Readers Write

Northern Advocate, 9 January 1940, Page 6

Readers Write

Mr Keay seems to have some' strange ideas on the subject of virtue, apparently regarding

PRAYER AND VIRTUE.

it as mere cold,- intellectual calculation.

I wonder how he satisfies the equation in the case of mother love —either animal or human. Does he seriously suggest that it is lavished as the result of a calculated quid pro quo to come? The only return a true mother seeks is to behold the happiness of her offspring. The cause of good-fellowship (in its highest sense) depends on something more than brains. Intellect will serve the rogue just as well as the saint. • '

New Zealand, in planning for the first Sunday of the Centennial Year to render public thanks to God for the blessings she has enjoyed, is giving recognition to the belief that the most sacred possessions of life owe their origin to something that is not to be found in the intellect.

Mr Keay says prayer is useless, but can he any more avoid an earthquake or a flood by the “wise initiative” of the intellect?

Fhysical force alone can counter physical force. Man’s intellect shows him how to use with his body the force at his command; and hig ethics, which coincide with his virtues, guide the mind, that controls the body and guard against transgress of higher laws, not comprehended by mere intellect.

Mr Keay commends virtue, but denies us the great means of developing and sustaining it. Does he think it can be furnished at any time by act of Parliament?

Study is the mental effort by which the mind is developed in knowledge; prayer is the spiritual effort by which the soul is enriched in virtues. Mr Keay renounces prayer, and therefore the true worship of God and the pursuit of virtue. Russia and Germany today are barbaric, not through the lack of intellectual power, but because they are materialistic, trusting to their brains alone to guide them to make a success of life. They have jettisoned all ideas of virtue, and, having given over the reins to the lust for power, they have no steadying influence of grace to restrain themselves from running into all forms of devilishness.

Now, if Mr Keay’s reasoning is correct, the admittedly great intellects of these peoples should warn them of the error of their ways, as he suggests has occurred with England.' But we find that the only thing that counts with Hitler and Stalin is “success,” no matter how they come by it. Their creed is materialism. When Mr Keay renounces prayer, the builder of virtues, and stakes his all on the “wise initiative” of the intellect, leaving the virtues to take care of themselves, he too, is unwittingly drifting towards materialism. — “OBSERVER.”

“Freedom Farmer’s” letter in your issue of January 4 made pleasant reading to many of us who are at present too busy in

IN DEFENCE the cowshed and OF FARMERS’ hayfield to spare UNION CHIEFS, milch lime to the

meandorings o f Labour followers. I would point out, however, that “Farmer” and “A Farmer Again,” in their personal attacks upon Mr Briscoe Moore, are merely voicing their own opinion, while Mr Briscoe Moore is the official spokesman for the Whangarei branch of the Farmers' Union.

Now, “Farmer Again,” the thousands of working men who leave shortly, or are bound for unknown destinations in defence of their country, are certainly not worrying about the opinions of yourself, or Mr Moore, or even the farmers’ broad acres.

If you were personally acquainted with numbers of these chaps, or had conversed with them upon the subject, you would not have made your suggestion. Like “Freedom Farmer” I have been compelled to liken your correspondence to Hitler’s propaganda. How contradictory also are some of your statements.

You admit you are attacking the leaders of the Farmers’ Union. You also accuse them of inciting the farmer to imagine he is being badly treated; in other words, to imagine black is black, when it is really white. Believe me, the majority of farmers think for themselves. Paid employees depend upon ethers for a means to a livelihood, but farmers depend upon their own initiative and sense of responsibility. It is unnecessary for union leaders to incite them to discontent, though the leaders who know so well the actual position musf defend them against the bitter and unreasonable attacks of individuals like yourself. I desire to draw your attention to your closing statement in a letter in the December 27 issue of the “Advocate” : “Political propaganda in peacetime can be forgiven; in wartime it is a terrible thing.” I suggest that you try on your own cap, and find how neatly it fits.—“ANOTHER FARMER” (Taurikura).