BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 126, 18 August 1927, Page 7

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY VIEW OF ASSOCIATION The following letter on the Bible-in-Schools controversy is published separately, not because of any greater importance, but simply because it is much too long for inclusion in the popular “Citizens Say” column: To the Editor.

In dealing with the Bible-in-Schools question there are some principles involved that are not apparent at first sight. On the face of it it looks a very commendable thing to have Bible exercises conducted in the schools, but there are some underlying principles which must be recognised, and which will demonstrate, after due consideration, that the teaching of the Bible in State schools is, after all, not the desirable thing that it would appear on the surface. The schools of the State are the property of the people, seeing that it is the people who compose the State. The legislators who are elected to Parliament sit there as the representatives of the people, to act in their behalf in framing laws that will protect and preserve the rights and interests of all persons connected with the State. There are two classes of rights which man possesses—civil and religious. The civil rights, such as pertain to citizenship, are equal, but in dealing with religious rights we face an altogether different problem. Men choose their own objects of worship and their own forms of worship. They are at liberty to choose their creeds and beliefs, and this all being a matter of individual conscience, no State or form of Government has the right to say that they shall be taught this or that doctrine, or that they shall worship this or that way. The province of the State is in civil matters only, while the matter of religion is the duty and prerogative of the home and the Church. Then, as the custodians and guardians of the people’s rights, it is obvious that, on the part of the State, there must be absolutely no partiality, no fostering or favouring the creed or doctrine of any one sect or denomination above another. Now, the citizens, regardless of what their profession of religion is, or their non-profession, are all taxed for the support and maintenance of the State schools, consequently all have equal rights in regard to those schools, whether they are Protestants, Roman Catholics. Jews or Infidels. If religion is introduced into the schools then the Roman Catholic has as much right to demand that Catholic principles be taught there as the Protestant has to demand his; the Infidel likewise. Should it come about that Roman Catholic influences or Infidel influences were brought to bear on the Government to have Catholic or Infidel doctrines taught in the schools, to the exclusion of Protestantism, would Protestants tolerate it? They would not; they would be up in arms immediately, and rightly so, because apart from any question of whether the doctrines taught were right or wrong, it would be giving undue preference to the rights of one denomination above another. Let us look the thing fairly and squarely in the face, and, too. let us carry out the golden rule as taught by Christ Himself. ' All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so lo them.” Then as regards the Government, if it should undertake to teach Protestant principles in the schools to the exclusion of all others, thus favouring one religion above another, would that be faithful and just guardianship of the rights of all parties? Who cannot see, then, that the only consistent course for the State to pursue is to keep its hands clear of religious matters, to “keep the Church and the State for ever apart,’’ and leave the home and the Church to do their own legitimate work. The Church has no right to appeal to the State to aid it in its work by legislation. When it does so it is a confession ot weakness. God has provided the armour and weapons of warfare for the Church and when it asks for something outside of that armour and weapons, it is tantamount to saying that either the armour and weapons ore insufficient for its work, or that it does not have that armour on or those weapons in its possession. Let me say that I believe most thoroughly in the reading and teaching of the Bible. It is the inspired word of God. I have been a teacher of it for many years and would be glad to see it read and diligently studied in every home in the land. The world would be the better for it. But on strictly religious liberty principles, I am opposed to the State teaching ’it « F. L. SHARP, Secretary, Religious Liberty Association.