SUNDAY SPORT.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18343, 1 June 1931, Page 9

SUNDAY SPORT.

(To the Editor.) Sir,- —Mr de la Mare’s letter is strongly reminiscent of the involved statements which my old professor of logic used to give to his students with the instruction to explode the immense fallacies therein concealed, the, -only difference being that your correspondent has not been as artistic in concealing the fallacies. Let me clear the air. I do not “deliberately shirk" or evade any question. If I am unable to meet the argument I will frankly say so, for the discovery of truth and not the mere winning of an argument is the aim of my thinking. Again, Mr de la- Mare says that I argue that because the Parliament of New Zealand opens with prayer tills is a Christian country. ‘ I said no'tliihg of..the sort. My point was that the fact of Parliament' so doing is evidence that this country is Christian, If it is not, why use the prayer at all? The fact is that your correspondent i.l missing the first rule of logic—that in ail argument the terms must be strictly defined. . This country is not as Christian as I would like it to be, but, using the word in its wide and general sense, It certainly is Christian. It Is certainly not atheist, nor Mohammedan, nor Confucian, nor is it rationalist in the narrow use of that term.

I am very glad to know that Mr de la Mare agrees with me that I have the right to protest against, to fight and prevent if possible, the use of domain grounds for Sunday sport. That is what I am doing. In his first letter he tells me, in effect, that as far as Sunday tennis on the domain land is concerned I should mind my own business, but now he concedes me tile right to stop the thing if I can. I shall certainly try. I can honestly say, Sir, that I im very disappointed in Mr de la'Mare’s reply. In his first letter there was an Implied challenge for me to state my case against Sunday, sport, and in my reply I endeavoured to meet it. Ono naturally expected him to give a constructive reply, giving his own point of view; but all that he has done is to give a weak and rambling criticism of two points In my letter, I am particularly sorry for his omission to satisfy my expectations of him, since for the next two weeks I shall be in Wellington, and therefore will be unable to maintain this correspondence. May I, in conclusion, thank you most sincerely for the forbearance you have shown to me and to my opponents in this now protracted correspondence? —I am, etc., LAWRENCE M. ROGERS.