Church and State

Press, 8 March 1978, Page 16

Church and State

Sir, — I thought the days of religious bias, openly expressed by newspaper edi* tors had gone. But I did a big "ho-hum” upon reading of your survey, as I’m sure many did, and let it slide. But your editorial takes the biscuit. Of all the examples of editorial illogic and slanted judgment I have never read anything quite like it. You describe the church’s stand on abortion as "religious intervention in politics.” It might be, if abortion were simply a political question. But it is not It is a question of protecting the basic human right — the right to life. For everyone the highest loyalty is to truth and goodness. No member worth his salt will submit his own judgment in such a matter to the pressure of anyone — church, pro-or anti-abortion lobby, or the editor of “The Press.” Which does not remove the right of any of these to try to lead him to the truth as they see it.—Yours, etc., (Rev.) D. K. BONISCH, S.M. Wellington, March 4, 1978. Sir, — You believe an inquiry should be held into the religious affiliation of members of Parliament. I believe that an inquiry should be held into the height of members of Parliament. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are relatively short men and a quick survey shows a further nine shon Parliamentarians. Eleven short members! The mind boggles at the changes they could wreak. Legislation limiting the height of doorways; a ban on any mirror fixed above sft from the ground — a truly frightening future. And it will not stop there. According to my inouiries, II members of Parliament

prefer brown shoes to black. Almost certainly this pres* sure group will force through the Brown Boot Act. Imagine being forced to wear brown shoes with a blue suit. Rightly you say the beliefs of our representatives should be laid bare — including preferences in toothpastes and attitudes towards composting. — Yours, J. J. DARBY. March 6, 1978.