BAN ON PRAYERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21010, 26 April 1930, Page 25

BAN ON PRAYERS.

ARCHBISHOP’S STRONG WORDS. THE RUSSIAN PERSECUTIONS. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, March 13. Lord Thomson (the Air Minister) partly revealed the attitude of the Govern* ment in the matter of the ban on prayers for persecuted Christians in Russia jthen he took part in the debate on the subject in the House of Lords. . “ The action of the Government in the matter has been both unfortunate and unnecessary,” said the Archbishop of Canterbury. “The tragedy of it all is tha* the vehement anti-religious propaganda. and oppression are part of .the settled ana declared policy of the Soviet Government, but it is wholly unjustified and unjustifiable to say that this call for prayer to the people has any sort of connection witn anv political controversy whatever. “ I think it is very unfortunate that the Government, by its own language, should have attached a political character to prayers which were never intended to have such an association. In the circumstances the Soviet Government will not be averse to making use of the language which the Government have used.. 1 hey will perhaps be entitled to say, in Jioir characteristic manner, * All this business about prayers from these English people, what is it but politics? . Why, their own Government has said it is so. So far as I know, this is the first instance, certainly in recent years, in which the Government directly, and not through the proper spiritual authorities, have issued orders about the prayers to be offered in the forces. CRAgg STU p ir , ITY . The archbishop, before dealing with the Government, gave a rap to the Duke of Atholl, who, he said, “ has not made my task any easier by. some of the irrclevancies with which his speech was both encumbered and spoilt.” The Duke of Atholl, in his opening speech, said: <f The whole question has been pushed into the political arena by what I can only term the crass stupidity of a very stupid Government. The Government and the heads of the three lighting services are the laughing stock of every man in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. These extraordinary instructions wore presumably issued for the sake of earning a good mark from ike SoVlfit. The duke read a supplementary order permitting all ranks, not compulsorily paraded, to attend voluntary intercession services, and he observed: “ Its phraseology is more like a test for drunkenness, A CONDEMNATION OF THE SOVIET. Lord Thomson, who listened coldly to this tirade, replied; “The Duke of Atholl, having failed in any valid political point, has fallen back on mere abuse. What right have we at parade services, attended compulsorily by the troops, to prescribe a form of prayer which, however gracious and properly worded, is a condemnation of the present system of government in Russia? “Russian propagandists, and they aie most hostile to the Socialists, would say: ‘Ah! The hypocrites! The Imperialists. Under the cloak of religion they ate preaching war against Russia. -they ate inflaming the minds of the soldiers, the sailors, and the airmen through religious services against the institutions m Russia! ' It would be foolish and untrue, but can any one deny that such an accusation would he made; Lord Thomson insisted strenuously that the Cabinet had no desire to mix politics and religion, and he added that the prayers would only be forbidden at services conducted in churches provided out of public money for the special use ot the troops. The Government did not wish to impinge on the spiritual authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but they had to take the political question into account in reaching their decision* One can quite understand the dilemipa in which the Government were placed. . It was probably not so much the Russian propagandists whom they feared, but a section of the British Labour Party, wko would raise the cry ; “The Imperialists. MR SHAW QUESTIONED, The question was raised in the House of Commons by Mr Marjoribanks, who was told by Mr Shaw {Secretary for War), that the Chaplain-general was not consulted before the Army Council issued instructions against intercessory services at church parades. Mr Marjoribanks: Is it not usual 1.0 consult the Chaplain’s Board on these occasions? . . ~ Mr Shaw: This decision was of a political and not of a religious nature (Cries of “Oh.”) . Sir George Hamilton: Has the Uiap-lain-gcneral tendered Ills resignation. Mr Shaw: As far as I know No. A Labour member: Accept it if he docs. The Daily Chronicle learns from a chaplain that the resignation of the Chaplain-general, if confirmed, will not cause surprise in the array. . How mucu longer are the churches, including we chaplains, going to take lying down, the Government affront that prayer is t a matter to be decided by polities. ue said “ But there is, we feel, even more behind it than the dubbing of prayer ns polities. Those Labour people have as their aim the abolition of chaplains.