ME ISITT AND THE REFERENDUM.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 251, 26 November 1914, Page 6

ME ISITT AND THE REFERENDUM.

To the Editor of THE SUN. /

Sir,—Both you, yourself, and. some of your correspondents, seem to be a bit perturbed over Mr .Tsitt's, attitude to the Religious Instruction Referendum Bill. You charge him with Inconsistency in opposing a referendum on a religious issue while supporting referendum on the liquor question. Let me hasten to say that I have no occasion to defend Mr Isitt; he is capable, I believe, of looking after himself. But, as your judgment seems to be shared by your correspondents, I should like to be allowed to say a word re the general position. Now, to substantiate the charge of inconsistency, you must prove, sir, that the two cases are parallel. Further, you will admit, I think, that heaps of intelligent persons, while granting a referendum on some issues, may conceivably deny a referendum on others. Several factors enter, i.e., can the question be put simply? Can. you get a simple and complete answer by a single ' 1 yes'' or ''no?'' >' Bufin the two cases in point the differences are radical. The referendum, or better, plebiscite, demanded by the Bible-in-Schools League is upon a strictly religious issue. The questions involved are (a) compulsory "general religious teaching" by State teachers; (b) "special religious teaching "in school hours by clerics. Thus, the objective , of the league is majority rule in religion. And we affirm that, where; ever the principle of the referendum may legitimately apply, this is precisely the question -Which' cannot fairly be submitted to a majority vote, for the simple reason that is individual, private, and sacred; and majority rule here has never obtained without tyranny and On the contrary/'no- one pretends that the licensing issue is pu/ely - a religious issue, i.e., our votes for or against are not governed by our denominational creed. No one votes for or agaihst jiisfe because he is an Anglican, a Roman, £athoiie, or a .Baptist. Our votes are v determined by economic, social, national, or reasons. Again in the latter case the issues are clearly stated. (Each votes for what he wants.) And the existing system has first place on the ballot paper! But in the league's Referendum Bill, half a dozen distinct questions are lumped together, and have to be answered by a single "yes" or "no," which means that numerous electors,' in order to vote for what they want would at the same time have to vote for what they did not want. Then the existing secular system has no place at all oh the ballot paper. That is, the ballot paper is cunningly arranged by one party-»to the controversy .>vith, the object of securing a win by a trick. And you wonder why democrats oppose this lireeious Referendum Bill. But the hindamentM'Objection'is that-it is a referendum on a purely religious issue; and we have no intention of introducing into our politics the vicious principle of majority, rule in religion, which cursed Europe for 1500 years. —I am, etc.;

T. A. WILLIAMS Baptist Manse, Sydenham. November 24, 1914.