BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1681, 22 February 1913, Page 9

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. PROFESSOR MACKENZIE'S REPLY TO MR, BIRCH. Sir,—lt is obvious that your correspondent, ill 1 . W. 1. Birch, lias not followed the discussion that has token place throughout tho Dominion, 011 the question of Bible in schools, with any euro or genuine interest. Tho result 'is that. 110 indulges at every turn in assertion rather than argument. Ho is, for instance, imaware that the organiser of the Bible-in-Schools League has staled that what, his league wanted was a "text-book to be compiled by the' Education Department," and that tl)e league disclaimed any desire to adopt tho New South Wales (or oven Queensland) text-book. -The text-book to which the league would commit us is, therefore, a veritablo pig in a poke. I—let 1110 remark—possess copies of both text-books, and delivered and published addresses on tliem many months ago. Again, Mr. Birch reminds ys of the fact that things_ are so 'harmonious—so' frictionless—in New South Wales in connection with the use of the Bible in schools! He knows but one side of tho story—Canon Garland's. Tho Row Canon took good care not to inform Mr. - Birch, and the friends of the Bible-in-Schools League, "why" there was such, harmony —such a completely frictionless condition of things—in the State schools in New South Wales! The teachers there aro "required" by Act of Parliament to give "general religious teaching," they aro forbidden (by the same Act) to take part in any political or sectarian meeting; they aro forbidden to act as press correspondents or as lay preachers! In a word they are gagged—muzzled—they daro not say publicly what they think of tho Biblc-in-schools question! As the, Hon. Geo. Fowlds put it, at Christchurch last week, teachers who played the hypocrite best" were snro.to.be' the most popular! MivFowlds and Inspector Hill, of.Hawke's Bay, mid otliers examined the New South Wales system at first-hand— and with great care—and they have publicly represented it as a "farce." What about England and Scotland and the interminable. sectarian conflicts over the question? If Mr. Birch sends mo his address, I will, with pleasure, send him a supply of literature on the situation there. Is it not a curious thing j that.-the representatives of non-confor-mity in New Zealand are striving, might and main, to introduce into New Zealand the v,sry conditions from wliich their co-religionists in England have been for generations. eagerly anxious to escape? I think it is perfectly clear that Mr. Birclr believes in tho divine right of majorities .in things religious and other! If he Were living in Ireland, or in France, he would, presumably, recognise the justice of majority ruie in matters of religion! It is'clear that (inasmuch as he is prepared to do to others, what 110 would have others do to him) lie would quietly submit (if he were in Ireland) to the State endowment of Catholicism; while, seeing that he is in New Zealand, 110 would have the Catholics quietly submit-to the .endowment of the-Pro-testantism of a certain ecclcsiastical'combine ! Bishop Julius of Christchurch is represented in the "Lyttclton Times" of February Gas observing: "There were plenty,of schools even in Canterbury where a struggle went onffor this or thr.'t sort of teacher 011 account of his religious opinions." If that is so at pre-sent,-what would things be like, if 1 the teachers were "-required to conduct Bible lessens?—l am, etc.. , HUGH MACKENZIE. February 19, 1913. 1912.),