Mr Isitt's Bill.

Waiapu Church Gazette, Volume XVI, Issue 3, 1 September 1925, Page 5

Mr Isitt's Bill.

Whatever may be our personal view of the value of Mr Isitt's Bill for providing for the reading of Scripture and the saying 1 of the Lord's Prayer a ; t the beginning of school, all who value religious instruction will agree that the treatment given to the Bill m the House was deplorable. The old silly objections were trotted out by speaker after speaker, sensible criticism was not m evidence at all. Although the discussion lasted all night, it never rose to the high level that one •would hope for on such a serious occasion. The least thoughtful person should know by this time that fear of "sectarianism" being introduced was fear of a bogey that has been laid long ago not only by argument, but by practical experience m the largest secondary schools m New Zealand. Bolsheviks and labor extremists were naturally expected to oppose anything m the nature of religion, but it is sad to read the fatuous speeches of men usually considered intelligent on the obligation to preserve the "secular" plank m the State school system. The word "secular" has become a sacred shibboleth. Educationalists of all schools have over and over again lamented the absence of religious teaching from the syllabus; Prime Ministers are constantly urging the Christian bodies to put forth every endeavor to neutralise the secularism that is naturally pervading society as the direct result of secular education. Yet some members of Parliament still think that our present system is perfect and that the maintenance of this perfection is so wrapped up m secularism that the introduction of the Name of God would destroy it utterly ! Personally the editor is not enthusiastic about this particular Bill but the authorities of all the principal non-Roman denominations had at last agreed upon a measure that they could unite to support, and such a measure deserved sympathetic and serious discussion. The merits or demerits of the Bill were scarcely considered. It was evidently regarded by members as a bone to be worried by the packs on each side, an excuse far: personal attacks and as a means

by which they, could play to the secular gallery, and win the approval of Roman Catholic and labourite constituents. To make such a Bill an occasion for political vote catching, mutual scurrility and party abuse? is such a sordid thing that one wonders ■whether the men who did it have any sense of decency at all. Of course the above criticisms do not apply to all those who spoke for or against the Bill, there were many no doubt whose regret for the unseemliness of the debate is as poignant as our own.