OUR DEBT TO THE CHURCH.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 169, 18 July 1924, Page 8

OUR DEBT TO THE CHURCH.

(To the Editor.) J Sir, —The article on "The Lever of J Science" appearing in your issue of the j loth inst. contains portions that have ' a strong flavour of pulpit oratory, and I subvert historical facts in the interests , of pious fictions. I refer particularly J to the paragraph which catalogues the f blessings for which the Church is re- t sponsible, where it is stated: "Mainly . to the efforts of the Church, using that ; expression in its widest sense, we owe j the abolition of slavery, the education « of the poor, the care of the sick and ' wounded, and the inculcation of kind- : \ ness to animals." Allow mo to deal i j briefly with each of those claims. ; Slavery co-existed with Christianity for f over 18 centuries. In Europe itself ] it was many centuries before it dis- 1 1 appeared* There is not one text in the | < whole Bible directly censuring this prac- < tice, and its most energetic allies before s its final abolition in America were mm- t isters of the Gospel, who, with much 1 logic, reinforced their arguments with j 1 Biblical quotations. In the sphere of 15 education, right up until the middle of ] last century the Church allowed any- 3 thing from 70 to 99 per cent of her 1 adherents to remain in the grossest ' ignorance and illiteracy. When the ' State took up the burden of educating the poor, the various sects at last busied , themselves in providing educational T facilities, but for the express purpose ! of ensuring that the knowledge imparted ' would be duly seasoned with their pecu- ' liar doctrines. In caring for the sick ' and wounded the Church at least can f claim some credit, although, apart from I consideration of religious wars directed by the churches in the past, it has since \ that time given its official blessing to I every clash of arms, Dor ever raised one word of protest. It is impossible to ' adduce evidence that the Church has ] any monopoly in inculcating .kindness ! to animals. This spirit is a* natural i modern growth, and ths majority of • societies organised to promote the wel- i fare of animals are non-sactarian bodies. ! As against these supposed benefits, we ' must appreciate the fact thafc the! Church has bitterly opposed every ad- ' \ vance of science, from Copernicus and < Gallileo to Darwin; that it has been ] responsible for untold hatred and in- , tolerance; that until its power in the ] community was curbed, it visited bar- 5 barous persecution on all opponents. 1 These things must be considered in 'as- t sessing the value of the Church to the \ community.—l am, etc., j