BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXII, Issue 35, 1 September 1904, Page 2

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

A PROTESTANT DEPUTATION OPPOSES

On Thursday of last week a deputation representing various creeds waited on the Premier in order to lay before him their views on the movement which is on foot t,o turn the State schools into sectarian institutions. We take the following report of the proceedings from the ' IWZ. Times ' of last Friday :— The other side of the Bible-in-schools controversy was put to the Premier yesterday afternoon by a party representing diverse creeds and persuasions. Amongst those present were the Hon. T. K. Macdonald, who introduced the deputation, the Hon. F. H Fraser, Mr. W. H. P. Barber, M.H.R., the Revs. J. Crewes, ,W. A. Evans, and H. Van Staveren, Dr. Findlay, and tyr. John Hutcheson.

The Rev. J. Crewes said a deputation had recently waited on the Premier, urging that a certain text-book should be used in State schools. The Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church having denned their position against tine proposal, it was not considered necessary to invite their representatives. Those present differed widely on political, ecclesiastical, and theological questions, but they all considered the proposal made by the Bible-in-schools Conference to be objectionable. Some, if not all, of them, objected to paying for religious instruction from taxation imposed on all classes of the people. They appreciated the injustice to teachers, who were trained specially lor the State schools. They were convinceid that the text-book was a religious book, and that the Question proposed by the Conference was a religious question that the civil Government had not juris/diction Vo deal with. It, might be said that the Romain Catholic Bishops and the Bible-m-sfchools depu-

tatioija each represented an organisation or public body. What they wanted was that the Government should save them from the need for further organisation. 'We represent the views and feelings,' he continued, 4 of large numbers of persons, many of whom are only too eager for organisation. But we hate "bigotry., We consider ecclesiastical strife the worst of all kinds of strife. We know that the very worst of feelings are sometimes engendered in conflicts about religion, and we appeal to the civil Government to keep questions of religion where for many years they have been kept— outside the civil province of the State.' If Parliament decided to submit the question to the people, they asked that it should be very different from the question proposed by the Bible-in-schools Conference.

Dr. Findlay said he wished to voice the conviction he had held for years, that the free and secular educatton, which had been one of the chief planks of the platform of tine party to which the Premier belonged, show Id not be (destroyed by a step which was retrograde, and which took them back to a period, and to difficulties and disadvantages Which they had hoped, as a free people, they had left behind for good and all (hear, hear). However, they might cloud the issue as to teaching nyoraJity, the real purpose of the movement was' to teadh religion. If the Government admitted the Bible text-»book into the schools, it could not in the future meet the demand for its extension and alteration until it embraced, if necessary, the whole of the Bible. He submitted that the children of our country should be permitted to meet on the common ground of secular education without the differences and bitterness that denominationalism engendered. Once they taught religion they would get back to the old days of intolerance, and start a drift that miight land them in a State Church. If tihe question was to be put to a majority vote, where wouid it end ? They wanted to be safeguarded against the activity of a minority who would go to the polls to vote.

The Rev. W. A. Evans made the point that tttiere was nothing in the New Zealartd system of education that could exclude children of any class or creed. He could not see why they should face the possibility of having to differentiate by a conscience clause between two classes of the community. If a referendum was to be taken, the first step should be to distribute the textbook broadcast over the country, so as to let the people clearly understand what it was. Mr, Gemmell, formerly inspector of schools, also spoke. iMr. Seddon questioned very much whether any other subject would ha\e brought such a diverse assembly togeiflier. It would be undemocratic to refuse the people the opportunity, under fixed and fair conditions, of expressing their opinion. The House of Representatives ha,d more than once passed the Referendum Bill, well knowing that this was one of the questions that might be -submitted under it. He thought the Bill would pass again by a large majority, and if it passed the Upper Hoftise resolutions would have to be ias'sed as to what questions sholuld be put. Both Houses would insist that {(here should be no doubt as to what the people should be required to vote upon. It was clearly a matter for the (people to decide. He did not think, however, that public moneys should be spent in printing the textbook for circulation. It would toe the duty of those who were asking that the question be submitted to see that the information was placed in the hainds of every elector. He was very sorry to see that so little was known about the text-book except within a given circle. There had been an ominous silence on the part of the press in respect to Bible-reading in schools. It was not for him to say what that meant. The Legislative Council would probably recognise that the right of the people to a direct vote on the subject should not be kept from them. Personally, he believed in every child in the country being taught religion. The Rev. H. Van Staveren : In school ? Mr. Seddon : I have not said in school. There are places,' of course, and there are those whose duty it is. I feel myself, and do not hesitate to say, that those whose duty it is to teach religion and morality have had .opportunities for years, and have failed to embrace them, and a great effort is being ma^de now to get someone else to do it (aplplause).

Sn conclusion, Mr. Seddon promised to go on with the Referendum Bill as previously mentioned.

When our Navy alhall sweep o'er the seas— Not the subsidized navy of Ned — God bless him ,! we'll tackle the breeze, And the battle and breakers ahead, With a knowledge— no matter how ooaled— Tfiat we'll steer both swift and secure Through the cold-cutting seas of coughs and of sneeze, With WOODS' GREAT PEPPERMINT CURE.