LABOUR RELIGION WAR.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2916, 30 July 1925, Page 3

LABOUR RELIGION WAR.

THE DANGER OF GENEK-

ALITIES.

On a recent Sunday evening a meeting took place in the supperroom of the Town Hall with the Mayor, (Mr. ,M. E. Perrean), in the chair. Mr. Ben Roberts who we understand is the Socialist Labour Party Candidate, lectured on the above subject. We have read the very full report which appears in the “Herald.” The speech is a long statement, of generalises all designed to convey the idea that Mr. Robert’s party and the Christian Religion are virtually the same in principle. He said the “Sermon on the Mount was the basis of Labour’s cause.” The evil of such loose talk is that it presents as positively true what is found to be far from true when tested by actual facts. If the Sermon on the Mount is the basis of Labour’s cause then why is such Sermon not found in the constitutions of the Labour parties? Why instead of the teaching of such sermon are so many Labour advocates found preaching the doctrines of class conscious, class war and class hatred? Mr. Roberts preferred to Mr, Ramsay MacDonald. Here is what the ex-Prime Minister wrote last year to the Indian Review (Madras). “In these days the whole world is suffering from a spirit which means that instead of trying to solve difficulties by reason, they are approached by revolutionary minds which, if they do not get. all they want, bring affairs to a state of deadlock. That is nothing but a blind appeal to force, which has a most disastrous reaction in the minds of everybody concerned.” The “Revolutionary minds” call themselves Labour and are unfortunately very often accepted as such. Mr. 11. E. Holland, M. P. leader of Mr. Robert’s party, declared in Parliament: “1 am a revolutionary socialist.” Are Mr. Holland's approval and Mr. MacDonald’s disapproval of the revolutionary spirit both “Labour,' and both Christian? That is a question Mr. Roberts might answer when he comes down from the clouds of generalities to the ground of actual facts.

To use religion ns the cover for a political party is not playing the game for two reasons. 1 ( irst that, religion is above all politics and to confuse or mix its tenets with the plans of politcians is to degrade religion. Secondly that to he honest it has to he acknowledged that the political parties (Labour or other) are purely secular and not religious organisations in any way. Mr.° Roberts says the Socialists of France set up Christ as their “First Representative.” As many of the Continental Socialists are declared Atheists that story is remarkable. The truth is that there are Socialists, and so called Labour men, who are Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists of all religions and of none. Hurl Marx was an avowed Atheist. Many of his followers are the same. The proletarian Sunday Schools (Labour) in England are teaching Atheism to the children. The Socialist Sunday Schools in New Zealand teach secularism and leave out religion. We fear that the speaker in this instance was so anxious to make out a case for “Labour” that he had not time for proof. His speech was a string of assertions many of which rest on very doubtful evidence. He says, for instance, that conditions m Russia were changed by revolt and in-Australia by evolution and the ballot box. That word “evolution” is made t° stand for an} thing. There is no ballot box reform about the shipping strike in Australia, and other industrial upheavals we have seen in Australia and New Zealand. . What Mr. Roberts avoids facing is the fact that there are men attached to what he calls the Labour movement who declare their puipose is to destroy the capitalist state and who care little what means they use to that end. ihey use political means as it suits, hut are ready to use other means as well. The party to which Mr. Roberts is attached has shown at least on two occasions that it is ready to uphold other than Constitutional methods of representative government. When “Councils of Action” were established in England (whiyh Mr. J. H. Thomas declared to be against the Constitution.) the New Zealand Labour Party cabled its support of the action taken. When the “All-Australian Labour Congress” set up a “Council of Action” Mr. H. E. Holland, M.P. who was present was appointed a member as representing the New Zealand Labour Party.” We can prove these statements beyond any question of dispute.

Bo the party named “Labour” is not an innocent combination whose members subscribe to the doctrine of “blessed are the meek.” To represent it as such partakes of hypocrisy. It is well to have line sentiment but even the sentimental should endeavour to keep to the truth. The constant suggestion (made for political purpose) that all humanity is Labour and that Labour has a monopoly of right human feeling is utterly false when subjected to analysis. To represent all who do not agree with “Labour” as callously ignoring the command of Christ to help those in want is a malicious method of political propaganda. The using of Christ's name as Judge in order to reflect on those who differ from you in political opinions may seem to Mr. .Roberts, and his associates, jus tillable but it is iucloed utterly eou-

templible. It is the method of bigotry which sees nothing but good in itself and nothing hut evil in those who differ from it. “Labour”—what does the word mean? Can Air. Roberts give us a true and exact definition of the term ? Mr. Havelock Wilson of the British Seamen’s Union and Mr. Tom. Walsh of the Australian Seamen’s Union preach exactly opposite doctrines relating to industry yet. both are called “Labour.” The British Labour Federation stands for socialism. The American Federation of Labour stands for individualism. Which is Labour? There is no word of which we know that is more abused than this word “Labour.” It is made to stand for Socialism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, Individualism, Christianity, Atheism, and many other schools of thought. We believe that rightly interpreted it means service, but “service” is not the monopoly of any party . The parties should be judged not on nebulous professions but on their definite proposals and how these will workin practice.

Here is a definite proposal of Mr. Robert’s party: — “No privately owned land shall be sold or trartsferred except to the State.” We suggest that in his next address he confine himself to showing how that will operate in practice. (Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League.)