Readers Write

Northern Advocate, 10 January 1938, Page 4

Readers Write

I notice th'at a film is at present, being made of Northland’s scenic; beauties, towns, industries, etc. I wonder if anyone has FILM OF OUR thought of including GIRLS? in the film pictures of some of our prettiest girls in typical beach scenes? If anything would advertise Northland this would. While people will look at and be interested in any given scene, they will remember it far more if there is a pretty girl in the foreground. ADVERTISE NORTHLAND.

I would like to ask your correspondent, “Fairplay,” a few simple questions, which I have no doubt he

will have no MR COATES AND trouble at all in DAIRYFARMER. answering (seeing that he is sUch a zealous defender of Mr Coates’ past lapses) and thus allay ‘any small doubts which thousands in this country harbour in regard to Mr Coates’ past performances. Firstly, was Mr Coates’ choice of la Government nominee for the Dairy Board years ago in the interests of i cow “cockie” or in the interests ofj the people to whom that nominee be-| longed—the merchants of Tooley] Street? \ Secondly, when Mr Coates dictator-; ially handed the cow “cockies” over Ur the tender mercies of the merchants of Tooley Street, whose interests had he in mind, ours or theirs? Thirdly, is Mr F. R. Ellison, London manager of the National Dairy Association, wrong, when he says that the elimination of f.o.b. selling, and sales through brokers, is an lact upon which our Government deserves the highest congratulations? Whose interests had Mr Coates in mind when he said the opposite years ago? Fourthly, why did Mr Coates issue a pamphlet at the expense of the State advocating quotas on butter when England had not asked for one? also? No wonder the farmers grasped Was that as “save the dairyfarmers tat the guaranteed price straw, and no wonder they needed it so badly. Fifthly, when Mr Coates and Co. imposed the exchange against British manufacturers (despite Mr Downie Stewart’s pleadings), thereby causing ill will against our- exports and against the very agreements he had just made with England (Ottawa), was that to save us also? Shall we call him the “Saviour of the Dairyfarmer”?—REFOßM.

[Readers are urged to make use of this Correspondence Column of the “Northern Advocate,” and are requested to confine their letters to a maximum, of 300 words.]

The religions -in - schools spate now running in your columns is very edifying and amusing. One of the disputants says, inter RELIGION IN alia: “We want a new SCHCkQLS. religion, free from all sectarian bias that does not carp or quarrel about Christ.’' All I can say about that is that the person who advocates that ideal takes on a large order. The Reformation has as its aftermath divided Christianity up into 220 warring sects, and how are they to unite when they disagree on faith land dogma? The Bible in schools will never do it. But these religious people are insatiable, The various brands of religion are taught to the youngsters every Sunday. They have, per ratio, devotional services every day throughout the national stations, with the Friendly Road of “Uncle Scrim,” by way of good measure. Now they want the State to take on this job as well. I cordially agree with Mr Hayward that it is the State’s duty to teach that two and two make four. Faith and dogma belong to the Church, and not the State.

The way out is to give these people a denominational act with a State subsidy to those denominations who desire to have religion taught in their own schools, leaving the present Act to stand as it is. In 1874 I was a boy of 12 years apprenticed to the printing trade. I set up the whole of an Act, entituled the Denominational Education Act, brought down by a former Premier of New Zealand, then Governor of Western Australia, the late Sir Frederick Weld.

The Act worked very well for 'a time till the sects it was to benefit were not satisfied about the way the religious exercises were rtaught. This brought about more sectarian disputes, with the result that people sent their children to the State schools, and the vote allowed for religious teaching was 'allowed to lapse. Then with the advent of responsible Government, the Act was repealed.

The only people who would benefit from an Act of this sort would be the Roman Catholic community, who consider that a religious education must go hand in hand with the secular part. The present system of education makes these people cany a double burden of taxation that falls unjustly on; [their shoulders. Tie other churches are very unfair when they want the State to teach religion without giving the Roman Catholic community an equity that is their right,—CARLTON HOBBS. -