RELIGION AND RAFFLES

Evening Star, Issue 19385, 20 October 1926, Page 3

RELIGION AND RAFFLES

———- ——• INCONCLUSIVE DEBATE BY SYNOD An hour of the sitting of the Anglican Synod last night was taken up with a discussion as to the lawfulness of raffles and lotteries for church purposes. Rev. A. L. Canter moved—“ That this Synod calls upon all clergy and laity honorably to observe the letter md spirit of General Synod resolution concerning lotteries and raffles —viz., that the Synod disapproves of the practice of raising money for church purposes by means of raffles or lotteries of any kind.” Tho mover said that to his mind the raising of money by raffles md lotteries for church purposes was perilously near being worldly and immoral. but ho particularly stressed tho appeal on the ground of loyalty to the chief Synod of the church, and ho relied for support on the bishop of tho diocese, who in his presidential address condemned such methods, though he did not specifically mention raffles and lotteries.

Archdeacon Russell seconded tho notion, remarking that his parish of Jamaru managed its finance without such aids as were condemned by the mover, and the archdeacon also pleaded that tho church should keep its hands clean in the matter of gambling, which was one of tho greatest evils it was up against. Archdeacon ■ Fitchctt remarked that many Synods had sat sineo passing that resolution, twenty or thirty years ago, and none of them had reaffirmed it. Why call upon a Synod of to-day to obey a Synod of the past? General Synods had at tunes done several foolish things. Ho strongly objected, too, to tho expression now brought up again “wo keep our hands clean,” tlie assumption being that others had dirty hands. That was the way with Prohibitionists, anti-gamblers, and other faddists—they begged tho question and assumed that they were right and everyone else was twang, _ He moved that tho Synod proceed with tho next business.

Argument arose ns to procedure, and Archdeacon Fitchctt withdrew that amendment. The Dean took exception to tho uso of tho words “immorality” and “gambling ” in this connection. It was not right to introduce them. Ho quite agreed that they were very unfortunate in so-called art unions which appealed to greed, but those bazaar raffles were an amusement. “ Why, they are practised hy some of tho best people I know,” he added. “ I can’t allow these epithets to he used, which beg the question and- assume immorality.” The Rev. J. A. Lush said that where there was intense devotion in tho people it was wonderful how they gave, and that raffles militated against tho atmosphere of devotion. But it seemed impossible to raise by straight-out giving all the money that was wanted. The Synod should bo careful about its decision. Perhaps it would bq better to wait and hear what Captain Watson had to say on the subject.

Mr L. Deans Ritchie said lie could not agree that raffles were immoral, but be intended to vote for the motion, liecause deep down in the minds of a majority of church people there was, lie believed, the feeling that they should not indulge in this or any other practice which led some persons into excess. The church ought not to countenance anything that tempted others to their hart, Parishes might, at any rate, give a trial of bazaars without rallies. Many persons would spend as much if there were no raffles. Oam am was an example. and ho believed ho was correctin saying that St. Matthew’s and Moruington also financed without raffles. Ho would move as an amendment—“ That, in the opinion of this Synod, those concerned in the raising of church funds should endeavor to do it, without countenancing raffles.” - ' ' The Rev. G. D. Wilson seconded the amendment. Tho Rev. Mr Canter asked whether he would lose tho right of reply if ho accepted the amendment. The Dean; I think so. Tho Rev. Mr Cantor; Then I won’t. Tho Dean agreed with Mr Ritchie that it was quite possible to raise all the money without entertaining tho people with raffles. The Rev. W. H. Roberts argued that as far as the law wa.s concerned no question of principle could bo involved, for the law allowed betting on totniisators, but it prohibited the bookmaker. Two or three other would-be speakers rose, including the mover, and whilst they wore striving to catch the president’s eye Mr D. Harris Hastings caught his ear with a motion that the Synod adjourn. This, of course, had to be put at once without debate, and it was carried on tho voices.

So tho question stood (or lolled) when the Synod rose at 10 p.ra.