BIBLE READING IN SCHOOLS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1326, 27 August 1886, Page 2

BIBLE READING IN SCHOOLS.

(concluded). The Member for Bruce (Mr Murray. 1877) held that, “ it was itnpr >per to declare by statute that the future people f this coloi y should he brought up »itbout religious knowledge. To exclude all religious training would tend to imk ■ education a ou<so rather than a blessing: and might lea i to the creation of a class of educated scoundrels who wouid be more dangerous to society than the uneducated o'ass could possibly be. The member for Hokitika, (Mr Bonar) said, ‘‘l think that brought up as we all have been, the ignoring of the Supreme Being is matter of deepest regret, and with the great m»jcrlty of the people of New Zealand will be equally a matter o'

regret. Here wa are In Parliament assembled, and we feel it to be our doty, and more than our duty, our privilege, to re-

cognise the existence of the Supreme Being and to invoke His blessing on all we do. Surely if each a recognition i« thought fitting for Parliament, It is

„.peoi illy fitting in the training of young children I would deprecate anything approaching to sectarian training, but I think that in a Christian country like this, wo are doing wrong In not recognising, in some way which will not give offence to persons of any deQomination,.the existence of the Supreme Being. Ido not know that we have any Atheists in the colony at all, but if we have I am snre they are very few, and I do not see how any one’s feelings oould be hurt by the simple reading of the Lord’s Prayer or a chapter of the Bible, —not necessarily hurried or gabbled over. It can be done respectfully, and it would be optional to attend, bat 1 would very much like to see some clause in the BUI that wou'd recognise the existence of One whom we have all been taught to know and obey.”

The Hon Dr Mmzles, who protested against the decision arrived at in 1877, subsequently proposed that the Boards should have authority to permit the Bible to be read in schools where the Committee desired it. He argued for religion being made not only au essential, but the foundation of education, quoting from American wtiters on the low ground of expediency, and from Gu'zot, Lavalere. Principal Shalrp, and others on the higher ground of the duty of the State to train the rising generation to a full reo goition of the Divine authority and to familiarise them

with the Word of God. After referring to the ey tem in operation in Prussia, Sweden, and America, he went on to say, —'‘Sir, we find that many petit ons have been presented to the Legislature on this subject, and the expressions which they contain show that over a very large extent of country, in many districts, the most cherished feelings of the community

have been outraged by (he banisbm nt from the schools of that book, which, in the words of the petitioner, they regard as the Word of God, and the supreme rnle of conduct. Under the present arrangement, becarsi a small minority of the community will not tolerate a plan which would satisfy the majority a system which is working well elsewhere, and which c ,uld work well here if honesty administered, —is not allowed a trial. The action of the nvnority in p-eseing this forward shows that they endeavour to guard the rights of their conscience so vigilantly, that they appear to be re*dy to trample upon those rf the

majority. The minori'y tav thst the church and the parents should undertake the duty of giving religious instruction. I am afraid that the parents in too many oases are careless and neglectful, sometimes unable ; but independently of all this, I contend that the State has a paramount right to see that the rising generation are educated in such a way, and grounded in such principles, that they shall grow up to be good citzans ; and 1 say that the State oocuot find any more effective mode of doing this than grounding them in Scripture.” Mr H. Hill, 8.\,, Inspsctor of Schools, Napier, regrets to find moral training ignored iu the new system. In his opinion, it is an entirely vicious system that teachers children to imagine that the culture of the intelligence is the “be-all and end-all” in learning. Now that ths Eiblo has been expunged from the list of school books as used by tha department, practically there is no f tandard of morality to be recognised by 'he teachers. He sneerely hopes th«t ;he present educational machinery, good as i; is in many points, may be perfected by permitting the introduction of the Bible as a reading hook into public schools, subject to a conscience clause. Mr W. Hammond, formerly Inspector of Schools for South Canterbury, stated in a tap' rt —*'I cannot close my report without deploring the apparent necessity for ostrac'sing religions and moral instruction from our schools. A child possesses religious instincts wh : ch are ever shewing themselves and waiting for development. and, apart from the loss of a powerful means of religions and moral training, I am convinced that the simple fact of tacitly ignoring these instincts or principles must havs a very injurious eS cfc. ”

The objections that have bean urged may be seen to be theoretical, groundless, and of n i force. If it be sufficient to urge againt it that there were objectionable portions in the Bible, or that there were ungodly fetchers, or that it would stir up sectarian animosities, how is It, I ask, notwithstanding all these, the Bible is read in the schools of all the lands in Christendom, wuh the exception, unfortunately, of some Australasian colonies ? If it be pleaded that ministers can do it, than it can be shown that the voluntary efforts have not been sustained in the past, and, in most cases, cannot bo, in justice to their other duties. I! it be said that parents can do it, thei} it iqust be remembered that many parents are inr capable or negligent, so that, while some do tfcelr duty, many children are growing up without any religious instruction. Our national system of education Is good, but the prohibition of the Bible renders it insufficient; it is unjust to the children, to the parents, and to the colony. It is unjust to the children, for it recognises only their rational and intellectual faculties ; it ignores their religions and moral instincts. It must be injurious to them to be brought up to look

I on the Bible as a book proscribed m school Every child in an enlightened Christian country has a right to the superior benefits enjoyed by that country over heathen and idolatrous lands ; they have a sacred right to be informed as to the difference between right and wrong, and as to the existence, authority, and law of the Supreme Being From the important place the Bible occupies in literature, children have a right to know its contents. The effect of the exclusion of the Bible from the day. schools in New Zealand is to bring them nearly to the level of our Government Schools in idolatrous India, and to deprive our children of one element of highest value enjoyed throughout Christendom. It is unjust to the parents It is in opposition to the enactments under which the great body of settle re built up their new homes in this land. It is contrary to the express intentions and desires of those .who founded the New Zsaland settlements. Parents are under a sacred obligation to sea that the State, to whom they have committed the education of their children, does not violate the divine prescriptions The proibition of the Bible can only bn defended on [the plea that the rights i t conscience are interfered with. On this ground the British Government might not feel at liberty to introduce it into their schools in a pari of the Empire where the vast majority are Hindoos and Mttboamwduns, as ia ladja. Put tbi#

ground (Mono* he irced here On

the contrary, Injury is done to the con scientious » onvi. i ons of the vast majority of parents by its exclusion. It has been proved by elaborate returns that 80 or 90 per cent of the whole population desire to have it introduced.

It is unjust to the State itso’f. The real greatness of the British nation is traceable to the influ a nce of the Bible. Its laws are founded on it j its noblest institutions are the outcome of it. The State bavins; taken in hand to make educal on oat of the hands of the parents, it is compulsory, and having thereby taken it necessary, as in Great Britain, that God and the conscience should be recognised. As it would preserve the unity of the Empire, confer equal advantages upon the rising generation here with those of other lands in Christendom, and secure its own safety, it is necessary to repeal the prohibition of the Bible. For the logics!

issue of the present sta f e of matters is that there should be no national recognition of God, no Bibie or prayer in the Legislative Assemblies, no oath and no Bible in the Courts of Justice, no punishment for blasphemy or Sabbath-breaking, no standard of moral rectitude for the peop'e of the country, no reference to God or religion in any of ths school books. The Freethinkers have already agitated for the repeal of the law against b'aspbemy. And what wonld be the effect of education that sharpens mental faculties and supplies no -moral basis of character, that looks upon a child as

made of braira without any religious instincts and feelings ? If Go i and religion be utterly ignored, shall we have fewer educated scoundrels, fewer suicide*, fewer murders, actually committed or skilfully planned ? Shall we have more reganl for the majesty of law, for the sanctities of family life, for parental authority ; shall we have less crime, and more commercial soundness, fewer unemp’oyed, and moim colonial prosperity? May,-it is vam to hope for it. And as in Birmingham the home of .the secular system, they have been obliged t> have the Bible read In the schools from which they bad banished It, we have had warning enough daring the last nine years of the necessity of having the Bible re-tntrodnced into the schools in this land. As the Jew reveres his Old Tea* ament Sciipturea and the Roman Catholic bis Douty viroton. all of them mmt scorn a sys em that

r6c^gQ ] >BB 130 Ood at all. Here is a last and grave consideration. It must be d’spl :asing t > God; that He by whom kings reign and princes decree justice should be this ignored in the btata schools ; thst His book, recognised by every civilised Government as sacred, should alone be proscribed to the cbfldren: that His blessing sh aid not be sought in. the primary schools of the laud, without which education may only prove a course; for he is the protector cf all that treat

in Him, wlihoot 'Shorn nothing is strong, nothing is holy;” and the very pagans seek a blessing from their Gods on the learning they acquire. How long shall this blot remain on ti e escutcheon of our National Education ? How long shall members of Parliament guided by expedoirny rather than by principle, listening to the c'amor of a a null section rf the community, vote against the Bible / Hew long shall the Christian pe< pla of New f, ;aland submit to a compromise that has proved a failure !