BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 194, 6 January 1913, Page 8

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

TEACHERS DIFFER. IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. | The vexed question of Bible-in-Schools ] was the basis of an interesting discussion at Saturday's session of the New Zealand Educational Institute when Miss E. Chaplain, B.A. (North (Canterbury) moved:—"That the New Zealand Educational Institute, while recognising the value of Bible-teaching and religion, is opposed to the Bible League's programme." In a trenchant criticism, the mover said that the Institute as a body could hardly do its duty if it refused to face this question with' a view to doing its duty to everyone. After quoting from a brochure issued by the Bible-in-Schools League, she said that if the Bible was to be read simply as a lesson it was almost 'bringing it into contempt. If they were to have it at all it could not be passed over lightly. Passing on she reminded her hearers that they had in their profession teachers of almost every kind of religion—Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Non-Conformists, Seventh Day Adventists, and possibly Jews, and other sects—and how could they possibly deal with the subject from one point of view. It was absolutely impossible. It was not right that the proposed system should be agreed to by teachers. It was to be noted that there was a "conscience" clause for the children, but not for the teachers. Her experience of this was that children who stood out were looked down upon, and thought as

LITTLE INFIDELS OR ATHEISTS, and spoken about by other children in a disrespectful manner. Teachers of any denomination might be all called upon to give the same kind of lesson, and in future the question of religion would come in as a deciding factor when appointments were made. Bible-in-Schools would mean shifting the responsibility from the shoulders of those who ought to teach religion, and placing it on the teachers. Miss Chaplin then went on to say that we were told that our children .were

MORALLY INFERIOR, because we had been under a Godless system of education in schools. Ske denied it. She had been in other countries where children were taught the Bible in schools, and she had no hesitation in affirming that our children were infinitely their moral superiors. (Applause). "In Japan," she continued, "the children have two principles inculcated in them: loyalty to the Empire, and obedience to parents, and I think that in that respect we have to learn something. A good deal of the trouble in regard to the moral training of our children lies in the fact that many parents do not realise their responsibilities. They look around for a cause, with which, however, they are not going to saddle themselves, and so they say that that system or that system \vill affect a cure."

In seconding the' motion, Mr F. T. Evans (North Canterbury) said he wished at the outset to dispel the idea that the teachers were in opposition to the Bible itself. The fact that the Institute had so many keen «hurch workers in its ranks, and that in the Anti-Bible-Schools League in Christchurch were several leading clergymen ought to lie sufficient evidence on that point. Why was it that after 30 odd years of seclusion the non-secular system of education was being assailed? It was a well-known fact that the Church had lost its grip on the mass of the people. The great bulk of the working people, were outside its fold, and in that he could divine something in the Church'* attitude to try and introduce the Bible into our schools. He contended that THE STATE HAD NO RIGHT

to interfere with the religious conscience of any person in tlie Dominion. The State existed for certain things, but it was beyond its province to say that teachers must take up Bible instruction, whether they wished to or not. They were highly moral mem, and they might have religious scruples in sa doing. To teach the sacred book under such circumstances would be hypocrisy and sacrilege. Touching on another point, the speaker declared that it was a great reflection on the teachers to say that they could not teach morals without the Bible. "We can," he exclaimed, "and hare taught morals in our schools for the last 20 or 30 years without the Bible, and do you mean to say of the thousands of boys that have passed through oar schools that they are not as moral as the children of New South Wales? Proceeding, he pointed a warning finger to the sectarian bias that would assert itself in regard to teachers if the Bible-in-Schools League's programme was adopted, instancing the case of a Roman Catholic teacher in North Canterbury, who, he declared, had for years been denied promotion simply on account of his religion. If religion could block « teacher now, kow much more so would it assert its sway if the proposed -scheme came into operation. The election of our Education Boards and school committees would be fought out o« sectarian lines, and great bitterness would ensue. Concluding, he strongly "''ged teachers to take a firm stand in the matter.

Mr. W. H. Newton (Thames) supported the motion, remarking that if only half the efforts made to introduce the Lible into the schools were directed to reading the Gospel in the home, the Church would meet with more success, and there would be no danger. Mr. Templar (Taranaki) then followed with an amendment in favour of A REFERENDUM ON THE QUESTION It was, he said, not for the teachers, but for the people of the Dominion, to say whether the Bible should be introduced He sa j ( i ] le w ighed to avoid the necessity of the teachers misrepresenting themselves, as ] le was p er f ec tl v satisfied they would do in passing the motion. He was satisfied that they were acting just as strictly according to their consciences as he was, but it was distinct y a question that should be referred to the people for their voiee. He cited cases 0 f the difficulty of religious instruction being imparted 'in widespread back-blocks ureas, a very large porton of which was ,„; ver visited by a minister of a ({ospei. There was a necessity for some form of instruction. By carrying his amendment they were not committing themselves to the introduction of the Bible in schools.

Miss Gray seconded the amendment, \ without comment. J Mr. G. Flux (Wellington) suported \ the amendment, .stilting that he was a. \ strong supporter of Iho Bible-in-Schools 'i League, but not in its entirety. They f were told, he continued, that the parent did not dosire it, but it had to be remembered that tlie average parent was inarticulative on the subject. They should first be allowed the opportunt ity of saying whether they were in favour of it or not. He did not believe that the individual churches wished to prosI elytizo the children into little Anglicans J ' or little Presbyterians, etc.. as the ease might be. lie honestly believed it would be a good thing and he would welcome it with all his heart. M. J. S. McNaughton (Auckland) thought it was a question which should jbe decided by popular vote. He heartily endorsed the amendment. Mr. Feathcrstone also threw in his support with the amendment, stating that in England he was brought up in the schools under a similar system to that now proposed. The objections predicted by speakers that day had not entered into bis .experience. There existed in the colony A VERY GREAT NEED, for religious teaching among the young. A very large percentage of the children were growing up without knowing the elementary truths of religion. Mora' training could not be true without religious basis. As teachers, their chief function was character-building, which was impossible without the basis of religion. Although the New South Wales system was not perfect, it was the best system that could be introduced lor the purpose. The question was a political one as well as a religion* one. As a : wiser course the Institute should leave it to the people to decide. He was a lover of the old book and had no fear that even if it was used in a perfunctory way it would not do its own work a.nd win its own way. His love of the book was born of the teaching he had received in public schools in England. Outlining his views on the subject at the invitation of delegates, the chairman, who announced himself as opposed to the system, said that he was as deeply occupied as anyone else in spreading the religious knowledge among children, and he instanced several of his activities in this connection. He mentioned this to show, however, that in common with many other teachers, he was actively engaged in disseminating religious knowledge THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS. What he opposed was the method proposed. He instanced how the teaching in New South Wales, contrary to what ' the Bible-inSchools League led one to suppose, was along very dogmatic lines, involving individual constructions being placed on biblical theories by teachers. Controverting Mr. Featherstone's view, he emphasised that no religious matter should ever be made a political matter. In every case where the State interfered with religon it did harm to somebody. In opposing the suggested referendum, the speaker said that the great mass of parents were indifferent to the question, and if a vote was taken \ it would be a vote of in- [ difference. Take the great majority 1 of church-goers, and church office- ' bearers. How many of them regular- ' ly read the Bible to their children? He [ventured to say not one-third of them. ' t If parents declined to take up their re- '_ I sponsibilities, was it wise to ask the State to step in and place a higher [ value on religion than that held in tihe homes of the people? Should an ; indifferent public be entrusted to vote on such a serious question? To force 1 teachers to teach the Bible in schools [ was not only an unjust, 'but a uesless ' thing. If the scheme was put into force it would be at the very best but the shaking-off of the quaima of an uneasy conscience! He asked advocates of the system to point out where childi ren of New Zealand lagged behind, : morally, their contemporaries in other , countries where Bible-in-sehools was in ; vogue. As a matter of fact statistics , showed that there was a greater density o$ dhurch work in New Zealand than . in ttio&e countries to which he 'had referred. The introduction of the Bible into the schools would chill the very action of it. So many restrictions , would have to be brought in to avoid this and the other prejudice, that by and -by the religions instruction would be whittled down until it was utterly ineffective. Traversing the statement ♦hat the teachers in New South Wales had no objection to imparting the instruction, he said that every member of the profession, whether Anglican, Jew, Unitarian or infidel, was pledged on pain of dismissal not to do this and that with regard to his views on the subject of religion. A STATE OF TERRORISM. He did not deny the accuracy of the New South Wales teachers' statements that they 'had no objection to the system, 'but he did say this: that not one ! of them dared put his name to a paper giving an adverse opinion! Concluding, > he said that the public of the Dominion '. were looking to the institute far more I than any other body for an expression j of opinion on the subject, and 'teachers j would be shirking their duty if they did not give a-clear and decided opinion. (A'pplause.) The amendment was then put and lost by a 'majority of 42 to 7 votes. A further amendment by Mr. Patterson, seconded by Mr. Phillips, that further information be obtained from teachers as to the working of the system in other countries, was also rejected.