BIBLE READING IN SCHOOLS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1319, 19 August 1886, Page 2

BIBLE READING IN SCHOOLS.

(continued) I Religion is Inseparably connected with crood government, and that the troths of religion should be known by the children | is eisential to the rafety of the State, and even t > the right conduct of its business. The State has to do with religion, not by way of propagating it, but with the view of maintaining itself. For the State depends on certain truths held 1 by all religious sects—Protestants, Catholics* and Jewn ahfee. The object of-Bible reading in Government schools is that the scholars may know the troths that form [ the bails of all relig lon. When they know | these then they know the truths that

give sanction and authority to the laws of the State.. The State recognises the Bible in so far as it has to do with the

temporal affairs f.nd well-heir" of. the people, and it might prescribe a certain amount of it to be read for .this purpose, —but totally to, prohibit it is to go beyond all bounds. Society t a constituted in these colonies has a claim upon the State that these truths shall be known, in view of the importance of the elementary truths of religion to the mind of every child in the community. Apart from the duties of any Ohnroh of of any sect, the State which declares Education to be compulsory has an Imperative duty to communicate a certain amount of religious truth. If the State has nothing to do with religion, how came the use of the Elide and prayer into oar Houses of, Legislature,' —how came It into our Supreme and Magistrate’s Courts, —and how came religions instruction to be given in onr Government schools? It came in the ordinary way of legislation, aud it was part of the Education Chdiuanoe- The State has taken to do with .eliglon, and It cannot do otherwise in accordance with the constitution and laws of the country, In this matter of education it is not com petent for the State to prohibit the Bible unless it can be shown that the'Chrlstian religion does not prevail, and that Secularism predominates among the people. And here It will be appropriate to consider how it was ia this country previous to the alteration of the Education Act in 1877. The Canterbury Report, published In 1863, pays:—“lt would seem that the Government, by which is meant the Representative acting power of the people,—being professedly Ohriataln, Is bound in id | its * legislation, and not least in the matter of Education, to recognise Christianity, not on points oa which it is the subject of human imperfections and infirmities nor In f » divisions ‘of the community Into rival sects violating the laws of the creed they .profess, ijbut as a general ruling principle ( i t te 'life of the State," And theu, a little farther on, —‘ The commission do not ; think it necessary to ‘ enter into a dlscu - alon of the opinion held by same, that all but purely .secular knowledge should be banished from our school-. ’ Snob a coarse would not satisfy the wants of the people genr rally ; and farther, without entering into the religions question, it would bo impossible, in any system of teaching, which professed to fit men for the social and civil duties of every day life ,to ignoro’the existence of Chris f ai y as pervading the laws, literature, and institutions of the civilised world. In a Christian country no one could be called educated who was ignorant of the Chris- (| m Scriptures, to which our civil institutions are so largely indebted There are two poicts here worthy of special attention —the one ia that it would bo impossible for teachers who ore doing their duty efficiently to ignore Ohristaoity. The State then in prohibiting the Bible has crippled teachers in fitting men for the social and civil duties in a country the laws and literature of which are so largely impregnated with Christianity. The other point ia this: that no one could be called educated who was ignorant of the Chris' Sm Scriptures. To these points I may return ; what 1 maintain ia, that it is a great mistake to suppose that our Government has nothing to do with religion. Morality depends upon religion, and the safety of the Government depends on the moral condition of the people Their moral condition mry be seen reflected in the enactments and ordinances of the Government. Thna the cotrmandments of God in the Bible are reflected in onr common laws, e.g., with reference to the violation of the Sabbath and blasphemy, perjury, theft, and murder. The State has to do with religion, and this does not mean that there mast be a State Church or that some form of religious belief shall be enforced threnghont the country, but it implies that religions wor - ship is protected; that church property is exempted from the payment of trxes, while the State has nothing to do with the mode of worship. Paiigion baa a political value as a means of securing civilisation, liberty, and good government. Our country’s laws have largely to do with man’s dealings with hia fellowmen. In the Bible the rules for man’s conduct are to be found moat clearly laid down* In those lands’ where the Bible is most revered the majerty of the law la beat upheld. It will thus be seen that this objection brought by some against the Bible in schools. Is, when rightly considered, a strong argnment in its favor. 4. Of other objections, I only notice those adduced from alleged evil effects of Bible reading. I have neard it said that In the hands of the ungodly teacher it might cause much miach'ef. In that case it is not the Book, it is the man, you have to fear. He has opportunity enough daring school hoars to do a great deal of

harm without the introduction of the

Bible The objection, like soma others, is theoretical. It Is baed on the theory that Bible reading is an act of worship, and that it would be wrong to submit it to an ungodly man. But the advocates of the Bible in schools argue for it not as an act of worship, but as a part of education, the Bible being an admirable text book, and the reading of it an essential part of children's education. From my acquaintance with the teachers I rtfgard it ns a libel on them as a body to speak of the ungodly teacher as if he were so commonly to bo found as to influence legislation on this question. On the contrary my knowledge of them would lead me to say they are the reverse of ungodly, and would hail the introduction of the Bible as a boon. But if there were

a toicher whom a Committee could not trust, they have a check on any abase In -their own hand. Such an objection will not be seriously entertained by those who have a practical acquaintance with our schools, who consider the magnitude of the interests at stake, and who remember that the State has not to legislate for teachers, but for the education of her future citizens.

(To be c^tinued.)