RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 March 1922, Page 7

RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Your correspondent fC An Old Colonial,” invites a more able pen than his to take up the subject of Bishop Liston’s speech. Being what is commonly called by religionists an “infidel,” I submit that I am better able to offer an unbiassed opinion upon the subject of his letter than I could were I a partisan. As an onlooker I claim to be able to weigh each side carefully and form a just opinion, but it is my misfortune that neither admit that I am not biassed and a bigot. When in argument upon this subject with an Orangeman and trying to do justice to the Catholics, he immediately becomes convinced that I am a Catholic, and refuses to argue with me because, according to him, I am biassed, but when in argument with a Catholic, I refuse to do injustice to the Orangemen, he of course persists in regarding me as a yellowbelly, and of course wants no further argument from me. In this letter, however, with your permission, I shall be able to argue for and against each side, with the probable result that I shall please neither and still remain in the opinion of both Catholics and Orangemen as a one-sided bigot. To give two instances from each side which have impressed me, I was in Central Queensland at one time, which is a place, so far as I could see, absolutely free from sectarian squabbles. During my stay in Rockhampton, the Roman Catholic Sunday school was burnt down, whereupon every other denomination in the town showed their sympathy by offering, the Catholics a loan of a hall until such time as the Sunday school could be rebuilt. Whether it was incidental or whether it was cause and effect, I am unable to say, but very shortly afterwards the whole of the Central Queensland was placarded with bills notifying that lectures would.be delivered by Dill-Mackey upon the subject of

“Shall Rome re-conquer England?” It seemed to me in this case that it was the Orangemen who were looking for trouble, when it was altogether uncalled for and unnecessary. I am also sure that my opinion of the action of Howard Elliott in slandering and defaming the deceased nun referred to 'by your correspondent would be in full accord with your correspondent’s opinion. But when your correspondent refers to the case of Sister Ligouri I can assure him that he is quite mistaken when he says that she was free to leave the convent if she wished to. I was in Australia at the time, and was in no way infiuenced by what the Orangemen said of the matter. I would never be so unjust as to go to a man’s worst enemy for a testimony to his character; so I was influenced only by the priest’s attempt to vindicate his action. His claim seemed to be a very feeble one. He claimed that he girl was “non compos mentis,” and that it wa? his duty to act in ‘loco parentis” to her. But the doctor who examined her declared her to be mentally sound. She was in the literal sense of the term “an escaped nun,” and in the absence of a Government that was too cowardly to protect her the Orangeman provided her with her only refuge. This case alone certainly justifies the existence of the Orange Lodge. Another case which strikes an onlooker as an amazing assurance of the Catholics, is the recent Bill to deal with the Marriage Act. It appears that the Catholics in effect claim the privilege of accusing certain legally married couples of living in a state of free love and of branding their children as illegitimates, and they will go to gaol rather than forgo this privilege. I am not in favor of sending them to gaol. I think the lunatic asylum the proper place for them. But as a rationalist I welcome this sectarian strife. At present I can sit as an onlooker, .amazed at the peculiar way these Christians love one another, and their peculiar methods of teaching each other the best way to get to heaven and the proper way to love the Lord. What an awful thing it would be for men like me if these brotherly Christians were united! It would certainly be good-bye to my liberty, and they would certainly compel me to behave as stupidly as they do. But while the majority consider it their chief duty in life to practice a lot of silly superstitious rites, there will always be fanatics, and where there are fanatics there will always be hate and strife. Judging from to-day’s issue of your paper there is likely to be a civil war in the British Islands, and what with Scotland demanding Home Rule, the few sane onlookers will have the amazing spectacle of Englishmen fighting for the King, Irishmen fighting for the Pope, and the Scotchmen, 1 suppose, fighting for Harry Lauder. What an amazing stupid old world to live in! I have not touched upon Bishop Lieton’s speech, ae I suppose the case is “sub judice,” and you are not at present permitted to publish criticism of it. but I suppose that considering that I have been rather severe on the Catholics, there will be no harm in saying that in this case my sympathies are with the Bishop, and I regret that it is unlawful to give my opinions until the case is dealt with by law.—l am, etc., RATIONALIST. Stratford, March 28.