THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

White Ribbon, Volume 19, Issue 217, 18 July 1913, Page 12

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

(To the Kditor.) Dear Madam, Your May issue contains an article over tin signature “K. Atkinson,” which is >o lull of half-truth' and misleading statements that one wonder' whether it was with such argument' (?) that delegates to the- Convention were induced t<» vote against the Australian system of Bible* in Schools. The article as a whole reveals a narrow outlook and ignorance of facts; but it will do good in that it will open the* way to the education of members of Unions, who will be able to judge for themselves when the whole* evidence is before them. Fortunately, Mr' Kendrick 1 ' letter in the same issue, though also in one respect misinformed, prevents the* conservative article* from getting a

month’s start. The following points will sufficiently 'how how the* article in question misrepresents the true state of affair'. 1. The Nelson system is an admirable one a' far as it goi*'. It works well in the* Napier Main School, which my children attend. Hut it is onlv permitted in one school in Napier; it only provide*' for one halthour le*"on per week; and it must always be inadequate, for the* simple reason that if it were* made universal the* ministers could never meet all the demands, and large numbers of schools and scholars would be shut out from its benefits. What the Nelson system doe*' is to show that parents do not object to Mible lessons; that 'he* children enjoy them in school hours; and that ministers can trust one another in the matter of entry to the school'. The Nelson system only proves how admirably the larger system may be* expected to work, a' it does wherever trie*d. 2. The Australian system does not force teachers to teach dogmatic or sectarian religion. It expressly forbids them to do so; but it provides for the reading of selected passages by the children under the* supervision of the* teachers, who are responsible for 'eeiag that the* children understand the sense of the words they read, as in any other lesson book. Parents may withhold their children

if they desire; but in Australia prac tice proves that there i' no room, and can be no need for a teacher’s conscience c la use. 3. Like most opponents of the Australian system, the writer of the article libels the teachers of the* Dominion. 1 have been a teacher, and know many of the teacher', and have no patience with this attitude. It there arc* teachers vho would U'C the Bible lessons to ridicule* religion, such teachers will in any case* create* an atmosphere which no true mother would allow her children to breathe. I trust the* teachers. Further, the teachers of Australia find no cause* of complaint under the* system. Ihe New South Wales teacher'’ cricketing team, who visited us in the summer, said that they in that State desired no change in the* system, which had been in operation for ovei 30 years. Sectarian bitterness was a bogey they had come to New Zealand to hear about, and neither among teachers nor people* was then* any agitation for a change. Where* the Australian system obtains, whether in N.S. Wales, Queensland, or West Australia, there, and only there, i' rest and content in educational matters. The matter of permission being granted to minister' of religion to give religious Ic'sons to children of their own denominations cannot be separated from the* League’s platform. Otherwise the* Roman Catholics, who believe in religious instruction, but not in Bible reading, would have just cause for complaint. They would say, “You provide for the religious instruction of Protestants, but make no provision for Roman Cat ho lies.” Ihe right of entry extends equal justice to all. It also destroys for ever the* claim of the Church of Rome* to denominational (iovernment grants; and it i' because they know this to be so that Bishop Cleary and his Church are* lighting the* Australian system s ( , keenly. They want not a national system, but denominational grants. The Australian system destroys that claim, and i' thus the* strongest bulwark of a national system. I he talk of injustice in the system to any section of the* community is most illogical and misleading. When the* women of our Unions know the facts they will regret, even more than they do now, the* misguided decision of a few of their number at the Nelson Convention. “Let the people decide” i' the watchword of the* Bible in Schools League. I am, etc., JANTF. A. BL AM I RES. Napier, May 29th. 1913.

(To the Editor.) Dear Ma lam. In 'pite of all the controversy ovri the* Bible* in School' we seem to get no nearer a satisfactory solution of the question. May I make* a suggestion ? There seem to be few, if any, statistics on the subject, but from what can be learned we might conclude* that about 90 per cent, of the Protestant parents wish for religious induction in the schools, so that the* question i' in what way should the* instruction be given. The aim of the Bible in Schools League i' to petition Parliament for a Referendum. I suppose the majority would agree to that, provided the issue' were put dearly and separately . I would 'Uggest: i't. A vote for or against religious instruction. 2nd. The method—(a.) The right of ministers or then appointees to visit the schools and give a Bible lesson to the children in their standards (the Nels on system). <b.) Ihe right of ministers or their appointees to visit the schools and teach the children of their own church separately. (Right of Entry.) • I That the* ministe rs do not visit the schools. id.j A vote* for or against a textbook to be read under the supervision of the teachers. Such a referendum would cover all the* proposals that are before the public. I might point out that a person might be* allowed to vote against religious instruction, and yet vote for the method they would prefer if religious instruction was given. And I would 'Uggest that no paper be counted informal. even though all i"ues may be voted tor, it any are so careless as to \ote tor two issues that arc* opposed, let them still be counted, the only informal papers to be* those* unmarked". It the Bibie in Schools League is willing to accept this or some similar referendum, we could then each work tor the method we considered best. Hoping th.it this may help in some small way towards a solution of the present difficulty. I am, etc., .. , JESSIE FIELD. Nelson.

(To the* Editor.) Dear Madam, Mrs Harrison Lee-Cow ie, of the* Women’s ( hristian Temperance I nion, writes from New South Wales, under date 2nd May, 1913, to Mrs llampson, of NeDon, as follows:- - It was such an astonishment and distress to me when our W.C.T.U.

voted against the Bible League. Ot course, 1 personally have never wavered, and 1 now enclose you a letter to use in any way you think l>est to help the League, either privately or by publishing, or any way vou choose. — Affectionately in Jesus, (Signed) BKSSIK LEE-COW IK.

Mrs Harrison Lee-Cowie on the Bible in State Schools League Propaganda, versus the Nelson System. The action of the W.C.T.I . Convention has called attention to the .Nelson system of Bible instruction, ar.d caused many to wonder what are its advantages over the Si ripture lessons as recommended by the Bible in State Schools League. 1 have taught in tin* schools of New South Wales and (Queensland every time 1 have been on missions to these States, and have found the existing system worked most harmoniously. 'I his last w eek l have spoken ten times in the schools of Sydney suburbs during the hour tor religious instruction. I have had helping me Anglican, Methodist, and Congregational ministers, all working in splendid unity. 1 have talked to one inspector, one R.C. headmaster, and teachers of different denominations, and have found them all unanimous in then approval of the system. When the ministers do not attend, the teachers give their Scripture les sons, and very beautiful lessons they are, well and wisely selected. 1 am getting testimonies signed by many of the religious instructors, who would like to see the same plan i arried out in New Zealand State schools. 1 do not think the Nelson system anything to equal the Bible in Schools system in these States. V», Park Street, Sydney, N.S.W., May -Mid, 1913. (To the Kditor.) Dear Madam, — As individual members of the W.C.T.I ~ and convinced supporters of the platform of the Bible in State Schools League, we feel it incumbent upon us to express our stiong dissent from tile resolution of the recent Convention on that subject We are loyal members of the Union, desiring nothing so much as ii- welfare and good influence, and our adherence to the principles of Temperance Reform as advocated by it is unabated; but we strongly feel that in the Convention’s attitude regaiding Bible in Schools a mistake has been made, which, if persisted in, will possibly beget an element of dissension in the t'nion, and also aid in preventing the introduction of any kind of religious instruction into the State schools. We are strengthened in our desire to put our side of the case by the circular issued to the Blanches by direction of the Convention. In the first place, we respectfully suggest that it would have been fit-

ting, before committing itself to a policy on this most vital subject, for the Convention to have ascertained the mind of the various Branches throughout the Dominion. As a matter of fact, two district Conventions and a number of local l 1110ns have passed resolutions in favour of the League’s platform. It cannot be too clearly made known that the delegates present at the Convention weie not authorised to speak on tin-' question in the name of the women whom they represented. The resolution adopted by them is merely an expression of ihe views of those who carried it, and can in no sense be taken as a declaration of the policy of the 111 ion, based upon the assent of its members throughout the Dominion. Unfortunately, the general public widely regard it as such a statement of policy. We are convinced that many of the women of our Union regiet the resolution passed, and we feel that we must express our personal dissent.

The criticism of ihe Platform of the Bible in State Schools League, as contained in the circular h-ttcr signed bv the President of the Union, is singularly unfi rtunate, and betrays a serious misapprehension of the way in which the system proposed to be* in-

troduced works in those places where it has been well tested. It must lie clearly stated that the Australian system is one of the most perfect freedom. It imposes nothing upon anyone, except m one instance, and that will be referred to later (vide par. 6). At step, those who like the sys tern can avail themselves of it, and those who dislike it can leave it alone. I he paients can do as they please. They can send their children either to the teachers’ classes or to the* special religious instruction by th“ ministers, or to both, or to neither. I he respective churches can act as they choose. The\ can work the system, and send their instructors into thi* schools, or they i.m decline to work it, and direct their people to withdraw their children from the di's'is. I: is impossible to conceive a fairer system, which shall provide for that religious instruction which so man> in this land desire, without placing any real disability on other members of the State. 1. Ihe suggestion of the circular, that the teacheis would become “to some extent’’ religious instructors is not borne out by experience elsewhere. The teachers are not asked to teach religion, hut merely to supervise the reading of the lessons by the children themselves, the teachers drawing out the literary and moral beauty of the lessons. It i> a most emphatic part of the League’s platform, that teachers should not be asked to become “rcligiou - instructors.” 2. The statement that Roman Cathode teachers would be acting contrary to a most positive principle of their Church in conducting the Scripturereading lesions is strangely inaccurate. In the Australian States where

the system is working, a large proportion of Roman Catholic teachers are employed, and not one of them has made any complaint on the subject, nor has their Church interfered with them. 1 here is an element of unconscious humour in those responsible for the circular issued undertaking to expound to the Roman C atholic C hurch in .Australia what its ‘‘most positive principle s” .ire.

3. The allegation that a ‘‘religious test for State employment” would be created by the introduction of the system is without any real ground of support. When the ministers of the respective Churches can enter the schools to give their special instruc tion, the particular denomination of the teachei is a matter of even less importance than it is now ; and there is no reason why the question of a teacher’s Church attachment should weigh in the niattei of his appointment, more than it does under the present system. The C hurch authorities in Australia make no complaints under this head. 4. It is true that the ‘‘right of entry” is an essential part of the League’s platform ; but it is not true to say that the minister or his accredited 1 epresentative “can teach only the children of his own C hurch, and none other.” It is tine that he cannot claim to teach the children of any other Church, but arrangements can be made, by agreement among the ministers themselves, and with the concurrence of the parents, for children of different denominations to join 111 one class. So far from the special religious classes accentuating the “divisions of Christendom” in the school life of the children, they have in innumerable instances the very opposite effect. In the* joint classes these divisions are biokcn down, and even where such classes are not held, the presence of the representatives of various denominations working hai moniously together, upon a system introduced at their request and carried on with Christian amity and mutual good understanding, does not a little to impress the children with the fact that there is immeasurably more accord among the various denominations than the outside critic would have us to suppose. 5. It i- true that in the Regulations under the Public Instruction Act of New South Wales (not in the Act itself. as Ihe circular states) the use of school buildings for political meetings or public worship is prohibited. But it is a very peculiar piece of reasoning to argue that this is because religious instruction is given in the schools. A smiilar regulation was in force 111 (Queensland prior to the introduction of religious instruction, showing that the* connection between the two things i> purely imaginary.. 6. It is also true that the Regulations under the New South Wales Act did in the past include the* clause debarring teachers from certain specific rights. It is apparent, however.

that those who drew up the Convention circular were unaware that the;** Regulations had been repealed. All that the present regulation demands is that, ‘ Teacher; are to refrain from all action in public matter.' that will interfere with the welfare of the schools in their charge, or with their usefulness a> teachers.’’ A regulation similar to that formerly in force in New South Wales existed in Queensland for many years before religious instruction was introduced, and in West Australia, where religious in>truction is in vogue, no such regulation exists. These facts prove that there is no necessary connection between the teachers’ disabilities referred to and the introduction of religious instruction. We desire now to refer briefly to the Nelson system, of which the Convention expressed its unqualified val, and would point out — 1. That the system has not found any general acceptance, having been adopted in only a small number of schools. 2. That, even if adopted generally, it could be worked only in those centres where there are a number of ministers to attend the schools or to organise the effort. In those districts where Church and Sunday School are irregular, or never held, and where, therefore, the children need religious instruction most, it would often be impossible to arrange for the tuition to be given. 3. Cnder the Nelson system, incorporated by Act of Parliament as an integral part of our education system, the Convention proposes to legalise the “right of entry” of ministers and other religious instructors into the schools. This surely is one of the ironies of controversy. And further, it is to be noticed that the right of entry as provided under the Nelson system would, in it> practical working, be available only for some, and not for all ministers of religion. The Roman Catholic clergy would be >hut out, for to co-operate in undenominational lessons would most certainly be to act “contrary to the mo>t positive principles of their Church.” The Australian system, however, provides for the right of the Roman Catholic clergy to enter equally with others, and under such conditions that the privilege has been used by some of the priests in New South Wales for many years pa>t. Again, a di>ability re't> upon the parents under the Nelson system. They are compelled, in many instance*, to allow their children to attend the religiou' instruction of a person not of their own religious persuasion, or to with draw them from all such instruction in the schools. 4. It is not clear whether the Convention proposes that, after the amendment in the education Act legalising the Nelson system, the introduction of the system in any given school shall require the consent of the

School Committee, and thus indirectly of the parents. If so, this would open the door to perpetual unrest, and the fomenting of sectarian troubles; whereas, the League’s proposal is to settle the question once and for all, according to the wishes of the people expressed at a Referendum. 5. The Nelson >y>tem, by its definite exclusion of the State teachers from any co-operation in Bible lessons, deprives the teachers of a most effective leverage in their work of character-building. In we feel that the women of our l uion must not be led to think that in supporting the Nelson system, as opposed to the platform of the Rible in State Schools League, they are advancing the Bible in Schools Movement in any effective ~\\ The Nelson system is not ikw before The public a' the platform ot any parti seeking to solve the question of rfejigious instruction. The only proposal - before the people is that of the LeSv i * l “. The chief Courts of several ot the largest denominations have accepted the League’s platform, either unanimously or by very large majorities, and arc preying for a Referendum on the question. It would be a most perilous thing for the women of New Zealand to vote against the present proposals, in the hope that, if they are rejected, the Nelson system might be introduced; for it is by no mean' cettain that that system would secure the support of the present strong and united Biblc-in-Schools party; while all those who object to any Scripture instruction in the schools would oppose it as vigorously as they do the present movement. We believe that to intrude the Nelson system at t hi' juncture is to side-track a movement full of hope, and to postpone indefinitely the day when the Word of God 'hall be given to the children of this land as an integral part of their education. We therefore urge the women of our Union, notwithstanding the action taken by those attending the Convention, to give their active support to the platform of the Bible in State Schools League, and thus to aid in introducing a system which is working in perfect harmony in New South Wales, Queen Hand, West Australia, and Tasmania, and which is opposed in thi> country bv merely theoretical objections and imaginary scares, proved by its practical succes' across the Tasman Sea. Yours in W hite Ribbon Bonds, BKSSIE M» COMBS, Christchurch. PH OK BE SEED, Christchurch. HELEN 1. DEWAR, Auckland. |. M. JONES, Hamilton. E. GRAHAM, Gisborne. ELIZABETH SMITH, Wanganui. K. M. HOWARD, Timaru. (This correspondence is now closed. — Ed. “W’.R ”)