BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 91, 14 October 1932, Page 14

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

DEBATE IN COUNCIL

SIR FRANCIS BELL SPEAKS

OPPOSITION TO BILL

The debate on the second reading of the Religious Instruction in Schools Enabling Bill was continued in the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon, when three more speakers contributed to the .discussion.

'The Hon. L. M. Isitt said that he knew from experience that it was absolutely impossible for a parson to cover the ground adequately under the Nelson system. There was a great evil in the persistence of the secular system. What was the objection to a change? They bad the poor old bogey of sectarian strife. There was no strife in the secondary schools where a larger measure of religious instruction was given than was proposed in the Bill. It was also a fallacy to say that the passage of the Bill would- introduce the problem of grants to privato schools. No new principle would be introduced by the' Bill. It would be remembered that the histpry text books, at one time had been bitterly opposed, but no concessions were made to the objectors. The position would be further safeguarded by the jealousy of the different religious sects. "THE REAL QUESTION^" The Eight Hon. Sir Francis Bell said that the speech delivered by Mr. Isitt had been eloquent but irrelevant. The question was not whether religion was an advantage, or whether it was part of the life of man, but whether the care of the spiritual aspect of the child was the duty of the parent. It could not be a part of the functions of the State to direct religious training, because it was an individual question on which no two men could agree. The spiritual lesson of life was to be learned in the domestic forum, not in the schools. The sponsors of the Bill said, "Look at the result of the present system." Ho accepted the challenge and said that the statements made against the children were a libel and not true. There was no doubt that the promoters of the Bill thought they were true, but they took their belief from some Magistrate, some clergyman, or some irresponsible person. Members of the Legislative Council were in a position of responsibility, and were askea to declare that the Bill was necessary because the young people were leading immoral and discreditable lives, and that there was no hope for their success unless the Bill enabled something to be placed before them that their parents had omitted. In no other country in the world were there better young men and women than in New Zealand, and he said this after spending the whole of his working life in- the Dominion. He resented the implication made against New Zealand, and; even if it was so he would not admit it was due to the secular system of education. If a person was inclined toward theft or immorality, he could not be saved by dogma. The essential characteristics of a virile race were truthfulness, loyalty, and honesty, and these could be developed without religious dogma. The promoters of the Bill didi not make it clear what religion would be taught, but he understood that it would be the Christian;1' religion, although it had to be remembered that the religion of mankind was more than 1900 years old. He did not speak as an agnostic when he said that one could not have religion without dogma. Tho difference of one religion from another depended on dogma. -.. SOME PROBLEMS. It was stated that the Bill provided religion without dogma, but that was absurdly incorrect, improvable, and undemonstrable, because it was untrue. Was the whole of the Bible to be taken as iiteral, historical truth, and divinely inspired, or was it in parts to be considered allegorical? If the Bible story of the creation of the world was to be taken as literally and divinely true, there was also the history of rocks which was also equally divine. If the Bill were passed it was obvious that the Roman Catholics could not allow their children to attend the services, and the reason why a section of that church had recoiled from the Bible-in-schools movement was because an endeavour was being made to obtain a promise from them not to press for grants for their schools. Ho contended as a lawyer and a politician that the Roman Catholics had a perfect right to ask for grants in the event of the Bill being passed. The Hon. G. "Witty said that Mr. Isitt, when in the Lower House and depending on the votes of the electorate, had stated, "I left New Zealand a supporter of Bible-teaching in schools in some form; but I have come back determined to oppose by any legitimate means in my power any interference with our present ■ system. I am satisfied that if my concession in this matter of education were made hero and now it would simply mean, as time progresses, a return to denominationalism and tho ultimate destruction of the system for the establishment of which we have eotne to be proud."' It was obvious that Mr. Isitt had changed his attitude since he had come into the Upper House. Mr. Witty said he was opposed to religious instruction being introduced into the schools, as it would bring about sectarianism, which was at prosent happily absent.

The Council adjourned at 4.15 p.m. until-this afternoon, when the debate will be continued.