BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1617, 7 December 1912, Page 7

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

meeting of protest. SCHEME DECLARED IMPOSSIBLE. OPPOSITION LEAGUE FORMED. A protest - against the recent' agitation to introduce bible reading into the State schools , of Hqiv" Zealand 'as part of the 6chool curriculum, was made by a. public meeting: hold in the Concert Chamber last evening. The meeting was oalled bytiio Secular Education Defence Lcaguo. The Mayor of Wellington (Mr. • 1). M'Laren) iiresided,: and tiiere were some 250 'people .'present. /

Whose the Responsibility? Tho chairman said ho was very pleased / to take the- chair iit the and he could have wished, that the hall was filled with people to hoar the subject of education discussed. No subject was.more ■ closely connected with citizenship thau that of. education. He could assure tho audience that the speakers would not attack tile religious opinions of anyone; rather, they would make _an affirmation ' of : the free right of religious conviction and religious'opinion generally. It was difficult for. him to . lake himself away from tho s'ubjc'ct. "He had come from a country where, in his childhood's' days, religious feuds were all too common. He had seen riots, in the public streets about religious strifes, and. ho rejoiced now , that he lived in ; a country where this could not occur. Here wohad a secular system of education, under which all children, Jew and Gentile, went to school as comrades. Thero was no setting apart' of children of different creeds, and it was , essential, that this . system should be retained intact, and tha.t n.ll the children should' live . together .in school, as in the community, in harmony. The speakers would affirm that tho religious opinions of adults must be re- ' spected—(applause)—and that no political majority had any right, to interfere with th-a conscience of -the individual. . They would also affirm that the teaching profession, a noblq . profession, ought - not to bo submitted .to. the danger of religious coercion." It was a. pity, but it was a fact, that many would vote for tho bible-in-schools who would not read the Bible to their own children. But it was impossible 'by any political makeshift to absolve the parent from hfs moral duty by passing it on to-somebody else. (Applause.) He .was perfectly certain that those who spoke of our public schools as being Godless, had spoken so with a disregard to vital truth. .In the same way it might be said that city councils, chambers of commerce,, and the like, were Godless. This was an utterly unsafo ground on. which to procecd on, these matters; Ho asked the audience to give their attention to the subject under discussion, for by so doing they would be doing good to our iducation system and to tlie community. "A Perfect Neutrality." Mr. A. R. Atkinson moved: "That this meeting ,1V uf opinion that thero should bo no departure from-the existing free secular and compulsory- system of State education." The Mayor, he. said, had quite correctly stated' that tho meeting was not held to attack'religion or to uphold the creed of secularism. They were there. in the of religion itself, and in the interests of the harmonious working of our. education system. They knew irorii' experience that religion and politios inado a very bad blend.' They would be just as ready to say to tho State "hands otf" if" it attempted to interfere with the . churches, or - any particular church. (Applause.) Tho only attitude for the State to take up in regard to religion was a perfect neutrality—tolerance for all and preference for none. The . State had religion of its own in New Zealand, and it could not venture to teach religion without taking or borrowing a creed from somewhere or somebody. It had been suggested that by means :of a deftly-manipulated text book it would be possible-to teach religion without injuring would..sayj;-withbut;'having' any religious effect. (Applause.) It would be impossible if a Protestant text book were approved^'resist the claims-of the Roman Catholics to' - denominational '■ schools. Their claim could be met now, but it could not be justly met if a text book of which they, did not approve were introduced. He regretted the words used at the Presbyterian- Assembly by Canon Garland —"whether we should have Homo llule or Rome Rule on this matter." That was akin to the talk about tho battle of the Boyne, the kind of talk that was doing duty for-politios in Ulster just now. Canon Garland attached great importance to the system in vogue in- New South Wales, ivhere they had that marvellous compilation, the Irish Text Book, in use. This book had achieved some fame, had become a fetish, but he had no hesitation in saying it was the most soulless, colourless, worthless, antediluvian publication of its kind in existence. Perhaps some of the sweetness of the Sydney larrikin was duo to the fact that he had been brought up on the Irish Text Book. Our local administration of our schools was something to be proud of, but seeing the fuss School Committees, oould make now about the colour of the paint, or. something like that, what sort of rows could be expected when a committee got out on "a good old heresy.hunt"? What sort of a run would anybody but a Presbyterian get in Invercargill, say ? Ho would bo very • much disappointed if three-fifths or three-fourths of the teachers of this country would not repudiate the task of teaching from the Irish Text Book. Let us not impose additional, burdens on our State, schcol teachers, who were badly .enough paid already, and mako it possible for one sort of men by mere lip service, pretending to teach, conscientiously, to get preferment over men of higher character who could not do this. Let us have re.ligion and politics utterly separated.

The Schemo Impracticable. Mr. Robert Lee, chairman of the Education Board, said he could speak with 50 years' experience of school life in England and in New Zealand. In his earlier days nearly all the schools in England had bpen .church, schools,' subsidised by the Swl>e. Ho regretted to have to say that nothing had tended mora to hinder tho progress of real education than the desiro on the,part of the clergy to subordinate everything else' to religious instruction. This young, country had had •in excellent .opportunity of tailing a new tine in education, and it had adopted the plan of miiking education free, secular, and comipulsory. To thoso who had bean Influenced by the enthusiasm of Canon uarland ho would say that if they thought ihis system proposed was going to provide for their children a good religious irairiing -they wero. very much mistaken. A.nd it had other drawbacks. In the first .place, undflr it the clergyman would : be admitted into the school.' That of itself was an evil. lie would say at once that the 'clergyman and the teacher would not work together as equals and as friends. He knew this from experience. There was a feeling which always grew up in the clergyman's mind that he was on top, and the schoolmaster naturally resented this. Tho agitation was called tho Bible-in-schools movement, but it B-as not tho Bible that was to bo read, but only extracts from tho Biblo.- This must necessarily - 'be so for many reasons. It was said that, tho Bible could bo used as a text book, but ths Bible was the text book of all Christian sects, and there were scores of them. Me b'-lieved there were a few mow every year in the. United States. How would it then 1m possible to make extracts to suit nil of item? The tiling was impracticable. If we wished to give freedom to oveTvone alike, the only system under which it could be dono would bo under'a secular Also, it would be impossible for any teacher of strong religious conviction not to infuss into l«s lessonbr way of explanation some of hisi own beliet. The reading of passages of the Bible would, every educationalist knew, do no moro good than the reading of any other narrative. Tho meaning, must be explained and brought out by the teacher. On the •p,-hole, we should be well satisned with tho secular system. ' It kept the clergy on their o\ni ground;-it rous&d no enmities among the chiklren-no child was encouraged to say "You'r* a Jew," fl<nd to another "YourVo something else;" By nil means kt us b» free from religious troiiblo an<l remain, as wo were. Ho seconded tho motion, ... Tho motion was carried on a of hands by an , overwhelming majority, eoven hands being hold up for the noes. The Referendum Opposed, Mr. J.. Hutcheoon moved: "That aa the proposals of the Bible in Schools League raise issues involving both for parents and

i teachers matters of conscience, this meeting is of opinion that no such issue should bo determined by means of ft general plebiscite or referendum." Tho old agitation, he said, was being presented in a now and insidious form, lot they were making tho most 'use of the inertia of tho whole community. It appealed to the apathy and lethargy and neglect of the parent, who thought to salve his conscience for his. own dereliction of duty .by passing oil the responsibility to someone else. It would bo tho worst moment for this little country of ours when the Bible was introduced into our schools, when a certain section of tho community could not. attend thoee schools, for tho Roman Catholics held that the Biblo was not tho expression of tho Word of God, but a repository merely, and bccause of that, they -would not allow any _ but priests of the Church to expound it to their 'people. There was no half-way house between the present system and <lenominaiionalism '-pure and simple. He had been taught himself in a denominational school, where religion had been expounded according to the teaching of John Knox. It had done no good. It had raised in tho minds of tho young men and young women ht that school feelings of strife, feelings of unbelief, and it_ had created prurient thoughts in their minds. This proposed system of teaching of religion in schools could never bo anything more than a wretched siniulacre of religious teaching. Tho referendum proposal was a wicked one. He admitted that tho referendum was a splendid expedient for its own proper purposes, but no referendum ought ever be used to violate the religious beliefs or unbeliefs'of anybody. . Mr. Clement Watson, headmaster of the Willis Street School, seconded tho motion. He indicated some of the difficulties that would crop up under the system. First of all clergy were going to ebmo into the schools. What clergy? Tho board might say, "All tiio' ordinary brands of religion" could be represented. But.what about the Spiritualists, the Theosophists, the. Mormons, and so on. Wore they to be excluded? If they were, there wonld ho sectarian domination at oneo. He told of the sectarian dividing line 1 in the English village where ho' was brought up, hoiv this was emphasised, and how .undesirable it was to introduce such feelings of strife here. He explained also how utterly, impossible it would be to have children read tho Bible in school, and learn any good thereby. The Bible was not like any other book; immediately ono tried to explain it he found it was different. The child was, in fact, a non-moral being; it was useless to ask him to read a book and expect him to be impressed or influenced by mere reading of a passage, because lie had not sufficient strong reasoning power. Generally, Mr. Watson argued that the schemo was an impossible one. The motion was carried almost unanimously. Defence Society Formed. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh, M.P., moved: "That this meeting:resolves to formatself into a society for the defence of our national system of education." He said the effect of religious teaching in some of the European countries had been to. 1 bring religion into ridicule. The.churches were thoroughly distrusted, and this result would come in England unless the schools were secularised. .

Mr. John Gainmell seconded the motion. Why was there need, he asked, for changing our system? Our people were not dishonest, the criminal 'rate was decreasing, and had been for the last thirty-five years, and the community -was a happy one. Only the clerical party wanted a change, and he knew of no greater' calamity that could fall upon any community than to come under the domination of the clerical party. They would' reduce it to a state of poverty, stupidity, and ignorance, as they had kept the people of some other countries. It could never be tolerated in this coufitrv. ' The motion was carried with three or four dissentients. ' ■■ ■ Election of Officers, The following officers wore then elected :—President, Mr'; D; ! M''Mfeh; Major of Wellington) vice-presidents;''' Professors' Hunter, Laby, and Kirk, Messrs. R. Lee,-' J. Hutcheson, , and C. Watson, P. 'C. Freeth, Grundy, J. S. Tennant, J. ' C. Webb, G. 'M'Morran, . Poster, and Beadingfield, Miss Helye, Miss Myers, and Miss Dowdeswell, and Mrs. Moore; committee, the Rev. W. Jellie, Messrs. A. R. Atkinson, J. Hutcheson, A. Lindsay, Partridge, Poison, J. W. Richardson, J. Alexander, and Mrs. Godber; joint secretaries, Professor M'Jtensie, Professor Hunter, and Mr. H. Joosten. It was decided to call the organisation just formed "The National. Schools' Defence League," and to empower the executive officers to call a meeting for the purpose of formulating a plan of campaign.

MEETING AT CHRISTCHURCH. • (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Christchurch, December 6. At a meeting attended by fifty people, including several ladies, and composed chiefly of public school teachcrs, it was derided that a league be formed in Christchurch to oppose the platform of the Bible-in-Schools League, and to support tho present system of free, secular, and compulsory education.. Officers were appointed, Mr. J. Caughley, M.A., being elected president. The iollowiug basis of a platform ivas referred to a committee to draw up the league's platform(l) "While recognising tho.value of the Bible and of religion, ive maintain that the policy ' proposed by the Bible-in-Schools League is opposed to civil and religious liberty, and is a menace to our national system of education. (2) We therefore pledge ourselves to defend- the present national secular system of education. (3) We, also pledge ourselves to resist tho proposal to take a referendum on'a question which deals with religion and liberty of conscience. ,