FURTHER ENCROACHMENTS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7974, 4 December 1911, Page 8

FURTHER ENCROACHMENTS

TEETOTAL TEETOTALISM PROCLAIMED MR HAMMOND AND MRS BARTON PROHIBITIONISTS’ MENACE TO RELIGION. Everybody must now have seen the cartoon representing the prohibitionists trying to force down tho statue to Liberty by the thin cud of the wedge of no-license. That picture is a powerful representation of the designs of the prohibitionists. When no-lioense is attained, absolute prohibition is the next step; and the present exemptions for tire importation of alcohol and alcoholic beverages for manufacturing, medicinal, and sacramental purposes will be abolished. The encroachments of the prohibitionists have been alarming, and they will stop short of nothing save an organised reign of tyranny and terror to carry out their irreligious, unscrupulous, and nefarious intentions. They first protested against no-license meaning no liquor in no-license districts; but since then they have oast prudence to tho winds, and have forced the Legislature to make (as Lincoln said, a crime of that which is no crime), the importation, manufacture, sale, and use of alcoholic beverages criminal acts, punishable by fine and imprisonment. And although the present exceptions are for manufacturing, medicinal, and sacramental purposes, these exceptions are- already proposed to be withdrawn. Leaving out of our consideration the necessity of tho importation for manufacturing and medicinal purposes, and any comment upon the flagrant injustice of the proposition and tho consequent deterrent it would he in operation to the industrial life of the country and the suffering and inconvenience it would entail to people generally, we would for a moment briefly speak of tho religious intolerance the proposal to prohibit the use of alcoholic liquors for sacramental purposes when the religious ordinances of several churches would be made altogether without meaning by this new species of religious intolerance now so insidiously . proclaimed by the prohibitionists. What has given occasion to raise this point at the present I moment is the fact that the Rev. B. S. Hammond, the highly paid agent of the prohibitionists, a gentleman who is earning more money by advocating rabid prohibition than he could possibly earn in his clerical vocation, has become the mouth-piece of the prohibitionists on this particular point. We have seen how Sirs Helen Barton, another prohibitionist lecturer, would not allow a drop of brandy to be administered to her dying child—she said she would rather let it die than save its life by brandy—Justice Bring saying she would in doing that be guilty of manslaughter—and that m itself would show that there is no limit—not even death itself—to the extent to which the prohibitionists would lead or force the people to go in their hatred of alcoholic ’'beverages. ,

“APPROXIMATELY CORRECT.” The Rev. Mr Hammond had submitted to him a number of questions at Ashburton on November 18th by an elector';— ' \ Elector: Does the prohibition party contend that alcoholic liquor is an evil in itself? Rev. Hammond: Yes.

Elector: Are you aware, Mr Hammond, of the three exemptions in the present prohibition law ? Mr Hammond : I am aware of them; yes. Elector: If Dominion prohibition is carried .will the prohibitionists agitate for tho abolition of these exemptions? Sir Hammond: No. Elector: Why not ? You say liquor is an evil in itself. Mr Hammond: Because when we carry prohibition, a few years after we will have the majority of people educated to the extent that the doctors will throw alcohol but for medicinal purposes; the churches will not use it for sacramental purposes (as, indeed, my own church does not now); and it will not be necessary for industrial purposes. : .When interviewed in Dunedin, Mr G. B. Nicholls, another prohibitionist being present, as. to the accuracy of this report of his meeting at Ashburton, the Rev. Mr Hammond reaffirmed the position, and declared the report to he “approximately correct.” WHAT THIS MEANS TO RELIGION. The Rev. P. Aubry, S.M., in offering objections to this. latest aspect of tho prohibition political agitation, observes that “there is more than the .right of using wine in moderation involved, there is the obligation of using, it for religious purposes, and that obligation has been laid upon Ml Christians by Christ Himself; “ This do in remembrance of me.” “ Whatever may be the, theories of certain divines pretending to erudition and stating that the wine used in Judea in the time of Christ was unfermented, the fact remains that, from time immemorial down to the present, fermented wine has been and is used for sacramental purposes.” The Rev. P. Aubry further points out that nnfermented wine soon becomes sour and unfit for human use; and ho affirms that, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, “the placing of obstacles to the possession of wine is equivalent to interdicting the Mass or making its celebration very difficult. The law at present provides that wine can be obtained for religious purposes. How long will this guarantee, last? The. authors of this promise may withdraw it, if an excuse is found. Behold the consciences of the Catholic people at the mercy of a vote of Parliament, or at the mercy of, a majority who object to the religions sacraments of the Church. Catholics who' vote for prohibition or regard it with favour, beware. Prohibition with regard to wine may lead to prohibition of the Mass at a future date. Religious persecution may come in through the prohibition door.”

FURTHER MENACES TO RELIGION At the Town ..Hall last evening some of the so-called religious leaders of Wellington were touting for prohibition and no-licenso as the saviour of the individual from the sin of drunkenness and the saviour of the nation from all iniquities. They were preaching, to our mind, religious suicide and degradation. If prohibition is n saviour from sin, we have only to extend the application of prohibition to all sins, and we have a righteous people! What, then. is. the need for the churches? Where is the necessity for ministers of religion? Their churches are emptying now: they will he empty altogether when prohibition and no-license, the molten calves of their erection, become accepted as the saving health of the individual and the nation item all gin.

Distinguished divines all over the world have exposed the fallacious, nay, dangerous, character of thus, Aaron-like, elevating prohibition and no-license as brazen images having any healthgiving or moral potentiality. The Rev. P. Aubry, S.M., sees not only irreligion in the prohibition movement but religious persecution imminent, and the “New Zealand Tablet,” in criticising the Bev. Hammond’s utterances, sums up the position for the Catholic Church in these words: “We have no desire to press these utterances more than the situation warrants. We content ourselves with saying that the bare possibility of being deprived of Mass is a prospect which no good Catholic can regard with equanimity.” And no man who has any regard for true religion can regard the prohibition propaganda as being other thair barren of any moral or religious force. It is a mere political ferment of worst type. For so-called religious leaders to put prohibition and no-licenso forward for the salvation of the people is little short of blasphemous. It is, certainly a degradation of religion, and a lowering of their profession as ministers of which they ought to be, iii, the "writer’s opinion, profoundly ashamecj. *