RELIGIOUS BELIEF IN CANDIDATES A PROTEST.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7002, 25 July 1884, Page 3

RELIGIOUS BELIEF IN CANDIDATES A PROTEST.

TO THE EDITOK,

Sir,—lnasmuch as I have not during the late contest troubled you in any way with my views concerning the religious qualifications of the respective candidates, perhaps you will permit me to enter a protest against some of the sentiments expressed in your leader published 'in yesterday's Otago Daily Times—(l refer to the latter part of your leader). It appears to me that you have wholly misrepresented the views of those who, like myself, are disposed to attach much weight to the religious element in the character of a member of the Legislature.I do not for a moment imagine that you wittingly misrepresent us, but for all practical purposes tho effect is the same as if you did. I shall therefore try in a few sentences to explain our position, and, if possible, to convince your readers that we are neither co foolish nor so thoughtless a3 you appear to think us to ba. It is admitted that some of us are just as incapable as our neighbours, and others of us influenced by motives as mixed and unworthy as those by which our neighbours are influenced. At the same time some of us are as able to grasp the situation as our neighbours are, and there is no reason why anyone should ba offended at us when we try to give effect to our convictions in a lawful way. I quite agree with you that religion ought not to be made a " waiting-maid of politics " and a " stepping-stone to political adventure," and it would indeed be scandalous to support the •" pretensions " of candidates by declarations of religious beliaf. And I can think of nothing more offensive than " dragging " religion iato politics or into anything else. I will go further, and say that I and others who think with me aa cordially detest carpet baggers and placehunters as yqu can possibly do. Such loafers are a serious evil in " the House," whatever be their beliefs—religious, irreligious, or otherwise. All this, however, and "much more which might be said to the same effect, is away from the point, which is, in effect, merely this—to wit; Ought we to be influenced in all the affairs of life by our religious beliefs? You ar&well aware,that it is often made a reproach to us that we are not so influenced, and until some* ona categorically denies that we ought to be" influenced in everything by our Christianity, I snail assume that it is proper to be ao influenced. Now, if such be the case, where is the logic or sense of saying that Christian principle should show itself all along a man's life and suddenly oease at political matters? Oan you point to any so-called secular thing which so directly affects our moral and religious life as legislation does ? Laws may and do encroach on ground which we regard as covered by morals and religion : witness, e.g., the Contagious Diseases Acts, Sunday Acts, Blasphemy Acts, and Education and other Acts. Now, Sir, will any sane man ?ay that we, knowing these things, and believing such legislation to be all-powerful for good or_ evil, ought not to ba anxious about the convictions of those to. whom it is entrusted ? If we were Protectionists you would rightly call us fools if we entrusted cur interests to Freetraders, and vice versa. Similarly, you might well esteem us fools if we entrusted legislation affecting our religion to men who repudiate its claims.

I suppose it is thought that those for whom, with myself, I speak, thinfe it is enough if a man is only orthodox in his views. Now that is absurd, and needs no refutation. The question is not, Does religious belief, in our estimation, qualify a man to represent us in Parliament? but, Does want of belief not disqualify him ?—a very different question indeed. What we affirm is, that while reverence for religion is not a sufficient qualification, no other qualification ig sufficient where this reverence does not exist. .

I have many reasons for not being aorry at the result, of tha election in East Ward ; at the same time-1 am of opinion that in refusing to give electors an opportunity of expressing their views on the religious aspect of the case you acted prejudicially to a large number of electors who were interested in that aspect of the case and in no other. My purpose, I may in conclusion say, is, in conjunction with others, to take such steps as shall in future Elections give effect to our views in a manner thai cannot ba ignored.—l am, &c,

J. Wood,

Dunedin, July 23,