Citizens Say—

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 541, 19 December 1928, Page 10

Citizens Say —

SKEETERS IN RANGES Sir, I was somewhat amused by ‘‘Stiletto’s” letter in yesterday’s issue of your paper. He applauded the efforts of men engaged in exterminating mosquitoes, and then went on to make the astounding suggestion that they should direct attention to the Waitakere ranges. After all, they are only men, and I guess they would be pretty tired by the time they had attended to things up there. My experience tells me that householders in town or country can help solve the mosquito problem through their own efforts. A general cleanup of likely breeding places is all that is .required. COMMON SENSE. “JAZZ BABIES” Sir,— Knowing that I will be condemned as old-fashioned, and feeling deeply enough on the subject to risk condemnation, I would like to submit for consideration of your many readers, a complaint that is often thought about, but rarely voiced. My view is that the young people of to-day have grown careless of the solider pleasures of life. They have no regard for domestic ease, the fellowship of books, and the good old music of Handel and Beethoven Home life seems to have no appeal for them, and they never seem happy unless they are roaming the streets or sniggering at a "show,” The only music that they know comes from a jazz band, and knowing nothing of the joy of quiet conversation and social pleasure, they fritter the hours away in the cabarets. The time will come when these hollow pleasures will pall, and then they will have nothing to support them at all. It’s a dangerous thing to say, but I honestly believe the Victorians knew more about the happy life than the jazz-baby generation of to-day. JASPER PONTIFEX. TRIBULATION Sir, — At this time, when so many are afflicted by tribulations, it is well to consider this matter in its true light. Cardinal Wiseman, writing on it, says: then, . a t once > the grandeur of that divine idea, which allows our sorrows and suffering to unite themselves with htose of the incarnate Son of God admits an assimilation between the two, and allows us to claim all the glory, all the dignity and all the merits of so sublime an alliance. “St. Andrew looked through the toijfs and perils t » the Apostleship to the Cross, as to the goal of his labours He reverently saluted It upon his bended knees, as about to bring him into close L conformity, with the outward form and

(To the Editor.)

exemplar of his dying Master." What a consolation to the afflicted many would feel by dwelling on this great thought. HUMANITY. THE CREATION Sir, I am not in the least interested in the identity of “A.E.C.” In fact, I do not care a brass farthing- -who he is, but your readers may. When I denied the truth of the Rev. A. Thornhill’s statement I did not fire my shot from behind a hedge. I signed my name. I was then open to be refuted. But “A.E.C.” shoots from behind the hedge. Let him stay there. If he is not a scientist, he is certainly a master of camouflage. First he speaks of Professors Lana and Guyot as theological professors, and says “Readers have no need to consult the musty personal opinions of the professors and deceased doctors of divinity.” When I pointed out they were not theologians, but scientists, he says: “Mr. Rimmer quoted Prof. Lana (of whose geological attainments I am well aware) . .. and a contemporary of Wh y in the world, then, did he pretend they were theologians whose opinions were so musty they need not be consulted? I did quote one theologian, but that was on a question of higher criticism, not on science. The inconsistency of “A.E.C.” breaks out again very badly, for he quoted theologians Bishop Barnes and Prof Leake to prove that “the Old Testament is often untrustworthy . . . and that its account of creation is irreconcdable with science.” I would not accept Prof. Peake’s nor Dr. Barnet opinion on a question of science anv 2£ffee t to n the W?U rt d submit a sample of C k , e -. to tlie Judgment of ‘LAE C ” r should require an opinion from men who know their job. It must be very humiliating for “A EP ” ♦ , y hf2 le< i- to 3,3 « the he 'h of his discomfiture. He then finishes sssrs?H t?i h +! :>efore Ihe sun existed.” I never w th :; re was light upon the cIJ-th wasY po “ Un exi ? ted - What ISd tbe S account speaks of the creation of light "before the creation of the sun.” I then gave J tThf ° f tW ° scientists who Sd th^ universe'” S thus si" on °A ‘' Th “^hts d l t og? mS He d says 6 hit indeed from being the™ Very far judgment that it"f &

. . . It is usually hampered by dnstom. prejudice, dislike, etc. . . . As showing how little reason alone has to do wr: the determining of religious belief, h-; us take the case of mathematician*, and he then shows what great nam*-> were ranged on both sides, but he concludes: “When I was at Cambridge there was a galaxy of genius in that department emanating from that plat” such as had never before been equalled, and the curious thing in our preeen: connection is that all the most illustrious names were ranged on the sia of orthodoxy.” I am quite content with such scientific company, even if, in the opini';of “A.E.C.,” they are a trifle ol‘ifashioned. He is welcome to all t h * support Tom Payne may afford him though I think his bones were mould. 1 a hundred years ago, and his opinior* as defunct. „ S. L. P. RIMMER