Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 371, 4 June 1928, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

MR. BARTON’S LIMERICK

Sir,— Mr. Barton gives the following lines: ‘‘There was an old lady of Riga, Who tamed what she thought was a tiger; She made it a friend, And from then till the end—” . . . and he offers a prize for the best finish. Obviously the concluding line is “Shared the fate of the fly with the spider.” I can’t take money without earning it —I dread the thought of having to make an income tax return —as I fear court proceedings for obtaining money dishonestly. Let the prize go to defray the cost of the commission. F.R.F. HERALDRY Sir, — The sketch-plan of the South African flag in Friday’s Sun is interesting, and is doubtless being saved for reference by many of your readers. It is a pity the sketch was not drawn correctly. In Heraldry, is denoted by horizontal lines. Whiteargent has no marking. Hed-gules is shown by vertical lines. Xellow-or by dots. Green -vert is correctly shown on the sketch by the left-to-right diagonal lines — “diagonal lines from dexter chief to the sinister "base ." The science of Heraldry is a most interesting study, and more general knowledge of the subject would save mistakes in the adornment of buildings, posters, bill-heads, etc. I understand that a boy may pass through the sixth standard never having heard how and why the British Union Jack came to be adopted. VORANT. “JARGON OF SCIENCE” Sir, — Sir Arthur Keith’s statement that scientists and medical men agree that “there is no evidence to support the argument that the spirit survives after the brain ceases to function,” has caused a flutter in the theological dovecote. But a statement contrary to the above, would, I feel sure, have caused a much greater commotion in the same quarter. Science declares there is no evidence to support the case for a spirit. The other side dissents and rashly calls witnesses; but when they take the stand, it is found that they “believe” this and that; and that is, of v course, no evidence at all. While the suggestion that there is a “jargon” of science, seems to me a moot point, there can be no manner of doubt reagrding the existence < % a gibberish of theology. Proof? See correspondence columns of The Sun. R.W. BIBLE IN SCHOOLS Sir, — 3VT r - B. M. Isitt cannot have it both ways. He tells us in one breath that the children educated during the past 50 years under our secular system (the bulk of to-day’s citizens) have grown up in “heathenish ignorance” without a prayer on their lips, etc., and in the next he says that practically the whole population, except the Roman Catholics, are clamouring for Bible in Schools. “Heathenish ignorance” with Mr. Isitt stands for a lack cf knowledge of that mixed collec-

tion of Hebrew literature known as the Bible. The statements, therefore, are mutually destructive unless we are faced with the phenomenon of the ‘‘ignorant heathen” forming the membership of the Bible in Schools League. The truth, of course, is that the whole agitation is engineered and kept alive by a small body of interested churchmen and their friends. But when Mr. Isitt goes on to say that as a result of our secular system, honesty and truth are relegated to a secondary place in the lives of citizens, he is casting a slur on the excellent characters of both the teaching service and the scholars. There is not a jot of evidence to support such a crude idea, and shoals of facts to disprove it. Logic is not a strong point with Bible in Schools propagandists. As evidenced by the speeches recently, they rely upon waves of religious hysteria and appeals to sectarian animosities. A.E.C. THE CHALLENGE Sir,— The 1.8.5. A. through its secretary reserves the right to consider the plaintiff’s case and then appoint a judge or judges of their own choosing without any restrictions whatever. They could even appoint an irresponsible person or persons. I wonder how St. Paul would have stood if he had pleaded a similar course as juat and fair? Now, consider where equity would be if our law was that the plaintiff must publish his case for the benefit of the defendant, and that the defendant should or could, without any obligation whatever, consider and sift the plaintiff’s statements and then have full power and liberty to appoint any judge or judges without respect to any qualifications whatever, to give a verdict on his own case. Is there anyone outside the 1.8.5. A. who considers this a just, reasonable and equitablecourse? How about criminal cases? INQUIRER. THE COMING ELECTION Sir.— At present, to the man in the street, the political horizon is clouded. He knows that the parties are marshaling their forces; but, unfortunately, there has not been a party or leader educating the electors to vote for a specific policy. The Labour Party has altered its policy at each and every election. The Reform Party has retained office by the use of catch phrases. The Liberals have directed the electors’ attention to the party’s past achievements, forgetting that economic problems alter. Seddon made New Zealand prosperous by giving us the right and opportunity to occupy the land, then by finding ways and means by which we could cultivate and stock it. The next man or party to make New Zealand prosperous will have to face and overcome a more intricate problem—the giving to the consumer a larger share of the wealth produced. The cry “Production, ajid Still More Production,” must be replaced by “Value for Value.” A noted advocate used to say: “What’s the good of having things cheap if you have no money to buy them with?” It sounds logical. But it should read: “What's the good of having things dear if you have to compete; on the open market to make a living?” And, first

and foremost, we must consume w produce. That none of the parties *i present in the House has come forward with a policy that has a semblance of bearing on the problem is evidence of the lack of statesmanship that prevails in our politics. It if 1 • be hcped that the United Party, whit formulates a policy, will pay regard to fundamental economic pttoeiples and not come forward with * trumpeting of mere palliative sophistries, W. J- AN. “THE OPPORTUNE FUTURE" Sir, — Your correspondents, rushing mell into a controversy concerned wim life after death and the immortality of the soul, have naturally turned the common aids of a.l such ments—science, the Bible spiniw”?* and general philosophy, quite ing to pause and consider if hi pitchers will hold water. . - Science —so often wrongly to —is the aftermath of the ment of certain heights of tion. It is a clever and c^~ va ’_ couched summary of ages °* °, tion, and later experiment. It n°t ago discovered that there is some less than the atom, and been greatly intrigued with tne The soul, I imagine, if tiier ® * than a thing, is a million times the most infinitesimal atom ° a *The Bible if a labyrinth dictory statements. Woe beu man or woman who becomes its ever-winding paths! .yg Spiritualism, the one link between the material and lnum* _ _ the body and the soul—w. the eyes of the world, the p of minds slightly ethereal- . ualist condemns his own co ° he <* to the controversy the mon® _ h£) ’ai* she, puts pen to paper. Tney not spiritualists, or are neutra nner lief, handle the subject in <jt that would make the most ghosts walk. Election ot General philosophy is a Uca tioß generalities, so genera l in as to be a marvel of Knowledge of life after & increa ccome with progress, timean . ve *re » ing breadth of vision. « cU t,iect. f have satisfaction on the J iR tb« surely will we have it, ihat meantime. I would . Qpiu* present hope of a settlem oPP° r * ion be relegated to the more tune future. „_ aa ary stud? Our immediate and ”?f e ' -.a the ® : " is the prolongation of Me, » that leviation of human distresses, com ( 0 r. mty have greater time ana un^ eC . and leisure tottinkoM*'%gsßt. NOTICES TO CORRESPOND^ A.T.P.— Owing to pre ,*H re D uriishm e ® : 1 your letter on capital P nce then was held over for a day • *- a< j e i* s the Executive Council decision in the Norgrove The Sun.