Proposed Bible-in-Schools Referendum

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXI, Issue 25, 18 June 1903, Page 5

Proposed Bible-in-Schools Referendum

+ A PROTESTANT OPINION.

In our issue of April 30 we wrote as follows in reference to the proposal of the Wellington Conference to refer the question of the Bible-in-schools to a vote of the electors of New Zealand :—: —

As to the Referendum, it might be a valuable resort, both for Government and for the people in matters of which the average elector is a sufheient judge. But we ha\e long since expressed the conviction that no matters should be submitted to it that affect the religious 01 political rights of minorities, or that ha\e aroused, or are likely to arouse, strong party or sectarian feeling. The proposed solution of the educational difficulty involves, moreover, the acceptance, by the State, of the Protestant and sectarian principle of Biblereading without note or comment and of the private interpretation of the teachings of the Sacred Volume. It iB palpably a question of the non-submittable kind. It is no trifling problem, and requires for its settlement cool .heads, a thorough knowledge of all the conflicting interests involved, a spirit of mutual good-will, and a determination to respect rights of conscience at all hazards.'

We are glad to see this view of the subject ably set forth and defended in a letter by the Rev. J T Hinton, which appeared in the ' Otago Daily Times ' of last Thursday. The Rev. Mr. Hinton is commenting on the following 1 words which appeared in the course of a letter by Rev. Mr. Fairclough : ' That is the present question. Not whether the Bible should be in the schools or not ; not whether the people want it there or not, but whether the people should be allowed to speak for themselves.' This, then (says Mr. Hinton). is the question : ' Shall we refer the matter of the Bible in schools to a referendum ? ' He then goes on to say :—: — ' Now, the referendum, as a form of popular go\ernment, has some value, although it is open to reproach as an evidence of the breaking-down of our parliamentary institutions. Its practical use, however, is limited. It can be used effectively in only comparatively small quantities, and there are certain questions which may not be so decided. The Hon. the Premier declared in the House that this was so, when some few sessions ago he introduced a Referendum Bill. We shall recognise these limitations if we consider what the referendum really is. It is an appeal to a majority vote, and carries with it the right to compel the minority to submit. Now this, of course, is quite correct, and, indeed, inevitable in many of our political and social questions. But even some of these questions, Mr. Seddon says, are barred out. And, besides these, there is a large range of questions referring to religion which may not be thus settled. I lav down this thesis, and earnestly desire that it may be considered and discussed : " That it is wrong and immoral to propose to settle a religious question by an appeal to a maiority." ' The majority rule, valuable as it is in many ways, has no place m the sphere of religion. We have no State Chu,rch, no national religion. No one Church, bo Jt ever so strong in numbers, can forbid the smallest sect to live and grow. Hence, the illimitable multiplication of our religious sects. We often groan o\er this but we fully recognise that a compelled uniformity wauld be infinitely more disastrous If no one sect has a right to claim special religious privileges, then also no six sects clubbing together to form a new sect, and calling themselves " The Bible-in-schools Association," has any such claim. And no such association has the smallest right to demand from me (or from anyone else) a conscientious declaration that I object to join them. The " conscience clause " is a mere impertinence ' But someone will say that the " Bible in schools " is not a religious question. So, when some few years aoro the Council of the Churches commenced this agitation, the Rev J. J. Lewis, the then secretary of the Bible-m-schools Committee, strenuously refused to admit that the question was a religious one But since his time the platform has been widened and developed, and now it is beyond further controversy that the question is one that reaches far and deep into the realms of religion. It is-, therefore, one in regard to which the people who believe in it and wish for it are bound to aot as they do with the rest of their religion — work it out and pay for it themselves !

' This is what the Roman Catholic Church is doing It holds and loaches that religion is the most important part of education, and requires its people to net up to its belief Hence their separate schools, and their raising of money to support them It is only to he regretted that they cannot so far separate these two — the secular and religious aspects of education — as to fall in with our national school system ; or that, refusing conscientiously to do this, they should not take the resulting martyrdom with a manlier spirit ! At the same time it must be acknowledged that they show an excellent example, and pro\e that they ha\e the courage of their convictions.

'This "religious question" of the "Bible in schools " belongs to the Churches and not to the State nt all. The Churches could meet it satisfactorily if they would awake to their responsibilities and resources But if they will not undertake the religious education of their children, then it, like many other good things, will have to remain undone.

' I am not without hope, however, that when the Churches realise how false and futile is this appeal to Caesar they will arise in their might, and crying : " It must and shall "be done," do it themselves ! '