“UNCLEAN” ANIMALS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23516, 2 June 1938, Page 9

“UNCLEAN” ANIMALS

ro rut EDITOR Sir, —I have no intention to continue taking part in this discussion, as I consider the egotistic and dogmatic opening sentence of the letter by “ Profanum Vulgus,” in which he states that neither I, “ Maran-atha ” nor the general public seems to know the meaning of the words “ clean ” and “ unclean,” and that the word “ unclean ” is not meant in any hygienic sense. I consider that sufficient to damn him as unfit to discuss the subject. Why was the consumption of “ unclean ” animals forbidden if it were not for health considerations? Then “Profanum Vulgus” tries to prove that the real meaning Is found in a spiritual or ritualistic or religious sense by producing a long string of quotations of degenerate nations worshipping the unclean animals, special mention being made of the swine, the camel and the coney, which was believed to have been originally human and spoken of as being “ the brother of man.” Of course, that is all that is required for “Profanum Vulgus ” to believe that the coney is one of the progenitors of man. His letter, I suspect, is the thin edge of the evolution wedge to introduce his favourite theme. He says: “ Your correspondents cannot hope to get anywhere without an anthropological understanding of many such things as I have dealt with here.” I consider it is worse than useless to enter into a discussion with a person who has to resort to so many hypothetical “ ifs,” “ perhapses,” “ possibilities,” “ maybes ” and “ probabilities.” If he is not ashamed of himself and his writings, let him come out into the open and not take refuge in a pen name that does no credit to him.—l am. etc.. James Braid. 19 Stafford avenue.