THE CHURCH AND LABOUR.

Waikato Times, Volume 90, Issue 14029, 4 April 1919, Page 2

THE CHURCH AND LABOUR.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In reply to E. 0. Blamires, in your issue of Ist April, I wish to correct a false impression. He says that my surprise, re sympathy of Church towards Labour, is through lack of information; also that I appear unsympathetic to the Church. In the first place, the Church has never admitted publicly that it had any sympathy with Labour or its policy until this last twelve months, and I think Bishop Averill was the first in Auckland to make a public announcement, when he spoke of a conference with Labour leaders, which I was very pleased to read. As for me being unsympathetic with the Church I hope to live to see the day the Church will change my attitude by changing its policy, and I think lam voicing the opinion of thousands of people. Just take Hamilton alone: how many people attend church out of our population? What is the cause of it? I will give the cause In some further issue. No I am not anti-Christian, I am anti-religious—-the same difference as between a politician and a statesman, which I will not have time to explain just now. As. for your retaliation by placing the blame on the minor section of the Church, I for one have always been hi the minority, like a good many more trying to change the policy for better Christianity, so it seems to me the boot Is on the wrong foot. I know there are good people in every church; but f sneak of the majority. If the Church had voted against the liquor and supported Labour as you say they did, then there should be more prohibitionists and Labour members in Parliament. However, if the Church will start from now on and support Labour, Labour will support the Church. . . . Labour wants to stop the making of criminals, which is no good to God or man. Will you help them? Labour wants to make better citizens by improving the education and the environment. A man with a college education will never want to be a criminal. If Labour members who understood economics were returned to Parliament instead of politicians who do not understand economics, there would be fewer criminals. —I am,etc., ERNEST WATSON. —(We have dominated a portion of our correspondent’s letter, which has no bearing upon the subject of this correspondence.]