BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS DEBATE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17351, 16 May 1924, Page 12

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS DEBATE.

MR ISITT AND MR PRUDHOE

AT VARIANCE. Different points of vew on the subject of Bible instruction in State schools were presented by Mr L. 31. f.sitt, M.P.. and Mr J. C. Prudhoe. at a public meeting held in the Cashmere Hills School, last evening. A motion v.'as carried supporting the Bill to be introduced by Mr Jsitt, embodying the, proposals laid down by the conference of churches held in Wellington last yeal. Th© Rev A. H. Norris presided over an attendance of between twenty and thirty persons. Mr E. IL Marriner, chairman of the School Committee, said that at the annual meeting of householders Mr Prudhoe had brought forward a motion regarding Bible /catling in schools, an.l the meeting decided to leave the matter in the hands of the committee to do as it thought best. The committee had decided to call a public meeting, and to invite both Mr Isitt and Mr Prudhoe to address those present. Mr Prudhoe said he thought there was a considerable body of opinion 1 among tlic householders of Cashmere in favour of Bible reading in schools. He and Mr isitt were virtually agreed on the main principles! The point ot divergence between them was the present secular proviso in tho Education Act. In 1887 a clause was included iu the Act, the main portion of whicn read: —“And the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character.” He contended that that secular provision was wrong. They had th© Bible in the law courts, and prayers wore real in Parliament, yet in the schools >t bad been decided that everything must b© ot an entirely secular character. Even th© National Anthem was a prayer, and. could not be sung if the teaching was to be strictly secular. It was found impossible to carry out that secular clause in its entirety. He read letters from teachers, who stated that they were compelled to break the secular law in carrying out their ordinary duties. MORAL TEACHING. “Is there not urgent need for sound morality based on Bible teaching ?’* continued die speaker. There was intense need that no part of their children's education that was likely to be of benefit to them when they grew up should be neglected. The absence of knowledge concerning the truths contained in the Bible was a danger to the community. If they were to train their children in the way they ought to grow up, they should bring every possible good influence before thepi. If Mr Isitt’s Bill were passed, the teacher would be able to give religious instruction at the commencement of the morqing lessons, but ho could, not refer to the Bible during the moral lessons.

The danger of sectarian teaching could be easily avoided, said Mr. Pmdhoe. Sectarianism could be entirely prohibited. He did not believe in sectarian teaching. If the secular clause were repealed, it would free teachers from an intense amount of perplexity and difficulty. The trouble about. Mr Isitt’s Rill was that it covered up th© difficulties he had mentioned. He knew that- the politicians’ cry was “free,, secular, and compulsory education.” hut. th© politicians should be told that the people did not want the education to he secular any longer. He moved: “That in the opinion of this meeting. legislation should be passed at- an early date (a) repealing t.he present law. which requires that the teaching in public schools shall be entirely of a, secular character ; and (b) introducing into all public, native, secondary, and technical high schools a. uniform plan of Biblp reading (including the* Lord’s Prayer and a hymn), to be conducted by teacher? A conscience clause to be provided for teachers and children, the duty of arranging for the work of anv teacher objecting to be that of the school committee or controlling authority. No sectarian teaching to be allowed.”

MR ISITT S BILL. Mr Isitt said he was not present to defend Mr Isitt.’s Bill but to defend Mr Isitt's and Mr Prudhoe s Bill. Mr Prudhoe had apparently forgotten that he was a member of the conference which had decided on the principles of the Bill. When the education system was established in New Zealand the people gloried in the fact that, they had secured a measure that provided fur secular teaching. People of all religions were invited to prepare themselves as teachers and were promised that the religious element would never be brought forward. Mr Isitt referred to the Bill introduced by Sir James Allen prior to the election of 1919. He. had resolutely opposed that Bill because it. did not contain a conscience clause, but Mr Prudhoe had supported it- Mr Prudhoe came forward with a light and airy notion which proposed to prohibit sectarian teaching but the speaker did not think it was possible to keep out sectarianism if they had Bible teaching. To say that they could have Bible teaching without sectarianism creeping in would be on a par with inviting him to lecture on prohibition without letting any of his bias be shown. His Bill asked that the Bible should be introduced into the schools and allowed to do its own work, and that any comment by the teacher should be purely explanatory. It was his intention to visit Wellington on May 23, when he would confer with the educational authorities and have the Bill re-drafted ir* any way that was thought necessary. But he was not prepared to make any alterations that would be in conflict with the unanimous wishes of the united conference. Mr Prudhoe was asking him to break h;s pledge to that conference and to ask for something it was impossible to attain. THE SECULAR PROVISION. The chairman said that he failed to see the difference between Mr Isitt's Bill and what Mr Prudhoe was asking for. Mr Isitt : Mr Prudhoe insists that before he will support the Bill that secular provision must be cut out of the Education Act. The chairman said it seemed to him to be almost a trifling difference. Mr Isitt's Bill sought to get over the secular difficulty by adding other clauses to the Act. M r Prudhoe : The question of the secular clause was never mentioned at the conference. There arc two wavs of getting over the difficulty. One *is that proposed in Mr Isitt's Bill and the other is the method f am advocating. Tam not advocating Bible teaching, but Bible reading Mr Isitt raid he knew that if he agreed to Mr Prudhoe’s request he the Bill altogether. ed and accordingly lapsed. Mr Isitt. said he. would like to test the. feeling of the meeting regarding his Bill, lie suggested that the. fol-

lowing motion might be moved . “ That the Bill embodying the proposals laid down by the conference of churches, to be brought befor° the House by Mr Isitt, receive the support of this meeting '* Mr F H. Bruges moved the resolution suggested by Mr Isitt and expressed the opinion that half a loaf was better than no bread at all Mr T. Sladen seconded the motion Mr E \V. Waller said that the people of Cashmere appreciated thoroughly all the work Mr Prudhoe had done for their school and he would like Mr Prudhoe at. that meeting to declare himself in support of Mr Isitt'? Bill. Mr Prudhoe replied that, it was a mattef of principle. He had given it a great deal of thought and he had decided that he could not recede from the stand he had taken. The motion, on being put to the meeting, was declared carried without dissent. Mr Prudhoe asked for a division and on a show of hands the motion was carried by fifteen votes to one. Mr Prudhoe voted against the motion. Oi, the motion of Mr Isitt. a hearty vote of thanks was passed to Mr Pruci-