LICENSING REFORM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19198, 14 June 1924, Page 15

LICENSING REFORM.

Srn, Mr Irwin says prohibition is op posed to the teaching' of Jeans Christ. How your correspondent arrives at this conclusion it is difficult to understand since Christ’s teachings aro one long series of ‘■Then shalt nots.” The principle of prohibition finds its sanction in the first book of tile Tsible, .and prohibitions on lilierty of word and action continue right throughout the Boo', of Books. The supremo example of such prohibitions is to be found in the Ton Commandments so that, contrary to being opposed to Christian teaching, prohibition is in exact accordance will) those teachings. The reason Christ did not. pronounce judgment on the liquor traffic is because it was not then the organised extensive evil it, is in civilised countries to-day. Neither did Christ condemn that such an omission gives sanction to the traffic as carried on to-day. Christ could hardly condemn an evil which did not exist at Ills time. But He did condemn the evils of drinking in so far as they existed at that time. To insinuate, as 'Mr Irwin docs, that Christ would uphold the present-day liquor traffic or that He would merely repeat the old platitudes of self-control. etc., is to insult Christians and Christianity generally Mr Lrwin makes an unhappy blunder, in a series of blunders, when bo quotes the need of love for one’s neighbour as i Christian duty, since the whole prohibition movement is based on precisely this text. Concern for the drinker (and more particularly Ills wife and familyl are the main motives which actuate the prohibitionists . in their efforts to rid the world of the liquor traffic. Mr Irwin says that Christ often assisted in giving pleasures, but can your corro spondont .give mo an example where Christ assisted in giving- pleasure where that pleasure reacted to the injury of others? Your correspondent should call to mind the first lines of the Lord’s Prayer if he seriously contends that Christian teaching does not ask for the removal of temptation. I think the sentence “Lead us not into temptation” is sufficient proof of what is meant in this respect. ft is in Mr Irwin’s closing paragraph that he makes his biggest mistake. Where he says: “If there wore no temptations to resist there would be no need of selfdenial. etc.” As your correspondent evidently meant this to apply .to prohibition I would ask him a -nestion: Who is the person who is strengthened by the temptations to drink? The moderate man, when he wishes to drink his glass, does so and then “leaves it alone.” mid therefore is not subjected to any temptation. As the drunkard gives way to the temptation whenever he is able to purchase drink, it is clear that his character is not strengthened by resistance to tlie drink craving. Then there is the prohibitionist. He certainly is not tempted at all since he has absolutely no desire tor drink at all. Who, then, is benefited by resisting the temptation to drink? Much more could bo said on this point, but sufficient has been said to expose the absurdity and wickedness of trying to use Christ’s teachings to bolster up the liquor traffic, as Mr Irwin endeavours to do. The workings of the present-day liquor traffic cannot by the farthest stretch of imagination find any sanction in Christian teachings, but its daily working violates the spirit of love, mercy, and justice upon which Christian religion is built. —1 am, etc., Biberty. Sir, —I a.m sorry that Mr Seddon appears not to have understood my letter which appeared in your issue of the 7t,h, although ! am confident that 90 per font, of your readers do understand it. lie surely cannot believe that the only way to pursue happiness, or to attain to it, is in drinking alcoholic liquor.—l am. etc., Jno. A. D. Adams. Juno 12.

TO TIIK EDITOR