BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1745, 9 May 1913, Page 6

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Tho public should be alivo to tho attempt now being made by tho Bible-in-Schoofs League to introduce an old-time disturbing clement into our elementary State school system. Its first line of action was by an emotional appeal from the pulpit by Anglican and other clergy, who are tho prime movers in tho action taken; but of late other methods are resorted to, and young women mako house-to-house hunts for the signatures of tho thoughtless and unwary to petitions which are often not read. A missioner is also brought out from Now South Wales, who was the organiser of the introduction of religious teaching in that oolony, where tho mischievous effects of it on intellectual progress are not yet realised. For how long was the system. of payment by results allowed to continue before its baneful effects were apparent? And for how manv centuries did tho churches dominate 'the schools and retard educational progress before the need of emancipation was felt to be imperative? lhis Dominion does not appear to know, how fortunate it is in having a system inaugurated which is free from tho religious hindrances now prevailing in the Mother Country. And yet to-day the clcrev of New Zealand are making out a nkms ca*o for tho resumption of their control. By whom is the Bible-teaching to bo brought into our schools? Is an unwilling or an unorthodox State school teacher to be forced into such service? Or are tho clergy, inadequate in numbers and untrained as teachers, to attempt the work and trespass on the schoolmaster's ground? . , , , \eain, is tlie Bible to bo introduced «s a whole, with most of its component books and certain sections of tho other unsuitable in matter or beyond the comprehension of children? Or is a departuent of mixed theology to bo entrusted to make a selection of so-called colourless eS The° National Educational League is not opposed to religious instruction; but tho members contend that the State sclwol is not the place for it. If religious instruction worthy of the name is given, it must bo that of tho parent, and .impasted bv a teacher who has a special callin" for the work. If sectarians are honest in their desire they should organiso workable courses of instruction in classes suitable to the age and need of the children, and taught by religious-minded teachor« The attempt of the clergy, so.often repeated, to shift their responsibilities oil to the shoulders of tho schoolmaster is a device of bygone times, and should find DO popular favour now. If tho clergy are losing their authority it is no businc« of the State to succour them. . Nor is it tho function of the State, in these days of social advance, to teach religion 'in any form. . Why, then, should wo submit to a mischievous disturbance Of our present secular . system ? Whv should we further overcrowd our syllabus with that which may lead to bitter contentions and class hatred.- 1 it is not right to set up an invidious distinction ill our schools of (ho children of Catholics. .Tews, and others. Nor can tlie interference of the clergy with the management of our trained and practical school teachers be tolerated. Nor do we as educationists want another routineridden subject of instruction introduced. Let us, then, leave well alone; let our schools continue to breathe tho atmosphere of religious freedom; and let tho sectarians clamorous for so-called religious instruction provide for it on their own lines and on their own ground.—l ,m ck " EOBEET LEE,