PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20917, 23 September 1939, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters ore welcome, but tor whoso views we bave 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 la complied with, tbeir letters will not appear.

EMERGENCY PRECAUTIONS (To the Editor) Sir, —-In a report which recently appeared in your columns on the work of the various committees set up in Hamilton to act in the case of an emergency, no mention is made of the Women’s Nucleus Committee which has been in existence since the last quarter of 1938. This was formed by permission and direction of His Worship the Mayor of Hamilton and based its operations upon official instructions forwarded by the town clerk. His Worship has received reports from time to time and the committee was given to understand that a public meeting to amplify and extend its necessarily restricted work would be called by him as Mayor of the town. I have always thought the procedure suggested would be that most calculated to promote smooth working.— I am. etc., GIVIS. Hamilton, Sept. 22. CHRISTIANS AND PACIFIBM (To the Editor) Sir, —-In his letter, “Methodist” paints a black picture of the state of affairs under Nazi rule. There is, no doubt, a good deal of truth in his charges against Nakism, but according to the impressions of Germany received by Mr D. V. Bryant and other recent visitors to that unhappy country, there is freedom of worship there but church ministers or members are not allowed to criticise the Government. The supreme evil of Nazism is that it claims for the State absolute authority over its subjects, but is not this what our Government is doing in effect when it prohibits people from opposing its w’ar action? If it is right to advocate pacifism in peace-time it is still right to do so when there is war. From the pacifist point of view war is sinful and must be opposed now just as much as before it commenced. “Methodist” quotes from Ecclesiastes, but He who w’as w’iser than Solomon said nothing about “ a time for war.” On the contrary He tells us to love our enemies and to return good for evil. You have published a sermon by the Rev. H. T. Peat attempting to justify w r ar, and I suggest it would be a good thing to publish a reply by the Rev. O. E. Burton or some other leading pacifist, but anyway I trust that you will allow' me to deal with Mr Peat’s arguments in this letter. Pacifism is the application of the principles of Christ to international relationships. As it is impossible to carry on war in the spirit of love, for love beareth all things without retaliation, pacifists cannot support war in any way. Mr Peat argues that because Christ did not explicitly condemn the military occupation, He sanctioned war. But neither did He explicitly condemn slavery, and it was a long time before Christians in general realised that it was incompatible with Christianity. One of the ordinary duties of the Roman soldiers was to crucify offenders or rebels, but surely Christ did not sanction such cruelty though He suffered it. There is no authority in the New Testament for the statement that our Lord recognised war as an unfortunate and regrettable feature of national policy. The Lord’s message w'as “The Kingdom of God is at hand. Repcait and believe the Gospel,” and He gave the law’s of life for those who would enter that Kingdom, but He gave no sanction for compromises with evil which deny the Kingdom of God. Th« grim realities of evil cannot he overcome by talking of Christ’s teaching as ideals for the future and proceeding to act according to worldly wisdom. It is fear of possible consequences which prevents Mr Peat and the Church generally from urging the nation to take the way of Christ, the way of the Cross, the way of unfailing love. Such fear is sin. Fear has conceived and propagated the idea that the Germans desire w’orld domination. Twenty years ago millions of lives w’ere wasted in an attempt to overcome wrong ideas by physical force, and now it seems that we are no wiser and are again trying to overcome the belief In violence by indulging in violence.—l am, etc.,* W. H. WOOD. Hamilton, Sept. 21.

TREATMENT FOR MU FEVER (To the Editor) Sir,—Recently I bave read in a number of publications advice to farmer* on how to treat milk fever victims, and each one recommends, after Inflating the udder, to tie the teats. That practice is the cause of no end of lost quarters because when the blood circulation functions again the air cannot escape. I have never yet lost & cow with milk fever. My method is: Inflate the udder (not too tightly). Take & halfworn cowshed broom with rough bristles and run it hard from horns to tail along the spine. Keep at it where the cow is unconscious. On the cow coming round don’t try to drench her until she appears to be normal. Anyone wanting to have further Information can have lt by applying to me, also with regard to how 1 have cured mammitis with formalin for the past thirty years.—l am, etc., W. P. SEATON Hamilton, Sept. 21. HOW ABOUT ITT (To the Editor) Sir,—We are informed by many that this conflagration will persist until the year 1949. Tiffs is good news for a number of people whose classifications we will not enumerate. How much of our man-strength this conflict will drain we cannot tell. Assuming that when the settlement Is made the conditions will be similar to Versailles, we may want man-power somewhere about 1969. One suggests that as the wedding market will be prosperous during the next few years, the population production should also be speeded up. We cannot build a nation on pet dogs and sport and our rate of intelligent thinking is not in accordance with the spirit of the age of speed; one therefore must get the facts of a falling birthrate prominently before the public in time so that due arrangements can he made for a desirable end.—l am, etc., POST BELLAMY. Hamilton, Sept. 22. STANDARD OF LIVING (To the Editor) Sir, —Mr Douglaa Seymour in reply to my letter of September 12 has managed to get off on the wrong foot. He quotes me as saying that I am asking him, under threat of a complete denial of the processes of evolution, to ooncede that man’s work must become easier and thus afford more time for "what are sometimes called pleasurable activities.” First. I did not saj that work “most** become easier but “shwild” become easier. In our most artificial world of today attempts are being made to 6tifle many natural phenomena, and evolution has been impeded, and Instead of science being an instrument to aid men to fuller lives it has, in many instances, reacted detrimentally. Under our present system 1 would not venture to say that work must become easier, but to Judge the trend of man’s daily labour in relation to evolutionary processes, in the light of a mere phase such as the present system, is to take a very short-sighted and inaccurate view. Again placing his own construction on my words, Mr Seymour interprets my reference to “other than ‘bread alone’ activities” as “pleasurable activities.” In his letter he mentions in an early paragraph that our subject “bristles with undefined terms and all kinds of preconceptions,” and here he is making use of a term which is, to say the least, misleading. When I 6aid that man’s work should become easier and that he should then have opportunity for activities other than those concerned with providing subsistence, 1 did not imply that such activities would necessarily come svithin the category of pleasure, In tbs generally accepted meaning of the word. Rather did 1 suggest that these activities would be educational and have a definite bearing on the ability of a man to become a more useful member of the community. If the great majority of the people of the world are to have a purposeful existence, w’ork must become considerably easier. As regards the desirability of “pleasurable activities,” as Mr Seymour dubs them, being indefinitely extended, work will always have Lo be done, but there is no reason why the amount done should not be governed by the needs of society. In an ordered community the extension of "pleasurable activities” would depend on the ability of science, not checked by selfish considerations as it is today, to find easier methods of doing work. 1 did not imply in my earlier letter that evolution could not be resisted. Anyone who looks about him intelligently can see that attempts are being made to offer this resistance, but while such action may appear successful in our time it is but a phase, as I stated earlier. Regarding Mr Seymour's reference to comfort in relation to the philosophy of “Onward and Upward,” Mr Seymour seems firmly convinced that the only alternative to work is pleasure, analagous with comfort. That view shows a rather limited appreciation of the fact that man alone was endowed with a reasoning mind.—4 am, etc., BREADLINE. Hamilton, Sept. 21.