§ Mr. SCURRI beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "or blasphemous."
The Bill after passing the Committee upstairs returned in somewhat different form from that in which it was given a Second Reading by this House and two very important Clauses which gave a definition of seditious and blasphemous matter have been struck out. After all, the Bill is one which deals with any person who teaches seditious or blasphemous matter. There may be an argument advanced for dealing with questions affecting the attitude of persons towards the laws and the Government and the State, and their expressions of opinion may be regarded as seditious and therefore liable to come under those laws. But when it comes to a question of what is blasphemous matter, I find myself absolutely in a quandary as to what exactly we are going to deal with in such a definition. After all, blasphemous 846 matter varies according to the particular theological or religious opinion that a person may hold.
As I remarked upstairs in the course of a Debate in Committee, there has been circulated to Members of the House a letter from a gentleman who is the pastor of a particular chapel and who is objecting very much to a certain action which is proposed to be taken regarding the administration of a trust in regard to his chapel, and he goes on to say that if this Measure, to which he objects, passes, it would mean that the chapel belonging to his particular organisation would be given over to what he describes as the idolatrous and blasphemous teachings of members of the Church of Rome. I have no doubt that that gentleman is perfectly sincere in his opinions, but, on the other hand, those who hold to the Catholic faith would also regard that gentleman as expressing blasphemous opinions. After all, if I happened to be in one end of Belfast, for example, and made an observation regarding His Holiness the Pope, I should be regarded as expressing blasphemy, but, on the other hand, if I expressed certain opinions concerning King Wiliam III, of pious memory, at the other end, I should be equally guilty of blasphemous expressions and I should probably produce a riot in that most respectable city of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I do not think that proposals in this Bill ought to encourage anything of that kind.
There has been going on now for a considerable number of years a very large amount of what is termed "Biblical criticism," which is the result of investigations that have been made and the discoveries of various books and papyri and documents of the past, and this is causing very many different points of view to be taken in regard to certain theological conceptions of the Christian faith. Even a distinguished Bishop of the Church of England itself has actually cast doubts upon the reality of the Virgin Birth, which is, after all, one of the most sacred doctrines of the Christian religion. Is that blasphemy or is it not? If a teacher under this Bill, speaking to a class of children under the age of 16, ventures to put before them some of the discoveries which have been made in regard to Biblical criticism, is he guilty of teaching blasphemous matter? I contend 847 that under the terms of this Bill he would, and I am merely giving an instance where, no matter what one may say or do, with regard to what is termed blasphemy, he can be brought under the terms of this Bill—
§ It being Four of the Clock further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next (4th July).