The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2060, 22 April 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1907.

With tho exception of atheists (and there are few of them existing on the globe, and fewer still in Gisborne), Mahomedans, Buddhists, Confucians, and such like, there are possibly not a dozen sane people who will object to Bible teaching according to the several persons’ notions of how, when, and whore, tho Bible should bo taught in our public schools, _ and though we may not agree with their opinions, wo are certainly entitled to respect them. Fortunately for the success of our national system of education, tho vast majority of the people of Now Zealand arc opposed to the Bible being introduced into the schools under any pretext; but if we once introduce it in any form tho moment wo do it wo have done that which is pci so an admission that our secular system caiiot stand by itself without ■ religious teaching. Suppose we admit that for the purpose of argument, tho further question naturally arises, What kind of roligious teaching should we introduce? and our friends who aro seeking to get in the thin end of tho wedge roply, as per their circular to parents,that the teaching will be “non-sectarian ” and “based upon the International Series of Bible Lessons which nearly all denominations make use of.” It has probably never occurred to those gentlemen that there is an inherent weakness in that quotation which destroys its whole value because it is opposed to the very essence of the national system. That weakness is found in tho word “nearly,” for it admits the significant fact that all denominations do not use tho series of lessons referred to, and hence it logically follows that some denominations at least have conscientious objections to them. Our national system embraces all denominations, and the introduction of any teaching that is not acceptable to all cannot be said to be national in character. Hence it is that wo most strongly protest against any innovation that will encourage the tendency towards Sectarianism, and not because we have any semblance of objection to Bible teaching in its proper place, as is sometimes imputed to those who venture to oppose those whose aim is Sectarianism. In another column will be found an advertisement asking for the support of voters at tonight’s election upon three grounds, one of which is that a proportion of about five to one of the parents of this town have voted in favor of tho movement. Now that is distinctly not a fair way of putting the matter, for it infers that a largo majority of the parents have signified by the circulars returned that they are in favor of it, and we venture to doubt that very much; but if it were so, we know of more than one who returned an affirmative answer because of the misleading way in which the question is put. They have assured us that they would vote against the introduction of Bible teaching; but “if” it were introduced would not object to their children attending the classes. Then tho circular mentions that this “is done in other parts of the colony,” whereas tho authors can only point to one part where it “is done,” and tliorc it has admittedly not been an unqualified success. II the Bible teaching to be introduced (if it ever comes about) is as accurate as the circular those who vote for it will have cause to regret their action ; but the main objection is not so much against any system of Bible teaching as to the fact that no system can be devised that will admit of all denominations attending, and that those who are excluded because of their consciences have to form a second party, so to speak, with a distinct line of demarcation between them and those who do. The moment one line is drawn, and the badexample given to children that there are differences which must be observed, other lines will follow, and the national character of tho schools at once destroyed. Our correspondent “Parent” puts the wholo matter so logically and well that wo need not repeat his arguments which express our views exactly, and we desire merely to add that the taking of a plebiscite as this has been done should not have been permitted, first because no vote should bo taken on such a question except by ballot for obvious reasons, and, second, because the taking of it in the way it was done cannot reveal the true state of public opinion. Wo are not even told what the number of voters is, how many voting papers were sent out, and how many returned; and if we had been told these things it would still be requisite to enquire what percentage the “Ayes” would bear to the total number of possible votes, and whether everybody had the chance of voting. Until these conditions are observed it is useless to say that a majority is in favor of the proposal to introduce the Bible into our State schools.