The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 12, 1913. THE PEOPLE AND THE SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1747, 12 May 1913, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 12, 1913. THE PEOPLE AND THE SCHOOLS.

In his address in the Town Hall Concert Chamber on Friday night, Mb. J. C'At'OHi.Kv, of Christchuvch, appears to have slated the objections 1.0 (.In; proposals of tho Bihle-iti-fishools League in a clear and forcible manner; but, as everyone who has given serious thought. 1.0 the, matter is wellawarc (hat the question is beset, with difficulties, it was hardly necessary for Mr. Caugiilfa' to come all the way from Christchurch to tell us so. The arguments on both sides have been iterated and reiterated with a frequency that is becoming wearisome, and what is now wanted is that each of the two contending parties should endeavour candidly to view the problem from the other's point of view, and al.vo from the standpoint of the community at large. The Defence League docs not seem to have grasped the fact that a new situation has arisen which cannot be adequately filet by a mere repetition of the old shibboleths.of uncompromising secularism. I'ecent events have shown beyond all possibility of doubt that a very large and inliuential section of the people of New Zealand are dissatisfied with our system of education owing 1.0 the entire exclusion of all JJibie-loaehing during school hours. They do not want to wreck the system, hut (hey are imperatively demanding some measure of religious inslruction for their children. There are indications I hat a crisis is approaching, and the Defence League will not be able (o save I lie situation by merely striving with all their might to bang the door in the face of their on.Bcmcnts, A more am-

fch'Uclive policy is required, and surely it is not beyond the possibilities of educational statesmanship to find a solution of the problem which will meet the just demands of the 15ibln-in-schools people without doing injury to the system or violating any reasonable conscientious scruples. The Dominion is not the mouthpiccc of either of the rival leagues. \\'c are mainly concerncd with the interests of the great mass of the people who belong to neither of the two fighting camps, and it is quite 1 possible—indeed, it is very probable —that the general public would favour a solution of the problem different from that for which either of the leagues is struggling. The real truth probably is that the majority of the parents of New Zealand would like their children to receive some form of religious instruction as an essential part of their education if it could lie given without causing injustice or hardship. This oucht not to be an impossibility, and the uncompromising attitude of some of the so-called defenders of the present education system, if persisted in, can only alienate many of the sinccrcst friends of our national schools. There can bo no doubt that the weak point of the Bible-in-schools movement is tlio proposal to call on the State teachers to give biblical lessons. How;ever possible it may be theoretically to treat the Bible purely as literature—and it contains some of the finest literature in the world— the fact remains that the practical difficulties are very great, and these arc increased by the undisguised'hostility of a powerful section of the teachers. Questions of conscience arc already being raised in this connection, and almost the whole forcc of the attack is being directed against this part of the objective of the Bible-in-Schools League. The proposal that the accredited rcpresentativcs_of the various Churches should be given, by statute law, adequate facilities in school hours to impart religious instruction to the children of their denominations, stands on a very different footing. No one's con-' science need suffer violence. All that would be. required would bo a not very serious remodelling of the syllabus. The fact that a method similar in principle to this is already in operation without friction in Nelson, Oamaru, and other placcs, sli'ould go far to disarm hostility, and no less an authority than the chairman of the Otago Board of Education has publicly stated that it is having good results without in any way disorganising the ordinary school work. Indeed, he went so far as to say that it had improved the general tone of the schools in which it had been tried. Unfortunately, it seems very difficult to get a clear expression of opinion from the Defence League on this system. . They freely accusc their opponents of evasion, and yet they will not give a candid • statement of their own attitude towards the proposed "facilities." The explanation, no doubt, is that they are divided themselves on the point; but as this is probably the solution of the difficulty which will appeal most strongly to the great mass of the people, the Defence Leaguo will have to face it sooner or later.

It would be a great mistake, how-; ever, as we have previously pointed out, to make any far-reaching change in our education system, unless it has the unmistakable support of the majority of the people. No such change would give satisfaction, or be regarded as final. If a Parliamentary majority gave legal effect to the do niands of the Bible-in-Schools League the other side would at once raise an outcry on the ground that Parliament was not supported by public opinion; and if, on the other hand, Parliament rejected these demands, it would lie accused of thwarting the wishes of the people. In either case the agitation would go on; and even if it were possible, it would bo most undesirable to make such a matter the leading political issue at a general election. Therefore, all the circunistances into consideration, the most satisfactory way of settling the question is to take it direct, by means of a referendum, to the final court of political appeal in a democracy—the people themselves. The voters, however, must be given the opportunity of voting for each of the two proposals separately, and, if so, it is quite possible that they may reject the proposal that, the State teachers should give Bible, lessons, and favour the granting of ''facilities'"' (•;> representatives of (he Churches to {jive religious instruct; tion—two distinct principles being involved. At the present time some of the greatest thinkers of the day are emphasising the tremendous sociological value of religion—its vital importance as a factor in national and racial survival—it is, indeed, pitiful that the main difficulty in the way of givincc religious instruction to the rising generation should arise out of the unhappy divisions among those whose special business it is to nourish and strengthen the spiritual side of the nation's life.