BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS QUESTION

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17881, 24 June 1926, Page 4

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS QUESTION

To the Editor. Sir, —It is pleasing to note that after working underground for so long the Bible in Schools League should at length have come out into the open, where they can be dealt with. In a covering letter accompanying a circular recently sent out by* the league, the following statement was made:— ( “ We are not seeking newspaper or public meeting publicity, hoping that

the eiismy may believe we are inert, or else moribund.' 5 It would be interesting: to know why the league has found it necessary to abandon its avowed policy of avoiding publicity. Is the league perturbed by the fact that the teachers of the Dominion have expressed themselves in no uncertain terms as being opposed to the proposed introduction of Bible-reading into the State schools? Is it not significant that at the annual meeting of the N.Z.E.1., attended by delegates from rll parts of the Dominion, the following motion was carried by bl votes to 19:— 41 That the annual meeting of the New Zealand Educational Institute considers the introduction of Bible-reading into schools is inadvisable.” Mr Crowther evidently considers of great importance the fact that in the Education Bill of 1877 there was an attempt to make religious instruction a part of the school curriculum. He, however, does not inform vour readers that, in order to avoid the sectarian bitterness and strife which were so evident in connection with religious instruction in the schools of other countries, it was decided that religious education should not be included in the State school curriculum in New Zealand. Then Mr Crowther gives us a quotation from a letter from Sir Harold Beauchamp, and we are treated to the astounding statement, 44 That crime, now so rampant in this Dominion, is in no small measure due to our present Godless system of education.” Will Mr Crowther and his friends be good enough to compare the crime statistics of New Zealand with those of any other country where religious instruction is given in the schools? May I draw their attention to what the late Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, said recently in Auckland, when voicing his protest against any interference with our free, secular, and compulsory system of education. Sir Robert emphatically stated 44 that the percentage of crime to population in New Zealand is the lowest in the world.” And who in the Dominion can speak on such a subject with greater authority than Sir Robert Stout? The fact of the matter is that our schools are by no means 44 godless.” Teachers are doing a great work for the State by inculcating moral principles and by training their pupils for true citizenship. As Mr Crowther is so fond of quotations, I wish to giA'e him some in return. In Monday's 44 Star,” in your 4 ‘ Public Opinion ” column, you quote (under the heading 44 Does Education Pay?”) from the 44 Otago Daily Times.” The concluding sentence reads: 44 Further, in 1880, out of every 10,000 people in this country 16.48 were in gaol; in 19*24 the proportion had sunk to 9.22.” So much for the work of the 44 godless 55 schools. In his bpok, 44 The Task .of Social Hygiene,' 5 Havelock Ellis, one of the greatest psychologists and sociologists of the day', has a chapter, 44 Religion and the Child.” Ellis says;— 44 It is a fact as strange as it is unfortunate, that the much-debated question of the religious education of children is almost exclusively considered from the point of view of the sectarian and the secularist. The unfortunate part of it is that in this quarrel the interests of the community, the interests of the child, even the interests of religion, are alike disregarded. The first place here belongs to the psychologist, and to the practice, teacher, who are in touch with the knowledge of the real nature of the child, and the contents and growth of the youthful mind, and can bring that knowledge to the test of actual experience. Every other subject of instruction is intelligible and attractive to some considerable section of the scholars, because it is within the range of childish intelligence. It might, on a priori ground, be plausibly argued that, even if there is among healthy young children a certain amount of indifference, or even repugnance to religious instruction, that is of very little consequence; they cannot be too early grounded in the principles of the faith they will later be called upon to profess, and however incapable they may now be of understanding the teaching that is being inculcated in the school, dhey will realise its importance when their knowledge and experience increase. But, however plausible this may seem, practically it is not what usually happens. The usual effect of constantly imparting to children an instruction they are not yet ready to receive, is to deaden their sensibilities on the whole subject of religion. The premature familiarity with religious influences—putting aside the rare cases where it leads to a morbid preoccupation with religion —induces a reaction to routine which becomes so habitual that it successfully withstands the later influences, which, on more virgin soil, would have evoked vigorous and living response. So far from preparing the way for a more genuine development of religious impulse later on, this precocious sexual instruction is, just adequate to act as an inoculation against deeper and more serious religious interests. The commonplace child in .later life accepts the religion it has been inured to so early as part of the conventional routine of life. The more vigorous and original child, for the same reason, shakes it off, perhaps for ever. 55 Holmes, a leading educationist, remarks; 41 The boy who, having attended two thousand Scripture lessons, says 4 If this is religion, I will have no more of it, 5 is acting in obedience to a healthy instinct. He is to be honoured, rather than blamed for having realised at last that the chaff on which he has so long been fed is not the lifegiving grain which, unknown to himself, his inmost soul demands. 5 In conclusion permit me to say that as the schools are to-day, they are efficient training grounds for citizenship, more efficient because religious dogma and sectarian differences are unknown within their Avails, and more friendly to religion because no unwise use of the Bible is attempted.—l am, A. C. MAXWELL.