BIRTH. THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1912. BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 10712, 16 October 1912, Page 4

BIRTH.

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1912. BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

CAMERON:—On the 12th inst. at "Castlepoint," the wife of A Inn Cameron' of a son.

The Bible in Schools League of New Zealand is at present • conducting a vigorous campaign in favour of the introduction of what is known m the "New South Wales system" to the public schools of tho Dominion. There is a considerable section of the community which entertains the opinion that tho morals of the rising generation are being sadly neglected, and that tho teaching of Bible ethics .would have a salutary effect upon the lives of those who aro coming into manhood and womanhood. Those who argue on these lines (and they include a majority of tho clergymen or the Dominion) aro inforentially casting a reproach upon those institutions wliose special function it is to attend to the moral and spiritual wellbeing of the community, and are sn'g- | [ gesting the oxistonee of a laxity in parental responsibility and control j that a largo majority of people will be slow to admit. Nobody could seriously object to the imparting of Biblical knowledge to the children attending our State schools, provided there were no other means available for teaching tho youngsters, and that the ordinary secular work of the schools were not seriously interfered with. I It cannot be said, however, that the Sabbath does not afford sufficient time and opportunity for .imparting religious instruction. Nor caii it bo argued that time taken from the ordinary secular instruction would not seriously disorganize our education, system. There is provision at the present time for clergymen visiting the schools after school hours, if they are so disposed, and instructing tho children of their own denominations. This provision lias been availed of in some districts, subject to the approval of school committees, but with indifferent results. It is now sought

to make- religious instruction a part of our education system. This meanti the insertion of the thin end of the wedge of sectarianism, notwithstanding that the Bible in Schools League may arguo to the contrary. Sir Henry Cnmpboll-Bannerman once urged that there should bo "no statutory foothold for sectarian privilege in our public (school system." Sir Henry had seen the evils of sectarianism, and his warning should not bo without effect in those communities which have avoided the rocks upon which the education system of older countries has split. But, so far as New Zealand is concerned, we refuso to Ixdieve that there is a general desire on the part of the people to have the clergy admitted to the schools. If the clergy are not admitted, then the responsibility for imparting religious instruction will rest with the teachers. And we say deliberately that it would be impossible for our teaching staffs, composed ss they are of Episcopalians, Roman Nonconformists, and possibly, unbelievers, to give Bible instruction without straining their own consciences and creating a bad impression upon the minds of the young. Indeed, three-fourths of our teachers "would absolutely refuse to become ministers of the Gospel. ProfessorMackenzie, of the Victoria University, recently gave an interesting address upon the subject in the Wellington Unitarian Church. We may not ■agree with the whole of his conchtsions; but in the main his reasoning is based upon sound scientific and utilitarian grounds. The Professor rightly says that, "if teachers were to have absolute freedom to deal with' a Bible lesson as their- conscience prompted them, and also in the light of modern Biblical research and' scholarship, there might not he any very serious objection to its introduction to the school curriculum." The New South Wales system, however, does not give absolute freedom to the teacher. It binds him down to the theories of ecclesiastics, and is therefore a curtailment of the freedom of the teacher. Professor Mackenzie argues that "the Bible can never be the basis of our morality, our lit-ern-ture, our science, or our philosophy" ; that "Biblical scholarship hn« completely discredited the older views en. tertained ns to the nature and vnlue of the Bible from the points of new of history, of morals, and of religion" ; that "science nnd philosonhy have ',i? good as demonstrated the absolute impossibility of regarding the Bib!--" as the veritable Avord of Clod" ; and that "at almost every turn it comes into direct conflict with accredited knowledge and ■accredited' (science." One, may agree with the .-Professor in these contentions, and still find in the Bible a classic that throws great: light upon the fundamental facts of history. There can be no objection to the teaching of the ethics of religion, provided, as we said before, reasonable opportunity is not afforded for this teaching in. the churches and Sabbath schools. The> New South Wales or Irish Test Book, do not, as Professor Mackenzie points out. touch the Books of the Old Testament possessing distinction as literature. They deal more with'the debateahle portions of the Bible,.and can only, be labelled "dangerous."