BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2062, 24 April 1907, Page 1

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

A HEATED DISCUSSION

The election of the Gisborne School Committee held last nigljt was decided on the Bible-in-scliools question, and the proceedings were of an interesting nature. Mr. Edwards proposed that all the candidates should be given three minutes to explain their views on the question of Bible-teaching in schools. The Rev. Griffin said that some people had been jnisled as jP the meaning of the manifesto recently published, regarding it as the thin end of the wedge of denominational education. He had signed the manifesto, but if he, thought so his name would not be in the list. Rev. Grant : “Nor mine.” He greatly admired the present education system. He could point to several districts where Bible teaching in schools had been very successful and lyas carrier! on amicably. Mr. Edwards thought the present system should not be disturbed. ' The Rev. Cockrell said Bible-teach-ing had been in vogue in Hastings for some time. The clergymen of the town cut up tjie work between them and that system had been universally successful. ’ He (the speaker) had been iu charge of three district schools, and he had always found the lesson did not interfere with the regular work.

Mr. T. Long said that in Victoria the option of giving lessons had been given, but- after a while the parsons had dropped off, until now the matter was practically dead. He also objected to the committee being elected on tlie question—they should lie elected on merit. He proposed that the matter he not considered at the meeting. The Chairman ruled the motion out of order, and Mr. Edwards’s motion was carried by a good majority. The candidates then proceeded to give their views. Mr. Somervell said children should not be debarred from reading any book from which good could bo got. He would vote in favor of the system if it was brought before him, but would not move a finger to introduce it. '

Mr. Blair said ho had not given a definite pledge to support Bibleteaching iu schools, If a majority

of the parents favored it lie would veto for it—the duty of tlie committee was to. carry out the desires ol the householders. If it could ho introduced without crippling the elli- ' cieucy of the school ho would voto ■ for it. Ho would vote for it not from personal conviction, hut as lie would i conceive it to ho his duty. Mr. Fromm said he was m favor of the system. In Switzerland an liour a diiy was given to Bible study. The Itev. W. Grant said lio was in favor of the system. Ho was ill favor of the present secular system, and he thought the introduction of a weekly Bible lesson would prevent del mini nationalism. The itev. C. Griffin said he was in favor of the system. Mr. Sawyer also supported the }lr. Barton said lie was the first one to rise and go against the tide, tt was an easy matter to support tile system, because the person so doing was always regarded as very respectable while those who opposed it were •it once classed as Atheists or Agnostics (Cries of “No.”) But they opposed the • system just as conscientiously as it was supported. It was ,-iid that the householders were in "lavin' of the system by live to one; hut that result had been obtained by means of a circular which asked parents to state whether, if a Bible . -loss were started, they would send their children to it. Why, lie asked, had the ijuostion not been put plainly . [ Are you' ill favor ol the lessons being 'established? . , . . .. The Itev. Grdiin rose to a point ol order. He objected to Mr. Barton questioning the motives of the party. who had sent out the circular. The Chairman held Mr. Dai ton to be in order. . , , , Mr. Barton said he was moiety (Uniting facts—the meeting could decide as to motives. llie statement that the majority of parents were in favor of the lessons being established was not true. Many of the people who had received the circular would he influenced by the lact that the papers would he returned to the parsons, and they were frightened oi being bully-ragged. . Oil the Rev. Gnfhu s suggestion "bully-ragged” was withdrawn. Mr. Barton said no voting could he taken as a referendum it a paper had to be signed. The only true test was the ballot, where no influence limn the church or otherwise, could he felt. It was not a question objecting to teaching the Bible (they all favored that), but objection was taken to it being taught in school hours. Mr. Spence was in favor ot the 85 Mr Hird favored the system, hut would not allow it to intcrlere with the ordinary school work. Air. Lewis emphatically opposed the system. The school was not the proper place for the teaching m school hours. ~ Speaking for Mr. Johnston, Mi. Barton said lie was against the syslUJi'r. Wildish was against the system, as he thought the syllabus at present was too full. Air Little said that as half all hour a week would be of no practical use he would vote against the system. Air. Bright said he was strongly against the system. . Air. Hanson said he was against

the system. , The Rev. Mr Chattel-ton was granted leave to say a few words. He said that the circular had been drawn up so that the parents would not be taken by surprise in the matter. He (the speaker) had drawn up the circular in the best manner he could. The number of affirmative replies received could be taken as a fair indication of the feeling in favor of the establishment of the classes. Mr. Rowley (headmaster) said he had signed his circular affirmatively. He would send his children to the lessons if adopted ; but he did not favor the establishment of the classes. In fact he was very much against it. He just mentioned this to show hov. it was possible other parents had voted. . . The debate then terminated.