BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1753, 19 May 1913, Page 3

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

Sir,—The writer of the leader, "Tho Bight of Entry," that ' appears in today's issue says that Canon Garland and his friends havo stated their position clearly. This is true.- But when tho writer goes on to say. "Hero, then, wo havo two distinct issues." it should bo clearly understood that ho is speaking for The Dominion and not for tho Bible-in-Schools League. Tho Christclitirch "Press" of October 11 last records Canon Garland as saying: "It is, however, tho system, the whole system, and nothing but tho system which wo advocate." Apparently, however, you agree that tho first proposal—Bible instruction by the State teachers—must be abandoned because it conflicts with tho religious liberty of tho teachers. There remains, then, Biblo lessons by tho clergy .for the children of the members of their denominations. There are two ways in which this mav bo done: 1. Tho school buildings may bo placed at tho disposal of tho clergy for use oither before or after school hours, there being no compulsory attendance of either teachers or pupils. This method is not an infringement of tho Education Act, and can be used by the clergy at tho present time. That it is not impossible to conduct classes under these conditions is shown by tho fact that tho plan, has worked successfully in many pluces, £11 Dunedin for 17 years. Failure, wherever it has occurred, has been due to the neglect or incompetence of those into whose hands the work naturally falls. It is truo that permission to use the school building rests with tho school committee, the representatives of the parents of the pupils, but I should have thought that a party or a paper- that advocated the application of the referendum to this question would not havo objected to thai.. Some local authority must be responsible for tho school buildings. 2. Bible lessons may bo conducted by the clergy under the eye of the teachor during school hours. This method is an infringement of tho Education Act, and those who adopt it deserve. the condemnation of all law-abiding citizens. There seem to be but two reasons for the refusal to accept system X rather than system 2. (a) The hope that children who are compulsorily in attendaneo bv statute will not avail themselves of the "right of withdrawal." The difference between the two schemes hero is perfectly clear: the first says tho class shall be for those whoso parents send them; then seoond, that tho State shall compel all children to attend tho Bible lessons unless they are definitely withdrawn by their parents. The latter is simply an attempt to use-' tho power of .the State to compel attendance at religious services, and will not, I trust, bo tolerated in this country. (b) The teacher may bo used to maintain discipline. I am surprised that a paper of the standing of The Dominion should mention this argument, except tor pour contempt upon it. Can you mention any educationist who would consider for a moment the proposal to entrust the important task of teaching to thoso who are incapable of maintaining .discipline? Under' the schema suggested tho teacher would play the part of policeman during the Bible lesson. This is a reversion to tho Dark Ages. What kind of influence <lo you think this . procedure would have on the teachers, the cleTgy and the scholars? The Wellington Defence League may not have given an official pronouncement on this question, but there is no doubt,'l think, that it would condemn it. In regard to tho question of the referendum, do you think it wise to uso the introduction of the plebiscite for the liquor question as a iustification tor adopting it for this other "exceptional case, and then to close your leader with the supposition that the referendum would end the matter when you know quito well it has had just the opposito effect on the case of the liquor question? —I am, etc., THOS. H. HUNTEK. Wellington, May 14. [We thought we had made it perfectly clear tliat The Dominion does not speak for either the Bible-in-Schools Leaguo or the Defence Leaguo. What we have throughout is that, in our opinion, tho questions at issue aro essentially matters tor tho decision of tho people. Professor Hunter must know quite well that school committees are not elected on the Bible lessons issue, and tho suggestion that there is anv analogy between tho decision of a scnool committee and the decision of the people by referendum cannot, of course, be taken seriouslv. Tho other points in Professor 'Hunters letter aro fair enough arguments from his side of the question, Jjut they are at the best trifling, and 'T»'esumably aro designed to remove attention from tho main issue.]