BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 14, 6 April 1905, Page 3

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

'POSERS' BY A PROTESTANT CLERGYMAN

Some of the ahlest contributions to the Bible-in-schools controversy during the past few years have been supplied by the Rev. J. T. Hinton, a Baptist clergyman in Dunedin. to last Wednesday's isslie of our local; evening contempprary he sco r es in the following terms the eamjpaign initiated by Mr. Wriglht, the paid agitatior of the Bil).le-i>n-s!cjh!ools Conference :—: — 1 Mr. Wright has arrived and commenced his campaign, so I suppose we must buckle on our uniform again and stand in the breach. I went to the meeting

in the Garrison Hall on Sunday night— l confers in the hoipe of hearing some arguments m advance of those so thoroughly thrashed out during the last agitstion. But, hike some other noted people, the Bible-m- j s>eh>ools party' "' leain nothing and forget n'O'thiiag " It is not easy to select from your report (27th inst.) some points for criticism, for all the sipeeuhes fanly bristle vvitlh oia-time fallacies and contradictions Hut kindly allow me a little space. ' [ notice till at oar Msitor, " the organising agent of t.hd League," retired scnctal times to " Bible le-sons, while the Rev W Tiny '' singly advocated the leading of the Word of God to Lov. s and girlsi." Here Uierc is sanely a 'diisciapancy of utterance which needs some explanation. What does the League really want 1 ' Then Mr. 'I l'ay goes on \o ask for ll a recognition of the Binle as the standard oi morals "—though how that is to he obtained without definite Bible teaching he does niot say —probably ho does not Know ! As to the " ris.ks "' th&t he says he is prepared to run, he will know more about them whon lie has- been a little longer m the Colony ' 'Ihpn as to the "conscience clause," on which s>o mii'c'h stress was la*d. Tins bears both upon the scholars anld the teachers As to the teachers: The provismn of smc'h a conscience clause indicates the belief of the loader of the Brble-iai-fctliools League that some at least of the teacihers will need it and seek to make use of it But 1 warn them all that it is a broken reed, and will utteily fail them it they place any idiance u,nom it. Just study the working of it for a little Tlho teacher declines to give the Bible lesson, and claims the conscience clause But the School Committee w isJi to have the Bi-'ble lesson. What are they likely to do 'if the tetacher refuses' A large number— perhaps a majority— of the parents: of the scholars in that school desire the Bible lessonjs 'What will they say to the elected Committee 7 \nd what will tihc Committee say to the teacher 7 Tlic tvoaoher leaves t/hat school and seeks another. Whore was he last 7 Why did r-r leave '' He ■has to acknowledge that he objected to give tftie Bible lesson, and sought the protection of the conscience clause What will that School Commit tee sav 7 " Oh, you w.ill not suit us ; our parents want the Bible, lessons given " Will the unhappy teachei find a school 7 Noit if the estimate of the League is correct—that the great nvaiority of the parents aie with them The Bible lesson with the conscience clause becomes lncAntabljk a religious test for the teacher, and it is unfair and rrrVpolitic in the extreme ' Than, tlh iink of the e fleet upon the School Committees Not all the people will follow the Lcw-it'e— its leaders I^jiovv this very well Tiie School Coii.'mittee is to be elected And amaner the questions as to q-u allocation will surely be this: Aie you in f.iv or of the Bible, lesions 7 The Softool Committee elections will hinge upon that cji.estion, as smut as fate And into e\eiy school district will be tin own the hone of bitter ecclesiastical strife 1 entreat the electors to pause ftong before entering into such a maelstiom oi religious passion. If it be said that after 11 c success Oul lefercnldum the Bible lessons will be imperatively bindrng on the School Committee as part of the school cairiieuLum, what becomes of the teat hers' c onscience. clause 7 Is the tcauher to be at 1 inert/ to defy his School Committee the Ivducaticw B'utd, and Parliament as well 7 The thing is impossible, tfnd only failure to thmk the question out excuses its crass folly. ' Then as to. the scholars. It is proposed that half an hornr be given to the Bible lesson every day That is 10 per cant, of the school time. The League recognises by its conscience clause that some of the parents will object to the Bible lesson. What will happen to the children of these parents 7 Will they be turndd out into the playground 7 Ccni>aniVy not. We were told on Sunday night that the ehildien under the conscience clause would go on with their ordinary lessions while the other scholars were ietching the Bible lesson I wonder whether the inventor of this matchless scheme took any trouble at all to think out the probable, the inevitable, results 7 The children unHex the conscience clause have 10 per cent, more delineation on the sdcular lines than Ihose receiving the Bible lesson ' Will someone kindly estimate the reslult of ttiafe difference of 10 per cent when exexamination day comes round 7 Or looik at it another way The attendants at the Bible lesson miss a school le&s'on every day— five lessons per week. Only think of the confusion in the different clashes when half or rniore of the scholars have missel letf.-iori after lefeislon ! I esteem very highly our .public school teachers, and I 'lonow that their service is often a hard, anxious, and thankless one. And again I appeal to the electors not to place such an additional and unendurable burden urpon them.'