BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Waikato Times, Volume 103, Issue 17411, 25 May 1928, Page 9

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The object of my iasi letter was to show how unjust Mr de la Mare could be in the denunciation of the Bible in Schools- League for not producing the Bible Manual, the final responsibility for producing which will rest with the -Education Department. Having “exposed” his statement that the League “dare not expose” (sic) the manual, I find in his reply the contention that “every manual yet suggested has provoked a storm of theological controversy.” If true, that in itself would not necessarily be an evil. Progress by conflict is not a new idea, and “iron sharpeneth iron” —if I may dare to quote from a Book considered by some unfit for the primary schools. But is It true? The responsibility rests with him to prove his contention. Take the manual I mentioned, that of Cambridge, produced by Sir Arthur Quiller Couch, Dr. T. R. Glover, and Dr. Nairnc, lor the Cambridge Education Committee. It is the one the League has iu mind as a general basis. What storm has it provoked?. I have not heard of any stir in the placid calm of Cambridge as the result. But compare this actual equanimity with the seething controversy with which New Zealand has been, disturbed .again and again during the fifty years the secular system has been in operation. Compare Queensland since the Bible was introduced into the schools with New Zealand without the Bible. If it is absence of controversy that is wanted it is more likely to come when the great majority of the people are satisfied, rather than when the majority feels it is being sacrificed to the small minority. In New South Wales matters are so “settled” that even Labour Governments there have never attempted to ruffle the. calm, and make no suggestion of any change in the Bible in Schools system of that State. The tendency to be cynically unjust in statement further appears in Mr do la Mare’s description of the Education Department’s responsibility in the production of the manual, described as

.“some civil servant who may or may not have convictions in the matter” being “pushed into making the Bible selections.”, This may be cheap sarcasm at the expense of the Department of Education, but seems hardly befitting a member of the University Senate. The Director of Education has a much saner way of viewing the whole question of the manual production. From his evidence before the Education Committee of the House of Representatives I select the following: “We cannot any longer justify the exclusion of the Bible from the schools," and “I can see no difficulty whatever in broadminded clergymen of the Christian churches making such a selection of reading matter from the Bible as will be acceptable to all. The Held for choice is wide enough, and there is sufficient common ground among the Christian churches to make the task one of little difficulty.” Such tendencies in argument as I have referred to make it of little value to discuss a question if the object is to arrive at truth rather than conduct a sparring match. I have no time for the latter. I cull the following from the later portions of Mr de la Mare's letter:— 1 V

1. “He (Mr Blamires) knows perfectly well what the Roman Catholic position has always been.” —Comment: No, Ido not. It appears to be different in different States. ' Roman Catholic teachers can read the Scrip lures in the schools of New South Wales and give excellent help in that State. Roman Catholic parents can allow their children to join in the reading. A Roman Catholic bishop' can endorse in another country what a Roman Catholic bishop opposes here, so it is reported to me.

2. “The. State in New Zealand could not admit that the teaching of religion was part of the Slate’s job.”—Comment: What is meant by the “teaching of religion"? If the opening of the school with prayer and Bib\e-reading is so described, then what about the position of the secondary schools? Are headmasters sucli as Mr Frank Milner, of Waitaki High School, not paid by the State? The League asks for nothing that is not already acceptable in the secondary schools. Even Parliament opens with prayer! 3. “The effect (of Bible in schools) is in the most real sense to drive the .Catholic out of the school.” —Comment: What about the secularity of the national schools having already driven out the Roman Catholics? Is the Roman Catholic conscience more offended by opening Ihe school with prayer (they themselves use Ihe Lord's prayer) and reading the Bible (which they view as the Holy Scriptures) than by what they vnvc termed a “godless system”? Is the Roman Catholic more

against the general religious basis than the non-religious basis? If he prefers a recognition of Cod of a general Christian character rather than no recognition at all, then how can a change from a secular basis to a general religious basis (in which there is no denominational emphasis) drive the Roman Catholic out of the school? 4. "The Bible in Schools party does not propose lo read Ihe Bible as literature.” —Comment: A half-truth! The educational principle enunciated applies equally.

I expect Mr de .la Mare will recognise Sir H. Reichel, chairman of the Royal Commission which reported recently on New Zealand university education, as an educational authority. May I close w'ith this from his pen: “The English language, English literature, and English character have probably been more moulded, shaped, and inspired by the English Bible than by any other influence, literary or educational. Once this fact is grasped the absurdity of leaving it out of a national system of education for people of English blood and English fraditions becomes obvious. Some years ago religious teaching, including the reading "of the Bible, was excluded from the State elementary schools in Wales owing lo the mutual jealousy of fhe different religious bodies. It is widely recognised now that the effects have been disastrous.” —I am, etc., E. 0. BLAMIRES.