PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 89, 12 October 1920, Page 10

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

ADDEESS BY REV. HOWAED ELLIOTT. Addressing a. large a.udience in Everybody's Theatre on Sunday, the Eev. Howard Elliott, org-anisor for the Protestant Political Association, , spoke upon the Ne Temere Decree, and the proposed amendments of the marriage law that are at present before Parliament. Mr. Elliott devoted a, good deal of his time upon the platform to disputing the contention that marriage is a sacrament. Then, after giving a number of instances of domestic [ unhappiness which he ascribed to the operation of the Ne Temere Decree, he "That is the effect of the decree. See | the scandal of this thing, 'and the grave and awful, social trouble that it is bringing about. It is ruining the homsi and conducing to immorality, and depriving the children of their first and greatest right—the protection and united care of their parents. Because of these scandals, and because of this invasion of right and justice, because of this destruction of religious liberty and of this insult to our Protestantism, our Protestant faith, our King and country, the* Upper House of this country has passed legislation winch has now come down to the Lower House, and is before a committee; and thu cry is raised that "If you pass this legislation you will be invading the civil and religious liberties not only of Roman Catnolice, but of the Church of England, the Pr.esbyterian Churoh, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, and all the others." But do these proposed amendments invade the religious liberties either of, the individual or of any one of the churches '!

"What do you understand when you '6iy 'religious liberty' ? Is it the liberty to believe and to practise whatever doctrine you choose, irrespective of the righto and interests of all other people?. Why, that is religious tyranny, not religious liberty. If liberty means the protection of a man in doing hia duty, so long as that duty does not interfere with the rights and the duties of others, then I believe in that religious liberty. But if religious liberty is the protection of a man doing his duty,' so long as that duty does not interfere with the rights and liberties of others, is not that liberty, and the right to that liberty, a domand in itself for the present legislation? Is it not right that men who choose to be married in a registrar's office, and in the Protestant manner, though born and brought up Roman Catholis should be protected, in the performance of their duty and the fulfilment of their privileges, from the tyranny and the insults of the Pope of Rome? Is thero any infringement when you say,to the Church of Rome: 'You shall not say that the man is not sufficiently^ married ; you shall call his wife a concubine, or his children illegitimate'? Is there any invasion there of religious liberty ?■.... "I say religious liberty itself demands that this law shall be passed, and the demand is in tha namo of the preservation of the rights, civil and religious, rtf the people who do not choose to conform to the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholio Church. ' "'

"But it is objected that the proposed amendments interfare with the right of Churches to teach their own 'particular doctrines regarding marriage. They do nothing of the kind. What these amendments do say is that it shall be dn offenco to allege, either explicitly or by implication, that a person legally married in not truly and sufficiently married, or that the issuo of a legal marriage, is illegitimate or bastard. This proposed legislation doea not say that the Church of Rome shall not teach its doctrine of marriage. It does not cay that the Anglican Church shall not teach its doctrine, or the Presbyterian Churoh shall not, or that the Methodist or the Baptist Church shall not;" but_ it does say that they shall not go outside of their church to enforce their teaching. There is a very great difference between teaching and enforcing teaching.. May I point out an illustration ? The Church of Romo believes in the temporal sovereignty of the Pope. That is, they say that the Pope is supreme above all kings, princes, and Parliaments. They teach that, but they don't attempt to onforco that teaching But suppose that in New Zealand they did attempt to enforce it, and to say: ' 'You are not to obey the laws of the State but- the laws of the Church and the Pope; you are. not to pay taxes to the State in New 1 Zealand, but .you are to pay them, to the Church; you aro not to render any service demanded of you by the State, but you are to render it all to us as the representatives of the Pope.' The parliament would say: "That is rank rebellion, and' if you don't quit that kind of talk, we will put you in gaol or drive you out of the country.' We give them liberty to believe what they like, but it is another question when they attempt to enforce and drivo homo and apply their teaching against the common interests of the people of this land.

"You are born to be free, and in the name of the Christ who is our Saviour and in the name of Him who^ gave His life not only that we should be freo mcc from sin, but that wo should be free also in spirit and_ mind, and free subjects of the country in which we live, I say, lend your support to Parliament; make your .voice heard so that they may know that in considering this legislation they are not doinsr an'unwise or an unjust thing, but a thing absolutely right, in giving to Protestants, to New Zealand, and to the. Empire, th« first worci which says: 'Take away th« Ne Temere and let Britishers be free.'