THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS REFERENDUM BILL.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VIII, Issue 688, 22 July 1914, Page 3

THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS REFERENDUM BILL.

The. following are the chief immediate purposes of the Bill: (a) To change the present educational system from "free, compulsory, and secular" to "free, compulsory, and religious"; (b) to provide for one section of the people, at Stats cost, State Biblical teaching suited to their conscientious convictions; (c) to refuse to all other sections of the people any form of Biblical teaching, at State cost, which they could conscientiously accept. Catholics—and they almost alone—have proved by the crucial test of nearly forty years of sustained and steadily increasing personal effort and sacrifice, the sincerity of their objection to the divorce of religion from education. They would unite witn the people of other faiths in an effort to make our education syßtem truly national—suited for the conscientious requirements of ALL the people of .the nation: Secualr for those desiring it so, and religious, on fair conditions all round, for those desiring it to be religious. Unfortunately in connection with the agitation for proposed profound educational changes neither we nor various other interested parties have been consulted or properly considered. No one scheme of Biblical or religious instruction haß ever been, or can ever be devised to suit a people so profoundly divided on religious.views. SIX ISSUES IN THREE

The ballot paper in the Bill submits three highly complicated issues to the elactora. It do.ea not allow the elector to vote on them separately: He must combine-the six separate and confused controversial issues, treat thsm as if they were one plain, simple issue, and vote a "singls "Yes" or a single "No" upon them all! As a matter of fact, the alleged "THREE'*' issues contain no fewer than the "SIX" set down here(a). The Government to provide "selected Bible lessons." (b). These lessons to be read "within school hours." (c). The teacher to "supervise" the reading. (d), "No sectarian teaching to be allowed." (e). Right of entry to clergy "for '■ religious instruction." ' (f). Right of parent "to withdraw his child from Bibls reading, or from religious instruction, or from both." Home of these .issues—as will bs seetf—-are hopelessly ambiguous, misleading, or obscure. On each and every one of them —bo far aa they can be understood —Opinion in New Zealand is profoundly divided. Yet the elector is denied the .opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them separately. Ke must pretend to regard the six hopelessly obscure and polemical issues as if they were one clear, straightforward issue, admitting no other answer tfcan a plain "Yes" or a plain "No." AMBIGUITIES,-- ETC.

, But that ia not ail. The puzzled elector is to be still further bewildered and confused by the seemingly studied ambiguities, minimisings, and controversial concealments of the ballot paper. Let us take some only of the ambiguities first: — A book of "*el«cted Eible lessons" to "to be provided"—after the voting —by the Education Department. These lessons may mean any form of souud or unsound "mutilated" or "caricatured" Christainity, down to what a Right Rev,\ Vice-President of the Bible in Schools' League terms "a vague sentiment," "a refined form of agnosticism"—New Zealand Herald, May 25tb, 1914. A good deal depends upon how much the Government will "mutilate" or "'caricature" the Bible in their work of selection. Will taa selection —as in Australia —be taken almost exclusively from a sectarian translation of the Bible —the Protestant Authorised Version? Will sbey—aa in Australiacontain the Lord's Prayer and other religious matter, in the peculiar forms so intimately associated with Protestant worship? Will they—like the shameful Queensland mutilation —reject the Virgin Birth of Christ? Will thßy—as in Australia —carefully seore out a vast mass of the Scripture texts, narratives and incidents, to which Catholics notoriously .appeal in favour of the doctrines and practices of their faith? By what they omit, by the form of what they include—and by the use of reformed sermon headings—'Will the. "selected "Bible lessons" be made—as they are in Australia —as . sectarian as the Thirty-nine Articles or the Presbyterian Confession of Faith? Will they be like the former Bible in Schools League's lessons, which the president of the pressnt League styled "reflections upon the Almighty," and which a Bishop-member of the present League executive denounced as an "emasculated caricature" of Bible teaching?—Otago Daily Times,AugUßt 25th, 1905; Christchurch Press, May 2nd, 1904. Why are the electors of this Dominion to be asked to sign a blank cheque hereon to vote blindly upon an unseen and unknown book, which may even be as shameful a caricature of Christ and of the Biblß as the Government Scripture lessons of Queensland?