The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1904. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 262, 9 November 1904, Page 2

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1904. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Ever since the establishment of dee secular and compulsory education in this country there have been spasmodic agitations among some portion of the people for the re-intro-duction of Bible reading into the curriculum of the public schools. At present the question is once more being pressed upon the attention of the Government in connection with the rejection of the Referendum Hill by the Legislative Council. The ministers of various churches had apparently founded great hopes of a result favourable to their desire on the reference of the question to the people. But it is more than questionable whether there was any real ground for those hopes. We are of this opinion for several reasons. In the first place we have before our memory the result of two such general votes within recent years in the neighbouring colonies of South Australia and Victoria respectively. In the former, with a much smaller.population than that of New Zealand, with full adult suffrage, and after the course of ft long and well-organised preparation of the public mind by ecclesiastical agitation, the proposal was rejected by an overwhelming majority. The significance of this resu't is intensified by the fact that the issue was put plainly to a people admittedly more subject to church influence than any other in Australia. In Victoria a similar result followed the appeal, though the value of the vote was somewhat discounted by the presentation of too many alternatives on the ballot papers, and by a certain degree of overlapping in the meanings of some of them. Hearing in mind that Now Zealand, at least reputedly, is more democratic than either of these Australian States, and more prone to resent clerical interference in affairs of State, we may fairly infer that there is even less likelihood here of a vote which would give the liible-in-Schools party any encouraging result. The reasons for the popular opposition to the desires of some of the churches, though apparently not obvious to the Bible-in-Schools party, are not far to seek. The public recognise that there is no real agreement among the various sects, and justly fear the disturbance which their difference would introduce into a fairly satisfactory and smooth-working system of public education. They know also that Bible reading without comment, which is the most the churches nan find it in their hearts to agree to, would, except in as far as it might serve as a language lesson, "no a thing of no vitality, and soon degenerate into a matter as formal as the prayer with which Parliament in uome countries opens its proceedings. The public are awaro also that the Education Act, as it at present stands, gives those who desire it fair facilities for entering the schoola to impart religious instruction, und that

these advantages are but very moderately availed of. Further, there is amongst a large portion of the thinking community * strong feeling in favour of sinking all sectarian differences in matters at common interest, and they sec in any proposal which tends to revive such differences a danger to the public good. For ourselves, we will go even further than ttiis, and say that we believe the church party consists of men who either keep unpleasant probabilities out of sight or deceive thenselves. Their continual reply to objection on the part of some to submit their children to the teaphing of religious agents jn the public schools is the provision of a "conscience clause." Do those; who speak of a conscience clause realise what that proposal 1 means? JJo they think of the effect upon the minds of children of the drafting out p( any section of them, as not desiring Christian or sectarian teaching ? Have they seen their proposed plan in actual operation ? Have they seen a file of children marching in from the play ground, and, as they passed a given spot, the Roman Catholics, and the Jews, and the Secularists standing out of the ranks of the Godly ? That has been seen, and may perhaps still be seen in New Zealand, and it is not a pleasant sight. Again, in a community where the schoolmaster is required to give religious instruction* what would be the chance of the candidate wishing to come under the conscience clause ? What in vulgur parlance is known as " Jtuckley's." Those who agitate must know 1 these facts, and knowing them cun scarcely lie" credited with more than a peculiarly sanguine disposition if they look for good results. It is now nearly thirty yeurs since (he State took upon jtself the duties of giving its children secular education. What have the churches done in the meantime on the religious side ? They have the machinery—buildings, and, mostly, not overworked clergymen, besides hosts of willing helpers. Apart from their Sunday-schools they have done practically nothing, except in synods and conventions to make spasmodic attempts to shift on to the shoulders of the Education Department and its teachers a duty which should by right fall to the shure of the churches and their clergymen. Let the liible-in-Schools party seek other ways and other means, and induce their ministers to perfouin fully the duties they have undertaken—the religious instruction of the people. The sooner they make a beginning in full recognition of the fact that the State's duties arc purely secular, and that it cannot take up the work of the religious bodies, the sooner they will seo their way to effective work. There is plenty of room and plenty of time for ench

teaching for the children of those who feel themselves unequal to their own parental duties, without any encroachment, on the time for purely secular work, and without imposing on the school teachers of this country the shackles a< ecclesiastical control which in ISritaiii still make many of their profession the slaves of the vicar anil the creatures of his philanthropic and well-meaning ladv-coad-jutors.