BIBLE TEACHING IN STATE SCHOOLS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1016, 11 July 1911, Page 4

BIBLE TEACHING IN STATE SCHOOLS.

An up-to-date review and appeal by the Yen. Archdeacon Willis, Cambridge. Article IV. THE NEED FOR A CHANGE IN THE LAW. lu the third article of this series I showed the uselessness of the present facilities for voluntary teaching in the schools. Under these circumstances if the Bible is to be taught, there is nothing else to be done but to make a change in the Educationn Law. Of course, there are objections made to the change, but they are all easily answered. I will take a few of the objections commonly raised, setting out what they are as briefly as possible, and then answering them in order. A GREAT VARIETY OE OBJECTIONS are brought forward. It is said : (r) That the State should have nothing to do with teaching religion or the Bible ; (2) That the re-introduction of the Bible would be a return to denominational education; (3) That no change should be made until all parties are agreed ; (4) That a large section of the population, including many Roman Catholics are against it; (5) That if the State makes this concession to Protestants, she must make some other to Roman Catholics ; (6) That many parts of the Bible are unsuitable lor teaching the children ; (7) That the school syllabus is already overcrowded, and there is no room to add anything more ; (8) That many of the teachers are unbelievers, and would ridicule the Bible, and thus defeat the object desired; and so on. But these objections and many others have been again and again

ALL SATISFACTORILY ANSWERED.

The answers may be summarized as follows : (to No. 1) That the Stale having practically annihilated the machinery that previously existed for teaching the Bible ought iu reason to set up some other in its place ; (to No. 2) That the exclusion of the Bible is a pandering to the worst torm ot denomiuationalism, for it makes all the people suffer to please a comparatively small section; (to No. 3) That no law could ever be amended if we had to wait for all the people to vote for the amendment ; (to No. 4) That those who object to the proposal would be protected by a conscience clause, and be free to withdraw from Bible teaching; (to No. 5) That the Bible is the chief basis of teaching of Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, and in teaching it there is no advantage given to one Christian body more than to another ; (to No. 6) That only passages suitable for teaching to children should be used, and that various compilations with this object in view have been made ; (to No. 7) That if the school syllabus is already full it is a simple matter to re-arrange it. As to the last objection (No. 8) That teachers would ridicule the Bible, it is a gratuitous assumption, and a gross libel which is unworthy of notice and which should be swept aside with indignatiou.

ANOTHER OBJECTION which demands a paragraph to itself is that the introduction of the Bible into the school system would be the death blow to the present excellent Education Law. The reasonable answer to this is that on the contrary the , change would greatly strengthen the law if only by stilling controversy ; and by supplying the one great factor needed to make the New Zealand Education Law complete. AND YET ANOTHER. I must ask a little more space to deal with an objection by the supporters of what is called the “Nelson” system, Under this system teaching by ministers 01 religion and utheis is permitted by some Boards and Committees during school hours ; and this is said to meet all require meuts. This system, however, had its weaknesses exposed at the annual elections of school committees last year. Although a praisewortny effort was made to obtain lor the “Nelson” system general support throughout the Dominion the effort resulted in lamentable failure. It met with stern opposition in many quarters, both from Boards and Committees. THE “NELSON” SYSTEM possesses indeed the one merit where generally supported by securing that some religious teaching shall be given during school hours. It suffers, however, from two of the great delects of the New Zealand Education Law as a whole, namely these ; Firstly, that only a portion of the schools have any chance whatever ol such teaching being given in them ; and Secondly, that those who have a chance are subject to a variety ot treatment according to the varyrng opinions of those who may be in authority locally for the time being. ONE OTHER ANSWER —THE NEW SOUTH WALES SYSTEM. is more important than any answer which I have yet given, because it is the answer which incontrovertibly silences all objections. The N.S-W. system is no theoretical idea, but an ascertained fact. It has been at work in New South Wales since 1566, in Tasmania since rS6S, in Western Australia since 1593, and iu Norfolk Island since 1906. None of the terrible evils prophesied to come to New Zealand it she should adopt it have so tar come to any of these States or communities. The New South Wales system has moreover just

commended itself to the judgment ot the people of another Australian State and THE VERDICT OP QUEENSLAND was rcorded in its favour by an immense majority of the people at the recent State Referendum. The particular excellences of the New South Wales system I will describe in my next article.