —Mr. J. J. Elwin is slightly contradictory. He begins by admitting tho failure of our educational system in that it has failed to convey a knowledge of history to tho present generation, and winds up by asserting that it is the admiration of the world. If this is true, it follows either that it has gained the world's admiraiion on a false estimate or that the world's admiration isn't worth much. Of course a mattier of fact the statement, if not absolutely untrue, is bordering very closely to it. The world at large knows very little, and cares less, about-New Zealand's educational system, and the assertion is only a clap-trap sentiment to tickle the ears of the groundlings. Further on he says that "The State recognised that religious instruction is necessary." If so, why does it not provide it If "it does not;provide that which is necessary, how can it be said to perform its duty? But Mr. Elwin's argument is, that while the State does not provide-the instruction, it allows any religious body to provide it. Yes, that is. so. When? Before or after school hours? .Now, can that be looked upon as either a reasonable or fair thing ■either* to the child or to the teacher? How c&n you expect any normal child to willingly listen to and intelligently take it a lesson thrown at him in this way, an* extra, while during the time he is receiving it he can, out of the corner of his eye, see his more fortunate companions in the playground indulging in the wild delights of football or some other equally entrancing game. Is not a lesson given under these conditions* rather calculated to make a child dislike religion than otherwise? How many of us would, I wonder, know •our multiplication table to-day if the learning of it had been dependent on our own childish will, and it had to be learnt in what we considered our own time? Then Mr. Elwin, admitting that religious instruction is necessary, goes say that the churches ate' agitating to cause the State to do the, work that, he says, the churches have not performed. In this he is absolutely wrong; the churches are not asking the S.tate to give any religious instruction •at all. They are asking that accredited teachers, i.e., ministers of religion and others, may be allowed to give, in school hours, to the children of their own faith, that instruction which the State recognises as necessary bKit omits to give. Further, they ask that as an introduction to this the children should be taught to read out of the Bible instead ol some other reading hook, and in order that no one's conscience may be unduly strained, it further asks that any parent who objects to either or both oi these lessons may withdraw his child from either or both of them. Neither docs the league or the churches ask for any payment to these teachers; they are willing, nay, anxious, to do it for nothing. There are other and irrelevant matters touched on in Mr. Elwin's letter, which I will not touch on now. He tells us that in his younger days ho was a Church worker. Doubtless he will have his reward, but why should he now bo in his moro manure years a Church hinderer? If he .were himself without a knowledge of the truth it would be a sad thing, but that, having that knowledge, he should seek to prevent the children of our land gettine it also is a sadder one.—l am, etc., h H.5T.8.5.5.L.