PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20916, 22 September 1939, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

FINANCING THE WAR (To the Editor) Sir.—As democracy is quite sincere and honest in its desire to maintain the principle of liberal thought, free speech and the right of assembly, together with individual freedom, I submit to you the following:— (1) The Government exercise its power, and thus create all the necessary financial credit (debt free and Interest-free money) for all national purposes. (2) Institutions that control finance and armaments should be nationally owned. (3) The principle that human welfare and human lives must come before financial interests must be enforced to the very letter. (4) And above all, no involving this generation and future generations in a huge “war debt” by borrowing the banks’ costless-to-create money at interest.. Finally an interest-bearing war debt must be outlawed by every thinking man and woman.—l am, etc., HARRY WOODRUFFE. Auckland, Sept. 20. WHERE DO THE CHURCHES STAND? (To the Editor) Sir,—The other day one of our New Zealand publications had on its billboard a photograph, that of a clergyman. The collar was the identification mark, the face being mercifully screened from view by—a pas mask! In his mouth was a trumpet, bugle, or some such instrument. The inference was that he was sounding “The Call to War.” There are many millions of peoples of all faiths who since the great catastrophe of 1914 have clung pathetically to their belief in “The Church.” Surely, they have said, with all the added knowledge of the intervening years, the Church would not again sanction and participate In another mass murder, disguised as patriotism. The Pope, the archbishops, nonconformists of all shades and grades—surely some of them would rise in their righteous anger and say, “In God’s name—No!” But the churches as a whole are strangely silent. Here and there a brave individual voice is raised, to be suppressed as “dangerous” by those in authority. Are we then to conclude that the so-called Christian churches of the world are again, as before, cn the “side of the Big Battalions” ready to sell their immortal souls, and the souls of the countless millions who own allegiance to them, for fllUiy lucre? It was said by some of those responsible for the Great War into which we 'stumbled” (as they phrased it) in 1914, that it could have been prevented by the united action of the Christian churches of the world. Then what of today, with its more awful possibilities ? Are we to be forced at long last to the conclusion that the Church does not believe in its heart what through all the years it has been preaching with its mouth? If war is wrong—if war is the negation of all that the Church stands for—then why not do right? Surely the power of God is mightier than the puny “power” of all the armies of the world I Some say, “Why does not God stop the war? Why should He? God did not make the war. Every man and woman of us is responsible—not God. Man "made in the image of God” is endowed with free will and the power to choose whom he will serve—the God of peace or the devil of war. To take away that power and to decide the issue for mankind would make of our God a dictator. And we are quite willing to risk our very civilisation for the ending of such things. At least that is what we are told. So we have (in England) people praying in their churches with gas masks in their hands. Christianity in a gas mask I What a confession of the absolute failure of our so-called Christianity after nearly 2000 years!—l am, etc., MASKS OFF. Hastings, Sept. 19. (“ Masks Off” has entirely missed the point,” said a churchman, when the substance of the above letter was referred to him. "The Church does not sanction war except in an extreme emergency when the Church and Christianity themselves are menaced by the powers of evil. If the Church declared that there should be no war, and if the nations which still bold Christianity dear were to lay down their arms the Church and Christianity would disappear from the face of the earth. The Church has no control over the forces that have caused the present war; therefore.it is compelled to ‘sanction’ hated war in defence of the principles of Christianity. If the Church had the requisite power to change the attitude of those who have plunged the world into war, and had failed in that duty, then ‘Masks Off’ might, with justification ask what the Church is doing. The Church# is adjured to defend the right and the faith, and in refusing to condemn participation in war for the defence ol Christian principles it is performing an obvious duty. The only alternative is to allow the forces of evil to overrun the world. Is not the of a minister of religion sounding the ‘Call to War’ to prevent the otherwise inevitable destruction of Christianity wholly consistent with the wider conception of Christian faith? It simply is not the fault of Christianity that it has been called upon to defend itself against extinction. Murderous warfare shocks the Christian sense to its depths, but the alternative is clearly the triumph of the forces of evil, and in that sense it might be definitely unchristian to stand idly by whil-3 a power, wholly beyond control, topples the temple of Christianity into the darkness of oblivion. Yes, the Church is on the side of the ‘Big Battalions,’ the big battallions of Chris’, ‘n iom, fighting for right against wrong, and may the knowledge of that fact be a comfort and a source of spiritual strength to those who are actively defending the faith.”—Ed. Times.)

BTREET NAMES (To the Editor) Sir, —I notice by a paragraph in your paper tonight that the Hamilton Borough Council will welcome suggestions of names for the new streets in the Hayes Paddock State building scheme. Here is a chance for some of your verbose correspondents. Your correspondent, R. G. Young, for instance, I am sure would bke to see the mo6t important street named Douglas Street, while J. Moody, F. Fleetwood and many other Labour supporters who idolise Mr Savage, Mr Lee, Mr Semple and Mr Nash in a similar way to which German callow youths idolise Hitler, Goering, etc., would, I am sure, like the streets named Savage Street, Nash Street, Lee Avenue, Semple Street and the like. An appropriate name for the centre road which lias been scooped out by bulldozers, would be Bulldozers Avenue. Then, of course, there are all those old-timers who would like to see the names of prominent Hamiltonians perpetuated in streets, and Caro Avenue, or Worley Street are two suggestions, as these two men have done a great deal to advance the scheme. Perhaps one of the streets could be sealed with tar from the Hamilton gasworks and named Lafferty Avenue. Willi such intense interest being taken in international affairs today the council should consider naming the streets with an international flavour. The wettest street might be called Umbrella Avenue, while the moat dangerous might be called Hitler’s Corner or Warsaw Point. The meeting place of all the old cronies could bo called Munich Place. The council has such a wide choice that I do not know why it requires suggestions.—l am, etc., STREET NAMER. . Hamilton, Sept. 21. NAZI AND OOMMUNIBT (To the Editor) Sir,—ln view of recent happenings, the fidelity of Nazi and Communist alike to their respective ideologies, which are essentially diametric opposites if we are to place any reliance on the vituperations of Hitler, is comical. Now the party pundits of Germany and Russia, including those of the Communist International, will be making a garbled apologia for the negotiating and bringing into force of a union which even a few months ago it would have been treason to suggest. The mentality of the Communist is amazing. He will not hesitate to deride and disparage the wicked capital-, ist as an enemy to mankind; he has attacked the Church as an evil institution of misleading mysticism; he has described the Nazi as an oppressor of the proletariat, and a propagator of vicious capitalism. Yet, strange to say, he now finds the once-detested Nazi a comforting bedfellow—for a consideration, of course. He has in Great Britain a good old scape-goat for most of the world’s evils. In fact, if I see the matter clearly, she has been a convenient target for most of those countries which have grievances of some sort. But let us take another look at this political monstrosity, the Communist. He will decry every form of government (with the exception of his own) as “imperialistic” or "oppressive.” If we put these two political phenomena under the microscope (the Nazi and the Communist) and examine them carefully we will find that their construction is similar. They both make the same peculiar noises; they are both agressive, inconsistent, and altogether detestable creatures. Now there is a nigger, and a big, black ugly one at that, in the woodpile of international power polltios, and it is this: In spite of the vituperation and innuendo that Nazi and Communist have hurled at each other with sickening monotony for the past 12 years or so, they both represent dictatorships. They both depend on force, fear and suppression for existence. They are blood brothers. In this dark hour when free and independent peoples are engaged in a terrible struggle to maintain the rule of law and free negotiation in international affairs, the Communist is making some sickening and hypocritical attempts to justify a liaison that places him on the same level as the Nazi whose gangster tactics and concentration camp technique he has consistently declaimed with horror and disgust. Yet these are the very methods employed after the October revolution, and for all we know these are the methods the world hears nothing about today because of the concealing veil of rigid censorship. It will be interesting to see If the goose-stepping coterie from Berlin can accommodate themselves to the comrades of the hammer and sickle. Certainly the union does seem a strange one, yet in reality It is not. Whatever happens, it is our bounden duty to take every step to defend the liberty, right of association and free speech and standard of life that enlightened tolerant democracy has given us. Liberty is a much-bandied word. We have even abused its meaning in our national politics in New Zealand. But today Jt has assumed its true significance. It w'iu rise above a long-drawn-out and miserable story of agony and horror brought about by the Gestapo which is synonomous with Ogpu; by concentration camp which is Just a corollary of Siberia.—l am, etc., A.E.I. Hamilton, Sept. 21.