BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Hokitika Guardian, 14 July 1931, Page 6

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

TEACHERS’ ATTITUDE.

ONE OF OPPOSITION,

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association)

CHRISTCHURCH, July 13

The North Canterbury Board of the New Zealand Education Institute, has decide against the Bible-in-Schools Bill. At its meeting here, hearing a deputation from,, the Bible-in-Schools League, it resolved not to give its support to. the provisions of the Religious Instructions Enabling Bill, which is shortly to come before the House of Representatives. The deputation consisted of Bishop West-Watson, Miss Saunders, Colonel J. Studholme, Dr. D. E. Hansen and the Rev. A. N. Scotter. Bishop West-Watson said that no education was complete that did not include in its curriculum religious instruction. Too many children were passing through the schools with little or no religious teaching, and as the schools in England had dealt with the question very effectively he saw no reason why the same should not apply to New Zealand. Colonel Studholme said the new Bill gave absolute freedom to teacher and child. If a teacher did not desire to give the instruction or felt that the subject would be extra work he could refuse. ; The parent had only to express a wish that the child be exempted from attending religious instruction, . and that was sufficient. : Teachers and children so exempted wore to do work of an educational nature during the time of instruction. If an insufficient number of teachers in one school could not carry on, it was the duty of the school committee to engage outside teachers to give the instruction. Any extra, expense incurred was to be . met by voluntary subscriptions. When the deputation had withdrawn, Mr Colee dealt briefly with the points raised, and moved: ‘‘That this branch of the New Zealand Educational Institute is not m favour of the Bible-in-Schools Enabling Bill.” Mr A. C. Maxwell, who seconded the motion, said that he had opposed any attempt to introduce the Bibble in State 1 Schools. The new Bill provided for right of entry, and the teachers were to do the work. In the schools of to-day, the children were looked upon as an undivided whole as'far as ■religion was concerned, but immediately the Bible was introduced sectarian distinction would be set up. He was strongly in favour of the motion.

Mr L. F. de Berry said he could not support the motion, for he was of the opinion that the school was the best place, to commence religious instruction .and the teachers the best,

Mr J. F. Wilson spoke of religious instruction in. New South Wales. When first introduced there the teachers were very hostile but now Very few teachers would like to see it removed from the syllabus.

Mr M. O’Donnell said that what the Bill proposed would create sectarian distinctions.

On the motion ‘being put to the meeting, It was carried on the voices.

Dean O’Donnell writing in the press on the subject of Bible-in-Schools, says: —.“To say the least, I am disappointed with Mr John Studholme’s reply to my appeal to his honour. Mr Studholme was a member of the Wellington Conference on Tuesday, April 29, 1930. Therefore he knows that the three Bishops rejected the proposals of the Bible-in-Schools League. He knows that on a date subsequent to the publication in the public press of the alleged agreement, Bishops .Brodie t and Whyte repeated that rejection, and J believe I am right in saying that he liad evidence on that occasion that Bishop Liston had not changed his attitude. Yet he .is now of opinion “that Bishop Brodie is mistaken in thinking that no '.’agreement had been arrived at!” I expected more candour from Mr Studholme to tell us that that the three Bishops in April, 1930, opposed the proposals of the League and that at a date subsequent to July 25, 1930, two of the Bishops informed him personally that they still were opposed to the proposals. The Rev.. Mr Blamires, according to a Press Association message from Masterton, dated June 23, this .year, stated that on May 12, 1930, Archbishop O’Shea wrote the following:—“After having given careful consideration to the proposals contained in -your letter of April 14. . . . the Catholic Hierarchy hereby affirm their approval of the proposals.” This al-

leged. approval was published in the press on July 25, 1930. Subsequent to that publication, Bishop Brodie informed Messrs Studholme and Isitt that he, as well as Bishops Whyte and Liston,

had not joined, and did not then join, in that affirmation. The conference was ’held in Wellington on April 29, ,1930. Archbishop O’Shea’s letter to

Mr Blamires bore date May 12. I

think the public—certainly the Catholic section of it —will expect the Archbishop to tell them what transpired during the intervening twelve days to justify him in writing to Air Blamires such a letter. In his letter to Air Blamires “the Catholic Hierarchy” must mean at the least a majority of the New Zealand Bishops, yet at a date, some months subsequent to the letter we find three of the Bishops still op-

posed to the proposals of the League

. Hence we are forced to the. conclusion that nothing occurred during the twelve days between April 29 and ALiy 12 to justify the statement made by Archbishop O’Shea. Further proof of this is furnished by the minutes' of the meeting of the Hierarchy in April of this yeatt, where it is recorded that “it

was a mistake to say that the Bihle-in-Schools proposals had been accepted by the Catholic Hierarchy.” The proposals were accepted hv Archbishop O’Shea —perhaps by Archbishop Redwood. The former is not a territorial Bishop in New Zealand. Therefore the proposals of the Bible-in-Schools League were accepted -at most by one member of the New Zealand Catholic Hierarchy,”