BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1746, 10 May 1913, Page 6

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

ADDRESS BY MR. J. CAUGHLEY. PROPOSAL CONDEMNED. Last night about 150 people assembled in tho Concert Chamber of tho Town Hall to hear a lecturo on tho Bible-in-Schools question by Mr. J. Caughley, M.A., of Christchurch. The lecturo was delivered under tho auspices of tho New Zealand National Schools' Dofcnco League, and tho Wellington National Schools' Defence League. Mr. A. It. Atkinson (president of tho New Zealand League) presided. Thero were on the platform also, tho Very Rev. Dean O'Shea, Vicar-General; Professor Mackenzie, Messrs. J. Tennant (Principal of the Training College), John llutehcson,' D. M'Laren, and' the following headmasters of schools:—Messrs. Clement Watson, I. Grundy. H. A. Parkinson, J. C. Webb, C. Bary, D. Bediugfield, and C. Cooke. In introducing Mr. Caughley, Mr. At-- | Vinson remarked that tho lecturer and ' Canon Garland had spoken on tho subject before tho Baptist Conference, and ho, (Mr. Atkinson) had been told by an unbiassed person that Mr. Caughley had "wiped the floor" with Cftnon Garland. Mr. Atkinson went on to say that there was no important question upon which there was so much misrepresentation and misunderstanding. He did not for a moment say that the misrepresentation was deliberate. The two chief things to be fought against by opponents of tho Bible-in-Schools League wero ignorance and indifference. Mr. Caughley said that wo had reached a crisis in tho matter of tho integrity of our schools, and also of our religious freedom. He was a teacher, and ninetonths of the New Zealand teachers, ho considered, would support his views on this subject. The Bible-in-Schools League said that they were concerned to have the children taught the Bible, but they kept altogether in tho background the fact that they wanted a certain method of /teaching adopted. It was that method which was objected to. Theso methods could not be adopted by any fair and just State. There were far'better means of teaching the Bible than through tho medium of the school. Tho League termed its opponents "opponents of the Bible." That was incorrect. Were tho various churches which objected to tho method opponents of tho Bible? Thero were only two fair ways for tho State to deal with this matter—either to provide for every denomination, however small, or to provide for -none. If the' State provided for none, the State would be doing no one an injustice. Canon Garland had said'in Christchurch:. "It has been alleged that tho movement would bo unjust to a section of the community. If that wero so, I would have nothing more to do with the movement." Mr. Caughley said that ho had asked (through the press) Canon Garland to make good that offer, but Canon Garland had avoided doing so. How could tho State provido what one side wanted, and refuse what the others called for? What of the teachers who would havo to teach what they did not believe in teaching?- If the caso were put to a jury Canon Garland would, in the light of the offer mentioned, have to resign his position as organising secretary of the Bible-in-Schools movement. If the Bible-in-Schools League's proposals were carried out tho kind of Bible-teaching adopted would simply be that dictated by tho political majority of the moment. He was surprised at the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches abandoning their Nonconformist principles and supporting this Bible-in-Schools movement. These two churches were simply being used as make-weights for the Anglican Church, whioh would not have worried about them if it had not needed their support. Here was a curious position: the lecturer was a teacher and a parent; as a parent he would have the right to "conscientiously object" to his child being taught Biblereading in school, but to teach the others what he conscientiously objected to his own child being taught, Canon Garland alleged that tho Bible-reading poll was carried in Queensland by the will of tho people; as a fact, it was carried by a minority and would not have been carried at all had tho issues been fairly nut before those who wont to tho poll. The people who were on the one hand alleged to be so neglectful that they did not teach their children the Bible, wero, on the other hand, supposed to be thos» who wore burning to have it taught in the schools. There was really no conscience clause for teachers in Australia; it was said that tho teachers over tho other side did not refnso to teach tho Bible, nnd the reason was that they would lose their positions if they did. When a child was baptis;d the parents and Clio church pledged themselves to look after tho child's religious education; now some churches wanted to hand that responsibility over to tho State which never took any such vow. In conclusion, he warned the people to bo alive to tho danger. Mr. D. M'Laren moved: "That this meeting strongly disapproves of tho proposals of the Bible-in-Schools Leaguo as involving a departure from the religious neutrality of the Stato and a violation of the individual rights of conscienco which have hitherto been held sacred, and considers that in the interests of freedom, justice, and relisrious rtenre tho limitations of the State school curriculum to- secular subjects should be strictly i"aintaiii"d." The mover asserted that Bible-in-Schools advocates were nsiivg methods which wero "the meanest kind of political trickery." The motion was seconded by Mr. C. Waison, and was carried on a show of hands, with two dissentients. It was Tesob-'l. nl*": "That the nroposal of the Bible-in-Schools Leaguo to romnel the State school teachers to =ive Biblical lessons without a conscienco clauso is unjust and oppressive and could not bo carried out without exposing conscientious objectors to embarrassment and dismissal." The chairman conveyed to Mr. Caughley f »io thanks of the audience for his address.