BERNARD SHAW AND THE BIBLE.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20736, 22 December 1932, Page 9

BERNARD SHAW AND THE BIBLE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THB PBESS. Sir, —Bernard Shaw's latest book, in which he exploits blasphemy to advertise himself will cause sorrow to millions of Christians if they ever learn of it. He virulently attacks the Deity, the Apostles, and the Bible. It is a scandalous impertinence even from this chartered libertine of English letters, and cannot be excused on any grounds. We are told that Shaw is a genius, but to many he appears to have greater genius as a showman than as a literateur. Hs is the great Barnum of English letters and perhaps should get just as much serious attention as Barnum — and no more. Nero revelled in his debaucheries while Rome burned. Today, when the world, in its distress, needs religion more than ever before in its history, Shaw, following Nero, attempts to draw attention to his own self, posing as a terrible fellow by his revolting blasphemies. It makes one class him with the Roman soldiers who spat in the fact of Christ while they crucified Him. It is a thousand pities that the Press of the world should give publicity to such sacrilegious buffooneries. It is a sad reflection that while the real benefactors of society, the men of science, the writers, and the religious leaders of the world, aro neglected or forgotten, a figure like Shaw's can hold the stage, not on account of anything worth while, but be-cause-of a colossal impudence that delights to sa J' decent people do not even think. But while Christians will be pained thev have no fear from such a preposterous attack, and when Shaw and his elownings are forgotten, the verdict of the world will be that of' Julian the Apostate: "Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean." I wish an abler pen had written about this, but as that has not happened, I offer this as a' Christmas protest against the shameless vilification of our Christian religion, whose influence is felt most tliroughont the world just now as we celebrate Christmas, with its kindly message, and honour the great Founder of our Faith. — Yours, etc.. CHRISTIAN UNASHAMED. December 21st, 1932.

PAPANUI MEMORIAL HALL. TO THE EDITOR OV THE FBESS. Sir, If all the reasons for the withdrawal of the Papanui Memorial Hall Amendment Bill have been divulged it is certain that the Papanui people have been let down, and'let down badly, by the City Council. Cr. J. McCombs, in his latest statement, tries to drag in the Waimairi County Council for some reason, and says it should be asked to explain why it thinks the whole burden of City rates should be thrown on to the City. This is where Mr McCombs errs. The Waimairi Council has never expressed such an opinion. Every request to the City Council has come from the Hall Management Committee, on which the City Council has three representatives and tho Waimairi Council two- The committee has found that the burden of City rates has hampered them in carrying out the purpose for which the hall was built, and has been unanimous in the fight during tho last four years to have the burden removed. At the last annual meeting, when the position was explained, the committee received the support of Crs. Thurston and Parlane; since then, however, it appears that these two gentlemen have changed their opinions or have succumbed to decisions of the Labour Caucus, where the withdrawal of the Bill, I understand, was first mooted. Mr McCombs makes another bad slip when he states that only three councillors (two of them members of the Papanui Hall Committee) voted in favour of going on with the Bill. Tho two councillors referred to,are Crs. Andrews and Butterfield, and at tho last meeting of the committee Cr. Butterfield stated he was not present at either the caucus or the Council meeting. It is quite true that more than 90 per cent, of the ratepayers in the City had no voice whether tho hall should be erected, but that 90 per cent., through their representatives, have accepted the hall as a gift to the City from the Papanui people. The reason I mentioned the Spreydon Hall was because it was revenue-pro-ducing, as the Papanui Hall is, and according to the Town Clerk, was tho chief reason for the withdrawal of the Bill. Mr McCombs, however, says it is in no way a parallel case. We agree tb disagree. Tho hall at present, in spite of the bad times, would pay its way were it not for the burden of City rates. Thero will be no money again this year to meet the demand, and in consequence the City will have to bear the greater portion. There is little encouragement for the committee, who manage the hall in the interests of the whole City, to be faced every year with such an absurd position.—Yours, etc., ,T. STURROCK. December 20th, 1932.