BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19137, 21 October 1927, Page 12

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

COMMITTEE'S FINAL SITTING. OPPOSITION TO BILL. [THE PRBBB Sp«ei»l Serrict.] WELLINGTON*, October 20. The final sitting of the Education Committee of the House of Representatives to hear evidence in regard to. the Eeligious Exercises in Schools Bill was held to-day. Regarding tho allegations of sectarianism in secondary schools, Mr Atkinson said in the course of his evidenco yesterday that he had ample documentary proof of the statements made in connexion with the Masterton School. He produced the telegrams leceived by the Napier applicant, the text of the messages being as follows: "Congratulations, You win. (tegd.) Jordan.'' , "My wire premature. Motion to rescind; religion. (Sgd.) Jordan." "Final consideration appointment adjourned till Tuesday. (Sgd.)-Tennent. # "The Church question has arisen. To what Church do you belong. • Kindly reply to-night. (Sgd.) Tennent. " Mr ■ had replied that he was a Roman Catholic and he was subsequently notified that the motion appointing him to the position had been rescinded. That incident clearly showed the scope of the operation of sectarianism under the present system. Continuing his evidence to-day, Mr Atkinson said it appeared clear from Mr Cresswell's statement that in Wellington College at least there was no breach of the law or spirit of sectarianism. He agreed with Mr Isitt that the' recognition of God would improve matters, but he held that the recognition must be in the spirit of The Book, and the Bill made that impossible. Whether or not there was a decadence of morality amongst the young Mr Isitt failed to'approach it in his Bill. Mr Isitt's pamphlet showed he recognised that the Roman Catholic vote was the obstacle to his Bill. It did not matter which was right or wrong; each must be free to exercise his vote and activities in the spirit of his own beliefs. Benevolence was the ultimate goal of all religions persecution. (Laughter.) To accept the logic of Jhe_ Bill was to accept the logic of oppression and persecution.

The Nelson System. Turning to the Nelson system, ho said it was not illegal when properly run. If it was a failure it was the fault of the Protestant Churches and not of the system, but Mr Isitt had made no reference to the large-amount of good work being done under it; If New Zealand needed a model let it jtake Victoria, which was already 60 per cent, effective in reaching the children with voluntary instruction and was steadily improving that position, a striking contrast to the opposition the Nelson system had met in New Zealand. This was not a controversy in which he could feel proud of his Protestantism. There was no doubt as to the admirable concerted effort of the Roman Catholic denominational system in the face of difficulties, but while it entitled them to sympathy it should - entitle them to. justice. It would, however, be a gross injustice to ask the Roman Catholics to pay, in addition to'their own expenditure, any proportion 'of the.'cost of the education of Protestant children. . Mr Atmore: As.a student of history do you know of any instance where "the State has taught religion successfully? —I certainly do not. You don't believe in the majority ruling in cases' of conscience?—-No. What do you think of the statistics submitted to the committee by .Mr Blamires and supported by Mr Isitt, statistics that went to show that New Zealand children were little devils and that the children: of countries where religious instruction is given were little angels?—l think that it was ; an insult to the character of the ■ children of New Zealand, and a gross libel and insult to the intelligence of the committee. I don't think it was worth consideration for ten minutes. For the honour and stability of our politics, Mr Atkinson said he trusted that a Government and a Party pledged to maintain the secular system would not vote to repeal it. For the honour of religion he hoped that a Bill based on the essential irreligious principles of injustice,—a crude, barbarous, faithless, anaemic, but ppoisonous and entirely detestable little Bill—would be thrown out.

Rabbi's Views. The Rev. H. Van Staveren, Jewish Rabbi at Wellington, said he wanted to know if they intended to leave God out of their instruction altogether. He could not understand a man like Mr Isitt being so consistently inconsistent as to come and give evidence in the manner in which he had. He did not see how any good could come out of the Bill at .all. It was no duty of the State to teach religion. It was the duty.of the parents and the religious heads. If "there was to be no interpretation, Bible reading would be utterly valueless. The only object of the Bill seemed to be to create ill feeling amongst the people.' In his opinion the whole thing was an absolute disgrace. Mr Potter: You think the Bill'is : not in the best interests of the educational system?—l think it is a disgrace to the system and a disgrace to

our senses also. Replying to the chairman, Mr Van Staveren said he did not object to religious instruction outside of school hours. In his opinion the teachers were incapable of giving the proper religious instruction. He had no objection to the Nelson system. "The Minister for Education could say as much about it as I could, but he doesn't dare say it," said Mr' Van Staveren. "He is a political man. I'm not. I'm free to say anything. I like. I'm not muddled with politics."

(Laughter.)

A Cautious Witness. Mr D. O. McClay, before proceeding to give evidence, said he desired to know whether statements he would make before the committee were priviledged. "I want to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," he said, "and I don't want to get into any trouble." Mr Potter: You want to tell the whole truth, but you have to libel somebody to do it ? Mr McClay: Not necessarily libel, but it is possible to get into trouble. Mr Potter: Well I'm not going to bs> one of the joint and several that will guarantee you. Mr McClay. What I want to know is, am I allowed to make any statement I like? Mr Hudson: Well, in"my opinion, you are not protected in the same way as a member of Parliament on the floor of the House. Mr McClay: That settles it; then I can't bring out the whole truth. Mr McClay then proceeded to give his views as to why Bible reading should be allowed in the schools. Departmental View. The final witness' was Mr T. B. Strong, Director of Education, who said he and the senior officers of the Department felt it was due to the public that he should set his views before them in order that there ; should be no misunderstanding. Those, views had been put. into a considered statement, which was endorsed by his senior colleagues. Mr Strong said they must realise that there had been a marked change in

their religious .life . during the fifty years since the passing of the Act that made the primary schools entirely secular. Men were more tolerant of one another's religious views than ever, they were. .If'they considered the question in its present-day setting, they could not any longer justify the exclur sion of the Bible frojn the schools. ,No book in the world had more pointed and attractive stories illustrating right conduct and those great principles on which society was founded than were to be found in the Bible. Then why forbid teachers making use of such excellent teaching material! But important as tin Biblo was as a storehouse of moral instruction, it Was of even greater importance in a system of seculaT education as the fountain from which so much that is excellent in English literature tiad ; sprung. It had done more . than any other book to preserve the elements of simplicity, directness, and Virility in the language. Bible Should be Studied. Even/the opponents of the introduction of Bible reading into the public schools did not deny the importance of a knowledge of the but they held that such knowledge shoujd be acquired outside the public '.schools; in other words, they would not allow the pupil to study the Bible under trained and expert teachers. Enthusiastic though the clergy and Sunday school workers might be, profound though their knowledge of the Bible might be, he did not think one of them would pretend to be as expert or have such a hold over his pupils as the trained class teacher. The separation, of the study of the Bible from the ordinary school lessons could be nothing but harmful, and was most likely to give the pupil an entirely wrong view of the place of the Bible in the literary life of the nation. He said, emphatically, therefore, that the Bible for its literary value, if for nothing else, should be studied as any other piece of literature was studied in ordinary school hours and under thV guidance of the trained State school teacher. He could see no reason why New Zealand teachers should not loyally carry out their duty of giving Bible lessons if the Legislature required it. His opinion was that although some of the present leaders in the New Zealand Education Institute were vigorous opponents of the measure, the great body of the teachers were not opposed to the Bill. Omj Exception. Mr Strong said the fear that the State would have to make grants to denominational schools was baseless. He argued that the Education Boards' powers were so restricted by Section 71 of the Act that it was almost impossible for the religious question to affect the appointment of teachers. So far'as the Bill itself was concerned, the senior officers of the Department approved of all its provisions except the section which permitted no comment on the reading of the Bible other than grammatical explanation. They considered that the Bible reading lesson should be treated in the same way as any other reading lesson, that is, verbal explanations should be permitted to enable the pupil to comprehend the language used. Although nothing definite has yet been arranged, it is believed by supporters of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill that there is a chance of it coming on for its second reading some time ne'st week.