After Fifty Years

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 367, 30 May 1928, Page 7

After Fifty Years

Has Secular Education Failed? Earnest Appeals for Bible Teaching I’HIS year is the 50th anniversary of the adoption by the State, without a mandate from the people, of the free, secular and compulsory system of education as now in operation in our primary schools. It is therefore a most fitting time to press our claims for the improvement of that system.”

In these words Archbishop Averill introduced speakers at a demonstration in the Town Hall last evening calling the attention of Parliament to the shortcomings of the existing system of primary education. The meeting, which was held under the auspices of the Bible in Schools League, drew an attendance of between 1,700 and 2,000 people. The principal speakers were the ITon. L. M. lsitt, M.L.C., and Professor Richard Lawson, Professor of Education, Otago University. “We are here to express our desire more strongly than in the past that the curriculum in the primary schools should be in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the parents,” said the Primate. “We demand the rights of the children to be educated in body, mind and spirit.” To-day the people were more agreed as to what they wanted than at any other period in his experience. .Supporters of the Bill numbered 80 per cent, of the people. They had the right to make themselves heard. It was more for the benefit of children in the backblocks than for -fity children that the passing of the Bill was urged. “I have no objection to the Nelson system in itself,” said the Archbishop, “but I believe it is inadequate.” Sneaking as an educationalist and approaching the subject on “broad lines with even a tendency toward Rationalism,” Professor Lawson said he sincerely believed the provisions of the Bill would be in the best interests of the Dominion. The basis of his attitude was a belief that the Bible was the only revelation humanity had of God’s will and purpose toward His created beings. POTENT AND CLEANSING “A nation of atheists —were there such a nation —could not afford to neglect in its education such a liook as the Bible, that had exercised a more potent, cleansing and moralising influence than any other book that had been written,” declared the professor to the accompaniment of sustained applause. The professor suggested that the first words of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” were a sufficient answer for most of the difficulties experienced by children and for every doubt that came in adult life. From the viewpoint of the State, there could be no such thing as denominational teaching, but equally obvious there must be the fundamental teaching of citizenship of morality, or religion.

“It is conceivable that Christianity may decay—it is conceivable, but I do not say it will —but society cannot escape putrefaction if it turns its back upon the principles of Christianity,” said the speaker. In speaking of success they should think in terms of value. Righteousness niade a nation great—not financial

statistics. He quoted figures from the New Zealand Medical Journal, showing the alarming percentages of divorce, suicides and illegitimate births j in the country. “I do not say the Bible in schools s is going to sweep all this away, but if we neglect the wise and salutary forces t we have at hand, what can we expect?” c Professor Lawson treated of the z value of the Bible as literature. The rhythms of its writings were unique and their poetry shone out even in the £ baldest translation. i “We praise this Book, yet we banish it from our schools; we extol character, yet deprive ourselves of one of the means for securing it. We deplore moral ] laxity, yet we abjure one of the 3 greatest prophylactics against it.” . It was his view that the sectarian bogey had been absurdly exagger ated. If the Bible were put in the , schools for a month all difficulties would vanish. ' ON THE DOORSTEP The Bible was in the humiliating • position, like Lazarus, of begging on the doorstep for a footing where it should be in the honoured place in a seat near the hearth. Referring to the Nelson system, the professor said children could only have a disrespect for any form of education that could get a footing only on the doorstep. Professor Lawson believed the solution of the present impasse would be a referendum of parents. He had mentioned the possibility of such to a member of Parliament, who said, “Oh, you must not interfere with Parliament!” (Laughter). “Now does the Parliament of this country own the people, or do the people own Parliament?” asked the professor, amid renewed laughter. Mr. Isitt, who was given a hearty ovation, contended that but few citizens had any adequate idea of the terrible evils flourishing under the existing order. The country was passing through a most serious spiritual slump. The churches were not even holding their own. The Methodist Church had reported at its “annual stocktaking” that although some 900 churches were ministering in the Dominion the net gain had been 500. And they were not the worst. Of various contributory reasons one was certainly the secular system obtaining for the last 50 years. Tens of thousands of children had grown up under it in heathenish ignorance, declared Mr. Isitt. A great mass of youth was coming forward and receiving no religious instruction whatever. As long as that was so organised Christianity must lose all along the line. They were drifting to a materialistic hell—a hell on earth, in which honour and honesty and truth became of secondary importance. ROMAN CATHOLIC BARRIER Mr. Isitt explained how it was that Mr. Fox’s Bill of 50 years ago ever became law. Members of Parliament were then afraid of losing the Roman Catholic vote. The same barrier was the only one that prevented the passing of the Bill to-day. In an endeavour to placate, the Roman Catholic Church in earnest sincerity they had narrowed their platform and in view of the opposition of that church had abandoned Bible teaching and had terminated the Lord’s Prayer at “deliver us from evil,” but to no purpose. In conference with Bishop Cleary he had learned that no Roman Catholic ecclesiastic would accept any “common denomination of an emasculated religion.” That church would he content with nothing less than its own teaching by its own ecclesiastics. It was obvious that State aid of denominational schools was out of the question. Therefore, it was not only weak but also wicked to allow the children of the Dominion to be kept in heathenish ignorance because it was not possible for Parliament to grant the demands of a church which was, after all, not the national church. (Applause.) While he recognised that there were members of Parliament just as sincere in their opposition to the Bill as he himself was in supporting it. he knew of others who opposed it from other motives. Some had come to him regretting they could not support his measure because there were too many Roman Catholics in their constituencies. A SUBTERFUGE The Nelson system of Bible reading came in for Mr. Isitt’s criticism. He characterised it a subterfuge and an easy way out of the difficulty for those members of Parliament who wished to evade committing themselves to loss of votes. In his Bill there was a clause providing that the Nelson system should be used in place of the intentions of the Bill. He could not understand why the alternative system had been placed in opposition to his Bill. Mr. Isitt concluded -with an earnest appeal to his audience to work and strive stirring public opinion and thus to bring pressure to bear upon Parliament. At the conclusion of the meeting tli© following resolution, moved by Dr. H. Ranston, was carried: “This meeting views as inadequate the present system of education, because its entirely secular principle is a menace to moral and religious welfare, a danger to the State, and an injustice to the child. It therefore demands from Parliament the restoration of the Bible to the primary schools. “While prepared to grant to committees the right to continue the Nelson system wherever it may be operating, it views as inadequate any system that does not place the Bible in the school curriculum and ciinnot be applied to all the schools of the Dominion.”