SUNDAY RECREATION.

Evening Star, Issue 19840, 13 April 1928, Page 2

SUNDAY RECREATION.

TO THE EDITOK. Sir, —If there is one person less than another in the community who has cause to complain as to tho amount of space ho gets in the newspapers to air his views that person is “ E.W.F.” indeed, many people would regard the Press as over-indulgent so far as he is concerned. How much space does he want? Gratitude is evidently not one of his virtues, and however much he may crave to see his initials in the papers I am inclined to the view that most of your readers are of the opinion that he has nothing to complain about. To suggest that Christian claims get more consideration is hardly correct. Certainly the Press should encourage such a writer as your correspondent. He is hardly just to himself in remaining so long in the background. Did we but know him wo might well take off our hats to such a gifted individual. Has he not silenced all the preachers, not one of them daring to cross swords with such an antagonist? Can it be that he promises to become a present-day Voltaire? Christianity and the Bible he has torn to shreds. Indeed, both to him are as a red rag to a bull. As soon as he sees them he is up and at them. The wonder is that he gives the Bible house room, lie takes pride that this hateful book does not forbid Sunday pleasures. Neither does it say: Thou shillt not gamble, thou slialt not drink fermented or intoxicating liquors, etc., and yet many people abstain from these things because to practise them is not in keeping with the Christian spirit. It is true that Christ gave no command concerning tho Sabbath, but how did Ho observe tho day? Was it to Him a day of pleasure in the general acceptation of tho term? If we say Ho is our example, hew then should Christians observe tho Lord’s Day, which to them is the Sabbath? If Sunday pleasure is right, why place any restrictions at all? is “E.W.F.” prepared to say that he would have it that way?—l am, etc., ' M. April 12.

TO THE EDITORSir, —Au abler pen than mine has fittingly called to order Mr Grainger and his melancholy friends,, but 1 beg space to show the pious one a. fundamental fact which may change his view. We arc in the habit of keeping a series of anniversary days. Christmas Day is one, and I presume my friend Mr Grainger sees no objection to discussing the good things which_ show themselves ornamenting the festive board. His book or some obscure holy writ bids him make merry to celebrate the advent of his Saviour, whom I respect as a very advanced spirit, though by no means being ultra-divine. Very well! How much more free and joy-seeking should we be on that day which celebrates the making of this globe, for that is all Sunday means—a sure, mighty work well done. One law must be as binding as another if it appears in the Bible.

As an example of period English the Bible is an excellent work of reference; as a guide to soul culture it is not worth the paper upon which it is printed, thanks to the translators of the New Testament, who show the most gloriously strong occultist the world has ever had as a meek and broken sacrifice for a sin still enjoyed to the utmost by those loudest in their canting wail. The Bible, new and old, is au affront to an economic God—the half-enlightened gabblings of wandering savages. That is the book Mr Grainger asks civilised man to accept. Strange, too, how those who adhere to it are the men who are only too ready to break its commandments, which should bind and set them apart. Strange that they lack the spiritual sight possessed by others who deny the “ divine ” book, but accept an economic God of a living, vital Universe of never-dying life.—l am, etc., R.M. April 13. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —You will notice “E.W.F.” heads his letter ‘ Sunday Recreation.’ That is what I am trying to discus.?, and only that. In mine of the 7th 1 gave a perfect answer to “E.W.F.” —> Isaiah Iviii., 13-14. He has not found, another answer. I think you have given . “ E.W.F.” a fair share of your space 1 for all the good ho has made of it / “E.W.F.” asks me several questions j which are nothing short of a complete j muddle of what he is trying to speak | about—the Bible. 1 will mention^ particular places, then 1 will leave it to : your readers to judge if lie knows what : lie is speaking about;—Exodus xxxv., 3; Exodus xxxi., 15; John v., 1(1; Matthew xii , 1 to a ; Colossians ii.. 16 ; Numbers xv., 32-36. I don’t find one word in any Scripture he has quoted that says anything about Sunday recreation.—l airi, etc., Andrew M. Gratxgkk. April 13. [This correspondence is now closed.— Ed. E.S.I

TO THE EDITOR* Sir, —I am interested in. if not instructed or convinced by, the explanation advanced by “M.” of that Biblical passage which says that we should not judge another in respect of Sabbath days. As usual the moaning of any passages in the Bible can bo distorted and wrenched from their obvious meanings to suit emergencies. 1 am aware that it is hopeless to attempt to pin a Christian down to a definite point, as he, eel-like, slips away to another text or covers the disputed passage with the most convenient “interpretation.” I will not weary your readers nr take space to comment further on this aspect of the matter. To an average man

these passages mean what they say, but the pious make them mean just what they want them to mean. I heartily agree with“M.” that it is hypocrisy pure and simple to differentiate between the profit nr useful recreation of motor buses, and llie same in respect to picture shows and similar amusements, hut. unlike your correspondent, I would lift the net completely awav from the public, and allow them to please themselves instead of tightening the hold of intolerant superstition. Men should have a day of rest once in seven, but that docs not moan that it must lie Sunday and no other day. There will not be and there is not now any attempt to abolish a day of rest or recreation once a week. That has ample physical, social, and moral authority without outworn theological interferences and support. What is being attempted, and will certainly one day be realised, is that the official day will be utilised in the manner the individual sees fit, and any who cater for him in bis recreation on that day will be granted another in lien of it. If one wants to go to Waipori and similar places and another to some amusement bouse, why not,? Another citizen will make it a sacred duty to stay away from such places, and will religiously attend church or chapel. Again, why not? “Let every man he persuaded in his own mind ” Let mo say here emphatically that this day of rest is not and never was the “ Lord’s Day.” It existed in pagan lands prior to Christianity, and will endure when that religion has followed into the tomb ihe many religions which preceded it. It has, as I said, a physical, moral, and social sanction, hut a divine, theological. or ecclesiastical one—never. If the Christian believer thinks me wrong here we can only agree to differ, and I can only refer him to and request a convincing" answer to my former question; “ AA r hen will our Christian friends learn that the alleged commands given to a barbarous people are not binding on civilised, educated persons in another country 2.000 or 4.000 years after they were supposed to be uttered?” It is high time that'the Christian appropriation of this day was replaced by a common-sense, tolerant, and enjoyable use of Sunday.—l am, etc,, April 13. E.AV.F.