MR ISITT’S BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 7 August 1926, Page 4

MR ISITT’S BILL

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL DEBATE

AVELLINGTON, Aug. 4

There was unusual public interest in the proceedings of the Legislative Council to-day, when more than fifty persons occupied the galleries to hear the second reading debate on Air Isitt’s Religious Exercises in Schools Bill. At the outset the Hon Air Earn.shaw raised a point of order as to whether it was competent or customary for tho Council to proceed with the second reading of a Bill before the Special Committee set uprto take evidence and report upon it had completed its report and furnished it to the Council. Air Speaker ruled that the second reading was in order.

Moving the second reading, the lion Air Isitt said that the possibilities of getting the Bill through both Houses, on account of tho curtailment of the session, were precarious. He pointed out that the subject matter of the Bill had been debated for twelve years past, and was quite familiar to everyone. Objections were confined to five or six stock arguments. The Bill was not his own, nor was it that of Chinch. It embodied a resolution passed a meetings attended by all the Anglican Bishops and representatives of the other Churches. The only' Churches which opposed it were the Roman Catholic, the Alormon, and tho Unitarian Churches. Mr Isitt challenged anyone to say that more could have been done to protect the position of the Roman Catholic Church. The quarrel of that Church was not that the Bill traversed any of its doctrinal teaching, but that it did not provide what they wanted in religious teaching. Ho recognised that, the Roman Catholic Church suffered a hardship, but it did not suffer iujttstice. To meet the wishes oi‘ the Roman Catholics all suggestion of lessons had been cut out, and the Bill merely meant the reading of Scriptural extracts without any comment whatever. It was proposed to confine the extracts to those which were common to the authorised version of the Bible, and the Douai Bible. Similarly it was possible to prepare a hymnal to the satis-

faction of everyone. He could not think of anything that had not been done to meet the objections of the people of that great Church. OTHER OBJECTION'S.

An objection was that the State should not teach religion, but he would leave that until he was replying. As for tho objection that an attempt was being made to shift responsibility of religious instruction on to school tench ers, he said that if the clergy could get in touch with all the pupils attending schools personally, they would be remarkable engineers. It was stated that the Nelson system would meet a!'

requirements, but wherever it was proving a success, its illegality was winked at. Furthermore, while some children were attending classes, others wore outside playing hopscotch and other games. The plea was also made that exercises in schools would resnl 4 in strife and dissension between religious denominations. If exercises could lie conducted in secondary schools however, why should there be any evils attaching to them in primary schools? Mr Isitt said he bad provided a conscience clause to protect those teachers who objected to conducting readings. He was quite unable to understand, therefore, the objections raised by Bishop Cleary. The clause had been inserted in good faith, and Air Isitt said he could not see wtSiy Bishop Cleary regarded it with, suspicion. It was said that there were teachers of such flagrantly irreligious character that children could not look up to them as teachers. If that.was so, they were not lit even as ordinary school teachers. Ho refused to believe there were teachers who would accept the responsibility of conducting classes, and then express contempt for the teachings. He could not believe that objecting teachers would lie ever afterwards marked men. for men who already had taken part in classes were not marked. THE STATE AND RELIGION.

The Hon. Air Malcolm said he opposed the Rill because he considered religious exercises should he conducted by religious people, and that the State should exercise no authority in matters of religion. The attitude adopted by Mr Isitt in declining to discuss the question of State authority in conducting religious classes, he declared, had created if very unfavourable impression. Very great injustice was done, both to teachers and pupils, when some participated in (lasses and others did not. Bersonnllv, he would do his level host to prevent the introduction of even the thin edge of the wedge, realising as he did the persecution and intolerance that had occurred in the pastin connexion with religion. Ah- Alaleolm said he strongly favoured the Nelson system. Tf the Churches wished to have instruction in schools, they could, through their organisation, do so with excellent results on the lines of the Nelson system. At this stage an amendment moved by the TTou. Mr Earnsliaw that the debate be adjourned was defeated by 19 votes to- 14. “ A BILL OF STRIFE.”

Tlic Hon. All- AVitt.v described the measure as a. Rill of strife. Baients would have to explain to the children why some took classes and others -did not, and then stones would be thrown and friendships broken. There was too much religion in tho world, and too little Christianity. Education should be free, secular and compulsory. Parents might he lax in teaching their children, hut what right had others to delegate the teaching to school ) teachers? I The Hon. Air TlJinan said the proposal was to alter one of the features, tho secular feature, of our national education, and it would imperial the system. If the Government, with its large majority, said that the people wanted such an amendment of the Education Act. why did it not introduce the Bill itself? The policy of the Reform Party and other Parties, upon which they had been elected, was to maintain the present system of free, secular and compulsory educa ion. claimed religious freedom, and declined to introduce into the schools a. spu which would separate children, an break friendships. Whatever differences adults might have, let the playground be free from them. Continuing after the tea-adjourn-ment. the Hon Air Hai.an challenged Mr Isitt to' point- to a single country in the world in which there "as a higher standard of morality in the schools than there was in New Zealand It could not he said that the Bill die not alter the present secular system of education. The introduction of-re-ligin into the Native schools w,ould break them up. ATr Isitt: Both Maori churches are in favour of it. Afr Hanan said he was thankful tlia' there were not the religious differences in New Zealand that- existed in Canada where the Bible had been introduced into schools. The State must he neutral in regard to religion. He warned the people of New Zealand against the danger that would follow if the Bill was carried, and he declared that it would lie criminal to destroy the finest system of education that- had ever lieen envolved in’ any country in the world. “ANTI-BRITISH.” The Hon Air Carrington condemned

the Bill as anti-British in principle. He pointed to the difference between the Lord’s Prayer in the Anglican and the Roman Catholic Churches and said ho could not vote until he knew which it was proposed to use. Air Isitt: AVe will take the whole prayer. Air Carrington said that until a system had been evolved which was fair to ajl, it was not fair to ask those people who objected to pay for it. One of out traditions was that minority opinion was always respected and protected. He regarded the Nelson system as one solution of the problem of religion in schools. Air Isitt’s proposal was a second rate system of religious education. School teachers were not. in all cases capable of giving explanations of Biblical extracts. A WORD FOR THE BILL. The Hon. Air Michel said he was bitterly opposed to the introduction of sectarianism, or anything in the nature of demmiinationalism in the State schools.' He could not see, however, that.the saying of the Lord’s Prayer, or the singing'of hymns, would mean endangering our national system of education. As for the reading of Biblical extracts, lie could not understand why the Roman Catholic people, who were consistent in saying that our national education system was Godless, could object to the recital of the Lord’s Prayer, the singing of hymns acceptable to all, or the reading of Biblical extracts such as the sermon on the Mount. Ho felt sure that no harm could come from a trial of the proposal. The debate was adjourned at 9.2 i p.m.