PROHIBITION.

Southland Times, Issue 22731, 6 November 1935, Page 11

PROHIBITION.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Under the above heading a letter signed “Lover of Liberty” criticizes the preaching of Prohibition by ministers from the pulpit. Certain members of the clergy, no doubt with the best of intentions, take a very prominent stand in the advocation of Prohibition, but are inclined to allow their enthusiasm to override their judgment. Their doctrine is that Liquor is a curse, that all who deal in it are social outcasts to be despised and avoided, and that those who partake of it are fostering a trade in league with the devil. They further contend that the consumption of liquor can result only in shame, misery and crime.- Intentionally or otherwise, they refrain from putting the true position before those they seek to influence. If we credit these members of the clergy with average intelligence, we are justified in assuming that they realize that it is the abuse and not the normal use of liquor that is harmful, but they do not voice this fact. The preaching of temperance in all things is acceptable, and an influence for good, but a dictatorial attitude concerning what refreshments may be consumed by them is resented by temperate and intelligent members of society, although it may be accepted by impressionable people or those lacking average mentality. The two latter thus become convinced that they are a superior type, the white sheep of the community. They invest themselves with a halo of righteousness which culminates in intolerance and an utter contempt for the views or reasoning of others. What effect is the preaching of Prohibition by clergymen likely to have on susceptible young people. We know that a great majority of citizens, including many who in the past- have voted for no-license, partake of liquor in their homes or elsewhere, without in any way impairing their health, capability or respectability. Among these are the ideal parents, loved and respected to the point of worship by their offspring. The clergyman, whom the young people have been taught to revere, speaks of “the accursed drink as an evil to be shunned by all respectable people. The children, with the knowledge that one or both parents occasionally partake of liquor, hear this strong condemnation which is an undoubted reflection on the behaviour of their parents. They are thus confronted with the problem of criticizing the habits of theii’ parents, and forming a judgment thereon. The plastic minds of the children may be influenced by preachers to regard liquor as an abomination. If so, they are then compelled mentally to condemn their parents who use it. Can our Prohibition clergymen deny, or approve of, this fact, and what do the parents think of it? If on the other hand, children believe the habits of their parents to be beyond reproach—l hope and believe they do—the clergymen must fall from grace and his influence for good in other directions must suffer as a consequence. No one will deny the wisdom of clergymen preaching against intemperance, but the preaching of Prohibition is not approved by any law-abiding and self-respecting citizen. He resents the dictatorial attitude of others who assume the right to compel him to live according to their opinion of what is good or bad for him. If one-third of the adult population considers a law is unjust, it will break that law without compunction or conscience remorse, and the breaking of one law leads to the breaking of others. America has given us ample and incontrovertible proof of this fact.—l am, “MODERATE.” Invercargill, November 4.