BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Hokitika Guardian, 10 August 1931, Page 5

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

STRONG OBJECTIONS TO BILL TEACHERS OPPOSED. DENOMINATIONAL DEMANDS. WELLINGTON, August 7. Opposition to the Religious Instruction in Public Schools Enabl.ng IdL was expressed by a deputation from 4ha National Schools Defence League and the State Education Defen e League, which waited upon the Prime Minister, Right Hon. G .W .Forbes and the Minister of Education. Hon. H. Atmore, vest: relay morning. Tlie deputation, contended that the great majority of teachers were defi nitelv opposed to the Bill, and that if the measure were passed tlie State could not refuse .to comp’y with the demands of denominational schools. In bis reply the Prime Minister remarked that the Bill was before a Select Committee ,and so was more or less sub judice. Therefore, he was not prepared to comment on it at that stage. ' The deputetio mvas intrduced by Mr P. Fraser, M.P. VIOLATED PRINC'IPLES. Mr A. R. Atkinson said the system of secular education had been established on the principles of justice and toleration, but these pinciples were violated by the Bill, which was just as bad and just .as denominational as any in the past. The bill exempted the teachers, patents, and children of one denomination, and a'so proclaimed that an arrangement had been made with tlie Roman Catholics to remove certain obstacles, but there were still vital objections :to the Bill. In the first place, the Roman Catholics and the conscientious objectors would have to contribute toward the cost of a Pro testant text-book, and, secondly, the claim by the Roman Catho’ic schools (for State endowment would be greatly strengthened. The Bill, said Air Atkinson was not an enabling Bill, but involved out and out compulsion. The objections of parents would create undesirable distinctions among the children, and from the standpoint of the teacher the conscience clause was intolerable. The exemption of teachers would result in constant friction with parents, boards and school committees. The only man entitled to give Bible lessons was one who taught the Bible in bis own home, but the man who stifled his conscience for tTie sake of his position gave nothing but mechanical lip service, which would be worse than emasculated worship and an absolute traverstv of true religions. Those who valued true religion looked upon the proposed svste mas socrilege bordering on profanity.

NOT TRUE RELIGIOUS. , rxsTiujCTi'O^'; ProfosKov \V. H. CiouUl said that the Mill aimed, at an enuiseulutud religious instruction, which was contrary to all .the principles of true religious instruction. A majority votee of a committee would deciclewhat was to be inelud ed in the manual, and it would not be a case of wliat was included, but what was left out.i The proposals were contrary to the science of pedagogy. Religious instruction was not a matter ot the communication of. mere words; as far as he could see, it must be fostered with enthusiasm and an emotional attitude. , The great majority of the teachers wore definitely opposed to the provisi >n of the Hill. There would be a great deal of hypocrisy and not religious instruction in the true sense of the term. Anything subversive of true religion must be unsatisfactory to the vast majority of the people. It was stated by Mr H. A. Parkinson, secretary (if the New Zealand Educational Institute, that the promoters of the Bill had not dealt with the question as to whether the measure would strengthen the claims of sectarian’ schools, but that would obviously have to be dealt with later. The use of the conscience clause ivou’d have an undesirable effect on the organisation of school work, and a headmaster might be driven to prefer a teacher who would undertake religious instruction to one who would not.

Mi- F. L. Combs, headmaster of the Mount- Cook. school, said that with 3000 or 4000 of the 6000 teachers onposed t'i the measure- it was going to be a difficult matter to put it into operation. If they were given an opportunity of appearing before a Committee of the House they would he able to submit very strong reasons why the Bill should not he carried. MINISTERS IN REPLY. Replying, the Minister of Education pointed out that the Recess Committee on Education was of the opinion that objection shoifiel be offered to ac credited persons wishing to u.e school buildings before or after hours for the purposes cf ' religious instruction. He referred to the success which had attended the Nelson system, particularly in the Nelson district. ‘‘lt. is desirable that both sides of iho rmestion should be heard.” said Mr Forbes. Ho had been impressed by the statements made hv representatives,of the teachers concerning the manner in which the Bill was likely to be received and those statements were entitled t> the closest consideration. The Bill at present- was before a committee and was therefore more or less sub judic-e. and he did not propose to comment further at that stage.