A CHALLENGE

Hokitika Guardian, 7 March 1931, Page 3

A CHALLENGE

BISHOP AND MODERN POLITICS. DEMOCRACY IN AUSTRALIA SY DNEY, February 2G. In the course ot a remarkable utterance from the pulpit of the Cathedral at Bathurst last Sunday Bishop Crottv entered upon a vigorous attack ol modern politics. He said that democracy m Australia was at the crossroads, and hinted that at no distant date the Church must definitely enter politics aiid save democracy from the destruction that threatens it.

A preacher in England, in placing first on the list of modern deadly sins the cult of policies, divorced from principles, had, lie said placed his finger on tlie primary cause of the gathering chaos and the increasing poison in Australian public life. When a private individual foreswore his debts and lawful obligations it was a policy without a principle. When a nation or its chosen representatives made the same infamous proposal, the same moral poison was at work. The policy had slain the principle, and the moral murder was callous and complete.

The reason for the shameful -divorce of policy fro principle was not far to seew, said the Bishop. Moral principles had been pulled up from their roots in God. The acids of modernity had dissolved ancient faiths. Dethroned principles would not reappear until the people went hack to God. That this divorce was showing its face in politics was not surprising. in polities, exploited increasingly by men both ignorant and unscrupulous, human tensions emerged in their fiercest vein. In the public life of to-day there was a frank and cynical disavowal ol pri-n----eiple. And in that apostasy the doom of democracy was sealed.

At that point said Bishop Crott.y, the Church would -definitely enter into politics and sweep with its scourge through out its temple, overturning the tables of the reckless money-changers and exposing their barren and impudent deceits. To-da.v the community in trie moment of political bankruptcy looked wistfully to the Church for a bold, a ( hristiau, and a 11011-Party lead. The Church, were her vision clear anti her

voice united, might yet make a Christian demand that would be loud' and potent, cutting through tint drifting stupidities like a two-edged sword. Site might assert the principle of teUowsinp vital to industry and to life. There was no such thing as an unorueretl liberty.

’I lie Church might call to Australian democracy to go forth in a new spirit leniinding if that it was a new spirit a’d a new statesmanship, and not new States it needed, continued the Bishop. She could call on it Lo revise its political implements, .making them more democratic and more Christian; and she might demand fiercely that Party politics should men I or end; that Party machines should be put back in their '.lace and that government of the people by the people and for the people should be restored. She could r< mind Unit same democracy that if the multitudes refused their democratic and God-giv-en task, some autocracy from the Left Wing or the Right must inevitably emerge to do what they refused to do. Finally, she could state unequivocally the thongs for which the ( hureli had alwavs stood and would flatly stand.