BIBLE IN SCHOOLS BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 20 October 1927, Page 4

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS BILL

-AIR US ITT HECKLED. PASSAGES AT COMMITTEE MEETING. WELLINGTON, Of. >3. There was a passage-at-arms before the Education Committee to-day, between the Hon L. Al. Isitt and Mill. Atmore (Nelson), regarding Air Jsitt’s change of attitude to Bible-in-Schools since representing Christchurch North in the Lower House. Air Atmore suggested that ATr Isitt had the Catholic vote in the electorate.

Air Isitt, however, explained that his old hostility had been due to the effects of the notorious Balfour Bill, which had caused so much dissension at Home.

Giving evidence in .support cl his measure, Air Isitt said in regard to the statement that tho majority' of teachers were opposed to the Bill the evidence pointed the other way. The stock objection that religious exercises would occasion strife among children and cause trouble and injustice to teachers had nothing behind it but the assertion of the Bill’s opponents. During all the years they had had fuller religious teaching among, the older children of high and secondary schools there had been no strife or trouble worth mentioning. For that they had the authority <9 Sir .Tames Parr and the present. Minister of Education (the lion. R. A. Wright). Bishop Cleary, continued Mr Isitt, was making much of tlie League’s non-acceptance of the invitation to confer with Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. The League regarded that offer ns the veriest propaganda, made only for the purpose of misleading members of tbo Roman Catholic Church and such people as were unfamiliar with the facts of the case. He denied Bishop Cleary’s assertion that tho great majority both of the clergy and laity of Protestant churches were opposed to the spirit of the Bill.

Referring to the Nelson system he said that it was doing valuable work in some of the cities and larger towns but the fact that after thirty years it had failed to provide religious teaching in country schools was surely evidence that it would net meet the existing need. Before the Education Committee, Air Atmore made further reference to the fact that Air Isitt had changed his mind. AL’ Isitt: T have justified that change. Do you ever change your mind Y

Air Atmore: Oh, yes, [ have changed my mind about you at any rate. You received the Catholic vote up to last election? Air Isitt: I think so.

It was after that election that you determined not to stand again for Christchurch North?—l was looking for an efficient candidate to stand in my place.

Between 1922 and 1923 you anil uu.c-ed you would not lie standing

agai n ?—Yes. Simultaneously with that you s'-t to work to bring in a Bill which the Catholics disapproved of?—T sol to work to get the Christian Clicu c lies together. AVhcn you didn’t- require the Catholic; vote any longer? Do you believe that the great majority of non-Cat holies of the Dominion are in favour of tho Bill?—f am quite sure of it.

Witness was also subjected to same questioning by All- Fraser, who said : You say there are prominent Catholics in support of the Bill. Why not call them as witnesses? Air Tsitt: What sort of a time would thev have?

Do you suggest that any Catholic would lie subjected to more hV-cim-fort than a Presbyterian ? — A’oii must form your own opinion. ft there is a division of opinion amongst Catholics, evidence should have been given. Why was it, not Because wo could not do it. Later on. Air Fraser said: “You have suggested that ibis Bill h-is: not had a. fair run?”

"Tt would have been through a long time ago if it had got a fair spin,” replied Mr Isiff, 110 you believe in giving the (laming Bill a fair run? —Yes, after due discussion. What do you call due discussion - You know what that is.

How many days have you and the Minister of [Mutation kept the Ifouso going over the Gaming Hill?—Oh. yes, wo have had some rare old nights over that.

You would do so again ?—Yes, hut there’s no chance where 1 ant. (Laughter).