BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1754, 20 May 1913, Page 4

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Sir,—ln Thursday morning's issue of your journal there appears a report of a meeting" held in Brooklyn in support of tho Biblc-in-Sciiools movement. In this report, the Rev. J. K. Elliot is alleged to have said that, at tho meeting held in tho Town Hall Concert Chamber on Friday last, there was no argument, but only abuse. I sincerely hope, for tho sake of Mr. Elliot's reputation, that ho has been misunderstood. Mr. Elliot is evidently no longer a logical or clear thinker if ho fails to understand the scholarly arguments which Mr. Caughley brought forward; and as for abuse—well, to those who were at the meeting the absurdity of tho charge is self-evident. To my mind Mr. Elliot is gratuitously insulting fo Mr. Caughley, who is an earnest Chris" turn worker, and who would certainly not. to use a cant phrase quoted at the meeting, "decide against. God." It is Mr. Elliot who tends towards abuse, and his remarks about the teachers are on a level with the rest of his speech. Fancy u man making tho statement: "In no civilised country wero the teachers allowed to take a prominent part in such mailers." Why not, forsooth? Sucln a barefaced attempt to prevent freedom of speech and freedom of action is worthy <>j' mediaeval England. Evidently Mr. Elliot i s afraid that the wise counsels of gentlemen such as Mr. Caughley, who is a teacher, will , prevail against the blind folly of the sectarians. "Muzzle the teacher!" is Mr. Elliot's 'policy. "Make him do as wo tell him; if he objects, wli.it matter? The schools are not for tho teachers." No, certainly not; aud. God helping, neither will they ever be there fo enable Mr. Elliot and his fellow "ethereal virtues" to open up a new era of religious bigotry.—l am, etc., GEGEX DIE DUMMHEIT. " May 10.

Sir,—That question, No. 2, of "A Member of the N.S. Defence League" seems to call for an answer. The writer lias put: into print something thai the Uible-in-Schools League does not: ask for. Mo says: "Compulsory attendance of 'children at Jiible lessons, or religious instruction, conducted by accredited representatives of the churches." The writer seems to have overlooked the fact that there is no compulsion asked for. If the parents of the children wish to exclude their children from these-lessons tliev can do so. Surely this would be "lair" and "reasonable" as your "leader" put it. It seems that, if the proposals' of the Bible-iii-Schools League are given effect to, and the teachers managed to get a conscience clause for teachers, we will have, I suppose, a "passive resistors'" association of teachers, but I hey should have learned a lesson from the recent altitude of the British Medical Association in their opposition to the Insurance Act. It seems to have vanished in smoke. Then there is another great danger, if either this conscience clause for teachers is included. or the Nelson system generally adopted. AYe would have tho battle-

ground shifted to the school districts again; for undoubtedly the light would be renewed to control the school committees and through them the education boards; and some of the teachers would be hoisted on the "horns of the dilemma" they themselves had helped to create. I consider that a conscience clause for teachers may look well on paper, but it will not work out very well for them in the long run. They know very well that at present tlu? school committer's are outside this controversy, and in the interests of the teachers it should be allowed to remain so. In conclusion, I hope your correspondent in future will state facts, and not: try and put into tho demands of the JJible-i'ci-School? League what they are not .advocating. We don't mind fair criticism, but in all conscience let it be fair.—l am, etc., THOS. M. MILLIGAX. May 15th, ■ 1013.-