The Dominion. MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1912. A REFERENDUM OR WHAT?

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1618, 9 December 1912, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1912. A REFERENDUM OR WHAT?

The National Schools Defence League is evidently very dctorminod in its opposition to a referendum on tho Bible-in-schools question. A largo and responsible section of the community arc advocating certain important changes in our education system, expressly stating that they are quite prepared to submit their proposals to tho judgment of the people of New Zealand, who own the schools and pay for.their maintenance. Tho Defence League, however, contends that the question should not be decided in this way. How, then, it may be asked, and by whom shall it be decided ? Does the League suggest that Parliament, which has been elected upon-a multiplicity of party issues having practically no bearing on the Bible-in-schools question, should give the final verdict, or is some clique or privileged section of the community to be allowed to. settlo the matter? _ The question lies outside of the ordinary scope of party politics,,and there.is no way of ascertaining the will of the people on it in a convincing manner except by a referendum.-. Admittedly, it is an awkward question to submit to a referendum, because of the difficulty of framing issues to be voted qn which will satisfy, both parties. ~Yet surely the matter is one for a vote of the people. As a matter of fact, both sides are already appealing as vigorously as they can _* to the voters. What are their pamphlets, their speeches, and their letters to the newspapers intended for but to influence public opinion ? And is it not quite illogical thus to appeal to the democracy, and at the same time to endeavour to avoid a decisive verdict? The Defence League tells us that the people of New Zealand will never agree to the changes in our education system which are being asked for. Perhaps they are right; but they should at least have sufficient confidence in the justice of their cause and in the good sense of the electors to allow the question to go to a referendum, and trust the' people to give a right judgment. From this point of view the Bible-in-schools people. are certainly in a stronger and more logical position than the Defence League, for they recognise _ the fact that in a democracy the will of the people must ultimately prevail. 'It is quite inconsistent to raise the cry of "clericalism" and at the same time refuse to allow tho matter to be decided by the vote of tho whole people, among whom the clergy arc numerically but an insignificant minority. A friendly word of warning to the Defence Leaguo will not be out of place at the present juncture. They have taken great pains to assure the public that they are not attacking the Bible, or religion, or. the churches, and probably this is the attitude of tho majority of the League. They are merely desirous of defending the present system of education. Statements to this effect were mado at their public meeting on Friday night, and at other times, yet some of the speakers in the Town Hall Concert Chamber occasionally appeared to forget these excellent principles. One of them, for instance, stated that perhaps the "sweetness of the Sydney larrikin was due to the fact that he had been brought up on the Irish Text Book ; another declared that religion expounded according to the teaching of John _ Knox created prurient thoughts in the minds of young people ; and yet another speaker said in effect that if "tho clerical party" had its way they would reduce the community "to a state of poverty, stupidity, and ignorance." Unless the Defenco League is able to raise the tono of its side of the controversy to a higher level than this, it will do in serious_ danger of- alienating the sympathies 'of the very people whoso support and confidence it professes to be particularly anxious to secure. Now that the campaign is beginning in real the time is opportune to appeal to both parties to treat • the question with the seriousness-it deserves, and not allow the discussion to degenerate into a battle of misrepresentation and epithetical invective. Of the three. proposals mado by tho Bible-in-schools League, two—the referendum and Scripture lessons by State teachers —are uncompromisingly rejected by tho other side, judging by the speeches made at the meeting on Friday night. The third proposal is That the churches shall have the opportunity afforded them of sending their ministers of religion or other - accredited teachers into tho schools during school hours to teach tho 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. This is in principle what is known as the Nelson system. As we have previously stated, it violates no rights of conscience, but is merely'a matter of convenience and_ rearrangement of tho syllabus. It is to be regretted that the Defence League failed to make a definite pronouncement on this proposal, which has the support of many people who do not think it would be right to ask the school teachers to give Scripture lessons. It is of groat importance that the opinion of both sides on all these points should be very definitely stated and explained in order that an accurately informed public opinion may bo created before the time for final decision arrives. Both Leagues are appealing directly or indirectly to Caesar, and to Caesar—or in other words, tho pcopin of Now ianoHfchw muat eventually go.. -_, 5 ,