A MATTER OF OPINION

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2220, 5 August 1914, Page 10

A MATTER OF OPINION

Is the National Schools Defence League advocating Bible IN School, or Bible OUT of School?

[Published by Arrangment.l

Professor M'Kenzie, in Friday's issue of The Dominion, speaks of giving "the lio direct-! , to "false and malicious"' statements, one of which he refers to in these words: "Our league (meaning the opposition league) is represented as putting the Bible on an 'index prohibitorum," but he here leaves out entirely a part, and that the governing part, of tho sentence from which :he takes these words. The statement as published was, "And the Bible is thus put on an 'index prohibitoruin' by this extraordinary league as regards Its use in the public school life of the nation." There was no generality in the matter; it was a specific charge dealing only with the public school life; and' this charge is surely justified by the statement .made in' the report of the executive of the opposition league, 18th April last.

"Every National.Schools Defence League in tho. Dominion is irreconcilably opposed to making Bible reading or religious instruction part and parcel of the State schools cur: rioulum as the -Bible-in-Schools-party propose.. . • .. • ' v j If irreconcilable opposition does not mean prohibition of th'e Bible in,, the schools, language ceases to have any meaning. ■ ■',■......•

Professor M'Kenzie's , , affirmation that his league would in no way oppose "a purely voluntary system of Bible in schools (to supplement the national secular system); provided that no teacher, pupil, or parent would be under any compulsion in the mat- ' ter so far as ijhe State is concern-

Ed," t _ ' ■ shows ail entire failure to understand the position of the Bible-in-Schools League. From the point of view of the Bible-in-Sohoola Leaguej "a purely voluntary system , of Bible in schools (to supplement the national secular system) before or after the hours ordinarily allotted to the secular- syllabus" is no solution of the difficulty. Bible In schools means, from the League point of view, Bible in school hours, and in the hands' of the' teachers; and not as supplementing the national secular school system, but as an integral part of it. There. may be a difference of opinion as to . whether "supplementing the national secular system" is Bible in sdkool, but from Vho Bible-in-Schools League point of view the opposition league is advocating Bible out of school, when it opposes the proposal for making the. Bible lessons an integral part of the national education system. To attribute to- the Bible-in-Schools. League, because it holds this opinion, "false and malicious," "unscrupulous" statements, and "barel- - slanders" need not surprise anyconsidering the qifarter from which su?h "gentle" language comes'. But fair-minded people will "consider ,f(hat without being . accused,of false- and nialicious statements, the .Bible-in-Schools League still has the right in a British community to venture to exnress an obiriipri which"! may' differ from Professor M'Kehzie, arid his colleagues. Professor M'Kerizie also objects to the statement 'that" the , ' opposition league "is singling out no other book in tha Tiiholo world of • literature for at-' tack save i.he Bible." "Will ho pleaso publish, any resolution r passed by, his league in which "it is said—' '''/.::. " "Every. National Schools Defence L'eague in the Doiriininn is irrccon- ' cilably opposed to making" the pre- • ,- cepts of Confucius.or,lessqris about''.;:, k theiKoran "part and parcel of the .State schools curriculum." Indeed,: any other book or .subject than i/iat which Professor M'Kerizie and his colleagues have singled <$ut— the Bible and religious, instruction.. The fact remains that the' only, book singled out by Professor M'Kenzie's league is the Bible; they have not even mentioned any other book. . . !..■'.. ."Whether tbis singling out of the Bible is an "attack" on that great Book, the public will judge. TJhe Bible-in-Schools League says it is an attack; the National Schools Defence League saye it is not.'" , .- For'the sake of argument, let us suppose that. p r;ofessor M'Kenzie's' league passed a resolution— ■ . • ■••-•' "Every National Schools Defence , League in the Dominion is irreconcilably opposed to making grammar part and parcel of the' Stete; Schools ' ' curriculum, but would in /no way ' oppose a purely voluntary system of grammar (to supplement . the'■■-• natioaial secular system).provided tliat no teacher,, pupil, or .parent shall be under any compulsion; to. teach or to learn the grammar, so far as the State is concerned," couid it- ijhen be said that the opposition league wis advocating grammar in scriools? Would it not'bo said that in order to prevent grammar being properly and efficiently taught , ,'that league was .seeking to place it in such a position that it would become; an additional subject' to bo taught outside school hours only to those who close to be kept in as they would be kept in; for punishment, and_ by such-'teatlbers as were willing to impose' grammar as a penal lesson upon the children.