Tennis on Sunday

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 16, 13 October 1933, Page 11

Tennis on Sunday

Sir, —The discussion in your columns re Sunday tennis has, it seems to me, missed the larger issue involved —liberty of thought and action. If "Tilden N~Z. advocates and possibly regards a* sacred the Bible Sabbath, and "Straight Shot ■similarly regards the first day of the week, they are surely at liberty to exercise that" freedom of their consciences. Equally to each is the God-given liberty given to do as be wishes the remainder of the week, provided, of course, this liberty is not used to disturb or molest the other. ' . , When the powers that be, either nationally or municipally, .begin to make enactments restraining this God-given libertv. thev are treading on dangerous ground in that they are using the prerogatives of God. History already records far too many such incidents an which the minority has suffered to the death when religion aud state joined hands. It seems that few to-day remember that the forbears of some of us paid dearIv some with their lives, to procure for us the liberty we now enjoy. Let us not permit this priceless heritage to be taken from us. Let us keep every religious issue separate from the civil, ever remembering the words of Christ, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gms. • —I am, etc., LIBERTY. Wellington, October 12.

Sir,—The question of whether the .Education Board should or should, not vary its rule whereby Sunday tennis is prohibited' upon courts owned or controlled by the board, has largely been lost, sight of by your, various correspondent in a consideration of the question of whether Sunday tennis, in itself, is right or wrong. The 'board’s position is to me plain, and is this: Should it allow its .property to be used by some of its constituents in a manner that would serve to offend other of its constituents, or should it take an independent attitude and allow the constituents liberty of action in this particular respect? The board should take into consideration that, there are three classes to be considered: (1) The individual who will play tennis on Sunday without regard to the day itself: (2) the individual who considers the day has some sacred obli-

gations upon him. and after satisfying those obligations, considers he may indulge in his own variety of sport, which may be tennis, or golf, or a trip in a motor-car; (3) the individual who will not play tennis on Sunday, or indulge in any other form o? pleasure-seeking, no matter what facilities, are available. Is.it likely that the board's removal of its embargo will make any difference in the attitude of any of those three classes, or is its protection of the third-mentioned class from offence, fair to the other two classes? I nm a member of the third class, but I realise that the other two classes are deserving of some consideration. It is suggested therefore that the board should adopt such an attitude, instead of setting Itself up ns a mentor of public morality in this respect.—l am. etc., A PARENT.

Wellington. Oct-/»ber 11. [This correspondence is now closed.l