The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1912. BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1602, 20 November 1912, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1912. BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

The renewed activity of the Bible-in-Schools movement sinoe the arrival of Canon Garland from Queensland will make it the duty of every man and woman in the community to reconsider the . whole question of religious instruction in the State schools.' The matter ought? to be approached with aj free and open mind ; without prejudice or passion,' and citizens snould, as far as _ possible, divest their minds of the distortions and exaggerations which have obscured the question during the.long period of heated : controversy through which it has passed.-: It may safely be laid down as a starting point that the great majority of the people of this country are definitely determined that the present national system of education shall be maintained; and the problem to be decided is whether the demands of the Bible-in-Schools League can be acceded to without injustice, and with-; out wrecking our national school Before an intelligent' decision on these points can be reached it is necessary to know exactly what these demands are. If we understand the position correctly ■ they may be stated briefly as follow: — (1) That the churches shall have the opportunity afforded them of sending their ministers of -religion or other accredited teachers into the schools during school" lioras to teach the children the faith of their fathers in their respective denominations.' Every parent to have,the right to withdraw his children from such instruction if ho disapproves of it. (2) That simple Scriptural lessons be read during school hours by the children from a book provided by the Education Department exclusively for this purj>ose. The work of the State school teacher is to b9 restricted to seeing that the child understands the lessons as intelligently as any other lesson. The teacher is not to give either sectarian or dogmatic teaching. (3) That the acceptance or rejection of these proposals be decided by means of a referendum. No question of cqnscienoe appears to be involved in tie first proposal, but merely one of convenience and rearrangement of the syllabus, The principle is already admitted in what is known as the Nelson system, but this granting of permission io the clergy or other representatives of the churches to give religious instruction at present depends upon the favour of the school authority and is not a right guaranteed by the law of <*he land. These teachers wouldnot be paid by the State and no child ooula be compelled to attend the lessons against the wishes of its parents. The Nelson system has -the support of many of the strongest opponents of the Bible-in-Schools League, and it is, therefore, quite possible that a general agreement might be arrived at on tnis point. The position as regards the State school teacher is, however, a more difficult matter, and it is here that, the question of conscience has been most acutely raised. It is oontended on the one side that conscientious scruples need not be involved if the selected passages are treated purely and simply as literature—like Chaucer, Dante, Shakespeare, or Milton, all of which contain numerous theological references But, in view of the controversy that has raged around almost every chapter and verse the question arises whether, whatever may be the case theoretically, it is practically possible to teach the Bible in this way, even though it is our greatest classic. In reply to this the Bible-in-Schools people state that as a matter of plain fact it'is being actually so taught, at present in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, and West Australia. Other literary masterpieces arc certainly treated in this way. To take a very simple example, the "Mercy Speech" in The Merchant of Venice makes an obvious reference to the Lord's Prayer, but in explaining this passage to his class no sane teacher would find it necessary to discuss the efficacy of prayer or the Deity of _ Christ. In the same way it is quite possible to explain Milton's Paradise Lost without discussing the attributes of God or the doctrine of heaven and hell. This seems quite reasonable at first sight: but deeper thought makos ono fool that the very greatness of tho Biblo,

almost every verao of which has a ] history, and its wonderful influence i on the spiritual life of the nation. < makes it a difficult and delicate mat- i ter to distinguish between ita rclig- ! ious and its literary aspect. Some ! people, indeed, would object-to the i teachinc of tho Scriptures as moro ] literaturo on the ground that such i a method would be quite ineffective ' from a roligioua point of view. But, i if we understand the position aright. ] it is of the essence of the proposal i that this point of view shall be ■ ■dealt with solely by the accredited i representatives of the religious i bodies, and that this privilege shall ! bo qualified by a conscience clause i protecting the rights of objecting parents. This question of conscience, is ..the crucial point, for it is quite , certain that any real of tho conscientious scruples of teachcr or parent will nevor be tolerated, and it is the duty of the Biblc-in-Schools League to show that no such violation need result if effcct is given to their proposals. The proposed changcs in' the Education Act to give cffect to the wishes _of the League are of : such grave importance that it would be most undesirable for any Government to move in the direction indicated unless supported by tho will of the people deliberately ' and definitely expressed by means of a referendum. In the multiplicity of issues . that arise at a_ general election it would be quite impossible to discover the real mind of the nation on a matter of this kind which lies quite outside tho sphere of party politics. From the democratic point of ; view it is difficult consistently to refuse the request of a large, influential, and responsible body of opinion in the country that this question should be submitted to the decision of the people themselves who own and pay for the schools. By that decision the proposals must ultimately stand or fall, and the decision is not likely to be'in their favour unless, as we have 1 already said, it can be made quite clear that they can be given effect to without injustice to parents or teachers, and without wrecking the existing education system. If it can be shown that the proposed scheme of religious instruction is working smoothly in communities very like our own—such as New South Wales; Tasmania, Queensland, and West Australia—that, is certainly, a strong practical argument in its favour which, with other considerations, for and<against, will no doubt receive its due weight when the time comes for final decision. When that .time comes, it is to be hoped that the question- will be stated in a manner that will lpave no room for misunderstanding and that the answer will be sufficiently emphatic to ensure a settlement on a just and lasting basis.. . .