SYDNEY'S SOCIAL LIFE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 121, 24 May 1932, Page 11

SYDNEY'S SOCIAL LIFE.

"BRIDGE FIENDS" DENOUNCED. (From. Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, May 20. Few people in Sydney think that social life here does not need improvement or that social standards of conduct could not with advantage be elevated to a higher moral or ethical level. But the people who arc most anxious to see these, miracles accomplished seem so often to go the wrong way about it. We have had here recently one Dr. W. E. Pietsch, an American evangelist, who has assured us with great emphasis that "a mighty revival of Christianity which does not at present exist in the public life of Australia will be the only alternative to civil war." The Rev. Mr. Pietsch is grievously dissatisfied with our people, who are a nation of gamblers, with our newspapers, which arc hopelessly capitalistic, and with our churches. These last, in particular, lie admonishes severely; their job, he thinks, is "to preach the Gospel, not run religious bridge parties, dances or second-rate shows." And as he departed to his home land ho warned us once more that "only an old-fasliioncd revival can save Sydney from revolution." Mr. Tietsch, of course, is an expert on such matters; but after reading "Elmer Gantry" and coming across a great many references to Billy Sunday and Aimec Macplierson in various papers, a layman may express doubts as to the permanent efficacy of a "good oldfashioned revival" on the American plan. But, talking about bridge parties, Dr. Tietsch lias received strong support from one of our local clerics. On Mother's Day, a fortnight back, Mr. Hugh Paton came into the limelight with a fierce denunciation of "women bridge playing fiends," whom ho described as a "menace" to sanctity of tho home and of social life. This strong language from the pulpit naturally aroused indignation, and plenty of women rushed into print to admit that they played bridge and to repudiate the unpleasant title that Mr. Paton had conferred upon them. When cornered by the inevitable interviewer, Mr. Paton was inclined to "sing small." In reply to the natural question, "Have you ever played bridge ■'" he answered rather lamely, "No, I have no time to spare!" He was good enough to admit that "there is no harm in cards," but he maintained that many women are addicted to gambling and that "any woman who gambles at bridge must suffer moral deterioration." Of course, Mr. Paton has loft many interesting questions unanswered; as, for instance, how many games a day or a week does it take to convert an I otherwise decent woman into a fiend? and what about the husbands who play bridge? Isn't there a masculine form of fiend, or is the word exclusively feminine? One does not offer any opinion on these mysteries, but it seems a pity that well-meaning people like Mr. Pietsch and Mr. Paton should use such reckless and indiscriminate language in fulminating against the wickedness of the world and the inhabitants thereof.