Untitled

Waiapu Church Gazette, Volume XVII, Issue 2, 2 August 1926, Page 60 (Supplement)

To the Editors, "N,Z, Churchman." Sirs^-rWhen Canon; Wilford thought it necessary to fill two Gplumns of the July issue of the "N.Z. Churchman'? with autobiographical details, he tacitly acknowledged the need; of some apology for the lame and impotent conclusion of his letter — his statement of the grounds of his opposition to the policy of the Beligious Exercises m Schools Bill. The plea that Canon Wilford 's own work of 22 years will be undone, if the Bill becomes law will not persuade any large body of New Zealand Churchmen to revolt against the action of their leaders. Moreover, if they will read the provisions of the Bill, which have stood unchanged for three years, they will find that it does not contemplate the undoing of anything which has been hitherto accomplished m the long fight for religion m our schools. Clause 6 provides that "if at any school; it has been the practice prior to. the commencement of this Act to. conduct religious exercises m a fojin other than that prescribed herein, the controlling authority of the school may authorize the continuance of the firstnamed exercises m lieu of those prescribed . by this. Act." li&% us 160k at the facts. Because various Christian bodies could not agree 49 years ago as to the manner of introducing religion into the schools of the community, it was decided (against the wishes of the minority of the. people) to exclude religion altogether. Who have been responsible, m tlie final analysis, for barring God out of the schools and banning the Bible? Qur education has remained "godless" because Christian people have mever before reached substantial agreement about what they want -and nought to have. At last there is a policy Which by its fairness and

reasonableness has commended itself tot;: the leaders of piir own and other religious bodies, who repiresent between 70 and 80 per cent, of the population. The Bill has won the approval of parents and \ others throughout the Dominion. If it becomes; law, then m every school m- the land, great or small, m town or backblpcks, the Name of God wiii be, honoured, something of His law and His love will be told m the words of Holy Scripture, and the children will be led to lift, up their hearts to. Qod m a simple act of worship. Canon Wilford reminds us that "by not teaching a truth, you do by that very. fact teach, that it is not a necessary truth." - This very thing has. been done for half a. century m our schools:., the total, exclusion of religion has tended to create m the minds of the children, at their most impressionable age, a . positive presumption against : religion. Few will be f build to deny that the provisions of this Bill would confer; great religious benefit upon the children. When Canon Wilfdi'd opposes this reform m the supposed intefests of the Church, .he incurs a grave responsibility, hardly justified by his arguments. He condemns the Bill because it would ( ' rob the Church of the first Work its Founder gave,',' and would ' ' separate the Bible from the Church at enormous risk. " Let us examine facts again. The Bible lessons are to be contained m a "manual compiled by the. Education Department after consultation with the representatives of the Christian Churches. J ' [This clause appears to be the justification for .Canon Wilford's phrase (which has been prominent m recent Eoman Catholic attacks on the Bill) "a new kind of State religion."]" What more could the State do than call m the accredited leaders of the various religious bodies as experts? Let us suppose that they decide (as well they may) to adopt the ' 'Children 's Bible 'r and the . . ' ' Little Children 's Bible, ' ' edited by Dr. Nairne, Dr. Grlover, and <r Q," for similar schools m England. What "enormous risk". could attend the introduction of those books into our schools? But, presumably the risk is incurred by allowing the State school teacher to" fill a place which should be exclusively reserved for the recdghized' minister of religibn or his deputy ! : Is there not the same risk m allowing the' mother to read the Bible to her little ones at home? Would Canon Wilford view such action with apprehension and alarm? V: In all civilized countries to-day education is regarded :as one of the most important functions of government. We may approve it or not; but the fact is that the'

State*; through.*: its schools); is, taking ■ . eyer more complete; ppssessipnpfrtlLe child, The influence of the teacher , is a factor m thedevelopment .of the, children,, second only to the influence; of; the parents.: ,; ; Many teachers/ realize the . great .truth that there isno agent to; be compared with religion for. mouldiing : ?ind strengthening: : the char : acter of the growing child. . Is it Canon "Wilford's contention that the teacher must nevertheless be deprived of this" weapon? Are we required by Catholic principle to keep the Bible out of the hand of the teachers? Of course Canon Wilford, "'hay* ing said so much, is- compelled; to say more; and he does hot Shrink from branding the great mass of teachers as irreligious men and women, who would '"' not understand what they were handling, have not found G-od, have no faith, do not know what prayer means. " It is difficult to find words to characterize such reckless language. Are our teachers irreligious beyond the average of the community? There are few parochial clergymen who have not a fair proportion of State school teachers among their communicants and workers. As fbr the picture of teachers who ' ' reject the faith '• ' yet take part m religious exercises "m which they do hot believe" rather than '<take shelter under a conscience clause ' '^let the' conscience clause speak for itself. The : teacher need only "notify the Board or other controlling authority of the school m writing that he has conscientious objection" to the exercises and he becomes automatically exempt. The Bill contemplates the case m which all the teachers will notify conscientious objections- There is complete freedom of the teacher. Beligious persecution m New Zealand is unthinkable'today. Does any Christian wish his children tb be taught religion by those whd reject it? Canon Wilford finds - the Bill "unfair to the teachers '/; but his own scheme would compel any teacher who desired to bring a religious influence to bear on the children, to do so as the;accredited representative of some denomanatibn for the children of that denomination; That might certainly prejudice "both his popularity m the district- and his' chance of being appointed to another district." The Church is not seeking to shirk her duty to the children: she is welcoming the chance of being able to do it better. Of cbufse we 'do hot believe that the religious exercises caii be substituted for the religious training that the Church must provide for her children. But we believe that these exercises will m many cases provide

a better f pundatiop ,f or us to build upon.. The Bill will pass into law sooner or later, because it is based on a sound democratic principle which has been flagrantly violated through half a century of "secular" educational am; etc.,: : ■';■ ■'.' 7,-N; ; '\ 'PEKCiVAL JAMES. '